ozimoron

The graph will always be a straight line unless something changes over time. So if a vaccine is always 90% effective then the graph will be a straight line. If the vaccine does wane then the percentage of vaccinated among the dead will rise. I don't think that was reflected in the op.

The definition fits exactly with my use of it. White supremacist organisations tend to be fascist because their raison d'etre is that they are losing power due to the ascendancy of minorities using the democratic process and the only way they can retain power is through fascism. That is also why they tend to be militant.

How is that evidence that the vaccine is waning? It is evidence that boosters provide greater protection.

There is little or no evidence that vaccines are waning in respect to serious illness as yet. There is evidence only in relation to infections. The only possible outcome for more vaccinations (3 instead of two) is even less deaths for the vaccinated cohort.

I stated earlier that the data will remain constant assuming vaccine efficacy and virus severity remain constant. Statistics relies on control assumptions and produces new results if any of the controls change.

On this page, we explain why it is essential to look at death rates by vaccination status rather than the absolute number of deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

I disagree. If 18,000 die this may, the same proportion, 1 or 2% will be vaccinated. What can't change is the likelihood of a vaccinated person dying from covid vs an unvaccinated person. Don't confuse total numbers with ratios (proportions). Percentages don't care about total numbers.

sorry for culling the rest of your post, this is the part I'm going to respond to first. A larger number in critical care will be vaccinated because the numbers in critical care will rise due to the virus being more infectious. Of those who die, the percentage of vaccinated will remain the same. On the one hand (critical care) I'm discussing total numbers and on the other (deaths) I'm discussing a ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The rest of your post is nonsense. Not wishing to disparage you but it isn't referring to the data in the report at all. The very simple fact (again) is that 99% of all the covid deaths will NEVER EVER change unless a vaccine mutation is able cause more serious illness among vaccinated people.

I never mentioned critical care. The percentage of unvaccinated in critical care is decreasing because the total numbers are increasing as the proportion of vaccinated people as whole. My point has always been that of the people who die, the proportion who are vaccinated will remain constant. Think carefully about this. Because the omicron variant is so much more infectious, more are going to die but the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated will not change. You are correct, that is what they meant and it is how I read it. It is consistent with the title and clearly implies that only 1% of the deaths were vaccinated.

What has not changed is the propensity for a vaccinated person to die from each individual variant of covid.

and your reason for pointing out this very obvious fact was ...?

The article states this "The analysis was released in May of 2021 and looks at COVID-19 related deaths in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals—only .8% (150) of vaccinated people accounted for the 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May." How is the title misleading?

That in no way implies that the proportion of vaccinated people dying from covid will increase, only the raw numbers. It also implies that the numbers of unvaccinated people dying from covid will likewise increase. The proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated will remain the same.

Rubbish. The % chance that a person dying from covid is about 1% according to the previously published figures. The percentage chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid is unknown. I don't intend to carry this on because it is now clear that you wish to at least imply that a vaccinations increase the likelihood of a person dying from covid and that's against forum rules because it is incorrect and is misinformation. There's been a spate of it in the past month or so and it's clearly coming from some misinformation site talking point.

You'd prefer that the viruses just kept on coming and that we should not figure out how to stop them?

Isn't the answer obvious? They want to understand where the viruses are coming from and how they might jump species. Who would not want to know if the viruses can jump species to humans?

Not sure but you could also ask why are US scientists meddling with bats from Cambodia? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03217-0

Quite simply, omicron is now dominant and much less likely to be fatal than delta. The vaccines are very effective at preventing transmission and serious illness for delta in particular and very effective at preventing serious illness from omicron. So, a highly vaccinated population can have large numbers of infections and relatively few deaths.

If there were 20,000 deaths, 200 of them would be vaccinated. If there were 2,000 deaths, 20 would be vaccinated. A sample size can't be a percentage, it must be a number. Statistics has everything to do with sample size. What is confusing you is that because omicron is 5 times more contagious then 5 times more people will get infected and that means the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths will be larger than previously as omicron spreads and more are infected. However, the percentage of them getting seriously ill or dying will not change, except to likely become smaller due to omicron being a milder disease than delta. Put simply, if vaccinated people are 99 times less likely to die from covid as the data suggests then that likelihood will not change just because more people get vaccinated. People don't become more susceptible to disease because more get vaccinated.

The sample size wouldn't be large enough to produce a reliable statistic. As we all know, stats require a reasonable sample size to be accurate. Are you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size? That would require a change in propensity for vaccinated people to die of covid.

I don't dispute this point as being obviously true but I believe it isn't the main driver of vaccine hesitancy which I believe is overwhelmingly politics. It has been demonstrated that conservatives are much less likely to be vaccinated than liberals. Of course that begs the question whether conservatives are likely to be less educated than liberals but that's off topic here. The reason I suggest that the greater factor is politics is that the US is much less vaccinated than its peer countries. Another correlation is religion as the US is far more religious than its peer nations. It is unlikely that the US is that much less educated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/ https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/04/23/republican-men-are-vaccine-hesitant-but-theres-little-focus-on-them On the other hand, polls suggest that voters who support former President Donald Trump trust him for medical advice more than they trust public health authorities https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257988

Let's get this perfectly clear. The stats provided in that sample showed that 99% of those who died were unvaccinated. That percentage will NEVER change. If more people get vaccinated the total numbers of people dying will reduce but whatever the number of people dying, 99% will be unvaccinated.

What you are suggesting is that the propensity for dying can change and I'm saying that it can't, corrected for vaccine efficacy and virus severity.

No, for every 100 unvaccinated people who die, 1 or 2 vaccinated people will die. That number will not change unless the vaccines change or new variants arrive. That's what the Op says.

My point is that the "ten times better off" won't change.