Sounds like you are on a path to awakening so I don't want to discourage you, but it might be worth sharing additional data and context to parts of your comment.
>With vaccine intake high in most developed countries a covid infection is like a cold or a bad flu for some.
That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine. For example, the latest data show that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. One source (14 per 100k vs 10 per 100k): https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11318/22-01-26-covid...
>Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron
This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
You're taking 14 vs 10 from table 15 on page 50 on the report. Page 51 says:
> The rates in Table 15 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.
The age-standardized morality rates you mentioned are for just the week of Jan 8-14 (though the same pattern is visible for earlier weeks). But, you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:
- Unvaccinated: 16/1.5m raw; 10/100k age adj
- 2-dose: 33/1m raw; 14/100k age adj
- 3-dose: 71/3m raw; 1.5/100k age adj
You can't infer the protectiveness of vaccination in elders directly from this age-adjusted mortality data because Scotland has 100% 2+ dose coverage in those age 60+. The unvaccinated group only includes people under 60 while the vaccinated group includes both. You have to use other observations to judge the protective effect.
(In reality the number is a bit under 100% because the denominator and the numerator are not linked together. They're tracking sum totals, not individual people.)
To put it more directly, the same document states (on page 36):
In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised
population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or
third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than
individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a
COVID-19 vaccine
You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.
From December 11 to January 7, 2022, 107 patients died in Scotland who were vaccinated twice.
Most of them (more than 95 percent) received the second dose more than six months before their deaths. As many as 96 percent of them "had other health complications that contributed to their deaths," the PHS report said. Their average age was 78.1 years.
Please do not cherry-pick data that has hidden confounding variables. The data DOES NOT SHOW that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. You are being severely misleading with your statements as “facts”.
Most importantly “In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”. That directly contradicts your “fact”, and the reason is the simple one that your numbers are not standardised for age i.e. more older people are vaccinated so more vaccinated people die. This should not need to be repeated ad nausium. Pay attention to the facts and please stop misrepresenting the truth.
From page 34 of that report:
“PLEASE READ BEFORE REVIEWING THE FOLLOWING TABLES AND FIGURES There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.
Below are examples of some of the complexities and biases that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting these data. This is explained in more detail in our blog on the PHS website.” And from page 35: “There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated population.”
>Most importantly “In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”. That directly contradicts your “fact”,
It does? You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.
> That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine
So with this one I wonder if the mildness of omicron is due to previous infection/vaccination than the virus itself being mild. Like if omicron came into the scene in 2020 it would have been just as deadly but more infectious. I don't know for certain if this is true but was something I was thinking.
As for this I 100% agree:
> This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
>With vaccine intake high in most developed countries a covid infection is like a cold or a bad flu for some.
That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine. For example, the latest data show that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. One source (14 per 100k vs 10 per 100k): https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11318/22-01-26-covid...
>Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron
This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.