Percentage Wars - Unconvincing

 The misuse of data and simple percentages continues - this time on the side of the immunity fight of COVID survivors.  The trouble is that it takes getting data from other countries to even address the truth about immunity (the CDC does not even capture cases by previous infection).

Here is the article from Israel -  "Natural infection vs vaccination:  Which gives more protection?"

Notice the same error of oranges to apples comparison:   

"With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID".

"By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave."

Using a denominator of all known positive cases since COVID inception and a numerator of vaccinations that started nearly a year later is just plainly errant!  Can you see the other error?

How can my analysis be so simple and yet unconvincing :)

"According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced."

It's no wonder confusion continues.

Spinning the Statistics - Moving Targets

When you calculate a percentage the denominator is a critical variable.  If you want a small percentage just inflate the denominator toward infinity.  Consequently when you want the vaccine to be 99.99% effective just increase your timeline, enlarge your population comparison base and restrict your numerator to as small a number as possible.   Let me give you and example of playing with the timeframe:

The definition of  "fully vaccinated"  is 14 days from the second shot.  Vaccinations didn't start until 12/14/2020 with only 541individuals with the second shot.  The USA surpassed a million people with the second shot on 1/11/2021 - 1,317,291.   But that number is not lagged by the 14 day rule.  On 1/11/2021 only 8,515 individuals would have had their second shot for 14 days. 

So let's say one of the two shot vaccinated individuals contracted COVID and died on 1/11/2021.  The 14 day rule eliminated 1,308,776 in process vaccinated individuals from consideration in the percentage calculation. It is highly probable that this two shot vaccinated individuals would be considered "unvaccinated".  

Now if you start counting anything (cases, hospitalizations, deaths) as of 12/14/2020 it should be evident you denominator is very large by 1/11/2021 and yet the "fully vaccinated" population is only 8,515 available to contract COVID, get hospitalized, and if unlucky tragically die.   Also remember the death rate lags any positive test by as much as 3 weeks or more. 

So lets say one of the 8,515 individuals tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/11/2021.  If that person died three weeks later it would be 2/1/2021.  Have you "stopped" the denominator from growing from the unvaccinated and the partially vaccinated for proper comparison during that three weeks?

So let's use a real live example - New York City.  

 

Do you see the problem?   The denominator is as big as possible and the numerator (by definition) is as small as possible.  

I can make the vaccine "work" at nearly 100% efficacy by just changing my definition of "fully vaccinated" from14 days to 60 days (note the vaccine has only been administered for about 218 days).   

What is the lesson here.   When you have no control group you are dealing with moving targets.

Addendum 10:49am  -  Another variables to consider.  (1) % of population with antibodies (i.e. symptomatic and asymptomatic survivors).  (2) % of population unavailable to be vaccinated  

Tweet it Through the Grapevine

 I continue to search diligently for data to support this claim -  'Pandemic of the Unvaccinated': CDC Chief Says 97% of US Hospitalizations Didn't Get COVID-19 Shots.   from the Sputnik News -  by Morgan Artyukhina.

The CDC Chief did say... "This is BECOMING thePandemic of the Unvaccinated"  but what about the 97% statistic about hospitalizations?????

Naturally I searched the body of this article for hyperlinks to the data. only to discover it was taken froma young recent graduate of the University of Maryland  who reported in the Baltimore Sun:  "Of the nearly 100 people who died of COVID-19 in Maryland last month, all were not vaccinated against the disease, state health officials say.  In addition, 95% of newly infected people in Maryland and 93% of those requiring hospitalization were unvaccinated, according to a tweet from Mike Ricci, spokesman fro Gov. Larry Hogan."  

So where is the 97%?????  And is this where we get acurate data .... according to a tweet????  

Now the Surgeon General is worried about the mis-information with a 22 page report casting doubt upon the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. But what about the reverse - the unsubstantiated statistics about death and hospitalizations in context of the vaccine virallly reported through various news organizations on-line publishing.   

I have searched the CDC traking database for any statistics regarding cases, hospitalizations and deaths for Covid suvivors, unvacinnated individuals, those with antibodies, and vaccinnated (by vaccine type).  I can find nothing beyond early studies of healthcare workers.  

I could find no where that the CDC Chief actually said 97% of US Hospitalizations didn't get COVID-19 shots.  And..... a young journalist decides to report a tweeted statistic of 95% with no further research.  And.... what precise reporting "nearly 100 people who died"   - was it 100 or not?  Was it 99 or 98 let's not round the numbers. And then another journalist uses the Baltimore Sun article and changes the statistic to 97%.  

What we have here is "Grapevine" tweet based reporting with editorial license in rounding.  

Addendum  1:59pm:   I have found a case of accurate and decent reporting around the statistic 97%.  Published in the Seattle Times - June 5th 2021 "The 'two societies': 97% of new COVID cases are among people who haven't gotten the shots" reported by Danny Westneat.  They actually crossreferenced cases with vaccination databases.  However there is a slight flaw in analysis since "fully vaccinated (14 days after second shot) could be a stringent criteria and it wasn't until May 15th the vaccine was available for anyone under 16 (consequently the data was not recast for the correct population age demographic). 

Addendum #2 2:44pm  Also remember - thie Seattle Times article is positive COVID-19 cases - not hospitalizations or deaths.  Nor would it (or could it) apply to asymptomatic cases.  Also could vaccinated population do more masking, social distancing, generally be more healthy (socially economically priviledged ) , and health conscious?  

Addendum #3  2:56pm   Look carefully at the prior blog and UK data.   Of the 53K "linked" positive Delta Variant Cases - 4,087 were vaccinated "fully" which is 7.69% of the positive cases (or 92.3% of new cases were not "fully vaccinated").   Yet....  there were 20 vaccinated of the 73 total deaths --- 35.6% of the deaths were vaccinated individuals.    Hmmm........ Which statistic do you think they are reporting.

Addendum #4 6:15pn   Just read a Newsweek/MSN  report stating:  " On Sunday, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said that nearly all of COVID-19 deaths - or 99.5 percent - are happening among unvaccinated people."  Where is the data for that statistic?  Once again a quote from the Surgeon General with no checking - no supporting data.  Where is the investigating journalism in that?

CDC - Complacent Data Censorship

 The Vaccine news war wages on.  One side accuses the other of data manipulation, social media lies, and fear mongering. Yet amid all of that misinformation on both sides there is little attempt to link to the actual data or report used for numbers and/or percentages.  PHE (Public Health England), once again, shows how more sophisticated their data collection and analysis is over the CDC (United States Center for Disease Control).   A recent report - SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England  Technical briefing 16 (June 18, 2021)  provides the very data that health care providers and individuals could use to evaluate their risk and decisions concerning COVID-19 and the various variants.

Here is a table that I've been searching for, requesting from the CDC, and can never find.

Math does not have to be your strong suit to perform you own calculations - percentages.  One thing I can criticize is not seeing the demographic data (age, sex, race etc.) although the data set is fairly small.  I suspect this is available on the website and would answer the question younger people are struggling with regarding vaccination.

Now .... .here is my personal spin (and opinion).   I believe (and yes I don't have data to support it) that the treatment for COVID and it's variants has been steadily improving.  I also believe that the natural immunity (herd immunity) is much greater in the USA than estimated (even before the mass EUA vaccination program).  

This fall/winter we will spike again but the rate of hospitalization and deaths will begin to look more and more like the common flu.  

A real bonus for the "data diggers" is to download the report link above and read the section on "Survelliance of Reinfections"  (AND WHY DOESN'T THE CDC MONITOR THAT!!)

Maybe we should rename the CDC -  Complacent Data Censorship  

    

Boiling Blood

It is inexcuseable that the CDC and state reporting are either not collecting or reporting simple data points concerning positve COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for the various vaccines, unvaccinated and previous COVID-19 infections.  These are the very data points that would support conjectures about efficacy, sustainable immunity, and long-term consequences of each.

Additionally determining the success of treatment regardless of infection would determine if Emergency Use Authorization of a rapidly tested and implemented vaccine is still appropriate (along with the growing pressure to promote a third booster).  

The lack of data concerning antibody prevelance is also a missing data point.  Looking at the serology data collected by the CDC, it is strange the blood donation data ceases to be reported after February 2021 (note it says updated as of 6/21/2021).

As a frequent blood donor myself, this data could also be sorted by those vaccinated, unvaccinated and previous Covid-19 infections. I have had positive antibodies since January 13, 2021 demonstrating that even a weak Covid-19 infection yields seven months of antibody protection. 

What disturbs me is the growing media pressure aimed at the unvaccinated population implicating them as the cause of variants, carriers of infection (symptomatic or asymptomatic) - both domestic and international (when in fact the vaccine is unavailable to many countries).  There is no reporting about immunity or asymptomatic antibodies prevelant in the population.

There is no pressure on the pharmecutical companies to continue clinical testing of the original vaccines for verification of efficacy and long term implications (note the EAU clinical trials were unblinded).   In a rush to report, study after study of small sample size, non controlled, and statistically invalid studies are being reported (both pro and con) about various conditions (long haul effects, vaccine reactions, variant variables, etc.). 

Bottom Line -  It boils my blood :)

Addendum 7/26/2021:   I just noticed an interesting May 19,2021  FDA safety communication " Antibldy Testing is not Currently recommended to assess Immunity after COVID-19 Vaccination"  

"While a positive antibody test result can be used to help identify people who may have had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, more research is needed in people who have received a COVID-19 vaccination."

So .... if you can't trust antibody tests ..... what can you trust for determining any form of immunity or protection from infection?  

FDA in Brief :  FDA Advises Against Use of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test Results to Evaluate Immunity or Protection from COVID-19, Including after Vaccination 

In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs - Serology and Other Adaptive Immune Response Tests for SARS- CoV-2

Antibody (Serology) Testing for COVID-19: Information for Patients and Consumers 

Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing   (From the CDC)