CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

23 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Are you suggesting that some people are immune to cancer or car wrecks?

The risk profile of people dying in a car wreck is everyone who has ever been on a road, which is basically everyone.  yet no one would claim that the death rate for car wrecks is 40K/331M instead of 40K/5.4M (the number of wrecks).  

 

besides, as we have seen clearly, doing Covid deaths/total population is taking a number which grows exponentially and dividing it by a number that is relatively static, which results in a completely meaningless result at any point in time.  The denominator should also be a dynamic number -- covid cases.

See to me, "The risk profile of people dying in a car wreck is everyone who has ever been on a road, which is basically everyone" this makes sense for what I was trying to show.  it takes into account the likelihood of both getting into car wreck and then dying as member of the US population.  Taking data vs the static total population makes sense to me and renders nothing meaningless.  I guess you differ on that point.  Again, we are talking about making blunt observations.

Deaths are an absolute metric.  The true number of cases is very subjective.  Below chart is the case fatality data for the US.  Even this says that CFR is a poor metric of of mortality risk, mostly due to not knowing the true number of total cases.

6000 positive post vax cases and 74 deaths.  1.2% Case Fatality rate.  31m positive test and 550K deaths.  1.7% Case Fatality rate.  To me that does not tell the story of what the vax is doing for lowering the number of deaths and why the total populations of each set should be used.  84m for vaxed pop and 331m for unvaxed/pre-vax.  

- positivity rate for the US vaxed 6k/84m .007%

- positivity rate for the US pre vax 20m/331m (as of Jan 1, 2021).  6% 

So after a year of covid, 6% of the population tested positive.  But saying .17% died is somehow not a viable metric when comparing the number of deaths of the vaxed population?   

this puts the US at ~2% right now for number of Covid Cases vs deaths. 

If you look at the vaxed death and positive testing rates 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

I think the plane would take off from the treadmill.

 

[Beau Vine 54467]

21 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

Deaths are an absolute metric.  The true number of cases is very subjective.

I can't believe someone actually wrote this.  

[Beau Vine 54467]

22 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

See to me, "The risk profile of people dying in a car wreck is everyone who has ever been on a road, which is basically everyone" this makes sense for what I was trying to show. 

If we're trying to establish the probability of dying IN A CAR WRECK (the "fatality rate"), it seems we'd want to exclude observations that didn't involve car wrecks.  

If you're trying to determine the fatality rate for testicular cancer, would you use total population as the denominator?

 

Finally, the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, which kills 660K/year.  So by your numbers, 660k/330M = 0.19%.  By that math, there are absolutely zero causes of death that are significant enough to worry about.  Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on cancer research each year if the fatality rate is less than 0.2%?

[Brisketexan 105449]

31 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

See to me, "The risk profile of people dying in a car wreck is everyone who has ever been on a road, which is basically everyone" this makes sense for what I was trying to show.  it takes into account the likelihood of both getting into car wreck and then dying as member of the US population.  Taking data vs the static total population makes sense to me and renders nothing meaningless.  I guess you differ on that point.  Again, we are talking about making blunt observations.

Yeah.....this is where I'm coming from.

Vaccines are relevant as to two measures: 1) likelihood of CATCHING Covid, and 2) likelihood of DYING from it.

Both start from the same baseline -- people who have not yet caught COVID.

We started out with 331 million unvaccinated who had not contracted COVID.  Of that unvaccinated group, tens of millions contracted it, and 550k died.

Then, we start out with 84 million vaccinated who had not contracted COVID.  Of that vaccinated group, 6,000 contracted it, and 74 died.

Comparing two groups of people who are the same -- people living their lives, not yet sick -- is an accurate and proper comparison.  The starting point is "fine, not sick," not "infected with COVID" -- in fact, that's kind of the whole point of the vaccine, it sharply reduces the "infected with COVID" group so that the group that follows ("died of COVID") is much, much smaller than among the control group (the unvaccinated).

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't believe someone actually wrote this.  

JFC dude, what is your problem?  All snark and no real response.

The question I asked and tried to answer was how to best compare 74 deaths from covid out out of 84m people who have been vaxed.  I chose to use 550K deaths out of 331m US population.

I think maybe you are thinking i am trying to downplay the fatality rate of covid or something by using the .17% number?  not sure with the facebook reference earlier.  Yes, I have seen shit posted on texags and the like saying "why should i get vaxed?  i have a 99.8% survival rate".  That's not my point.  my point was to compare like data sets to point out how much lower the number of deaths from the vaxed population was (for Covid) vs the number of deaths from the pre-vax/not vaxed population.  To show that vaxing tremendously lowers your odds of dying from Covid to an absolutely miniscule rate.

Regarding what i wrote, how many positive cases were reported out of the total number positive cases in the country?  1:1, 1:1.25?  that was my point, it's unknown.  The number of deaths reported from Covid are probably closer the actual amount than the number positive cases is to the real number of cases.  And no, i don't buy into the nonsense that hospitals were just saying every death was a c19 death.

[WhatTheBuck 28808]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m rooting for Karma!!

 

First, Ted Nugent is a scumbag and I would celebrate if he died from Covid-19.

But to be fair, I’m pretty sure every male rock musician in the 70’s had sex with underage girls. That’s probably an eternal truth and not just limited to the 70’s. 

[Pods 7586]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Not at all what the CDC said. Here's their report, emphasis mine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html

Quote

Case reports indicate that SARS-CoV-2 IS transmitted between people by touching surfaces an ill person has recently coughed or sneezed on, and then directly touching the mouth, nose, or eyes…

 

the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection…

 

on non-porous surfaces, viable virus can be detected for days to weeks…

 

In situations when there has been a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 indoors within the last 24 hours, the presence of infectious virus on surfaces is more likely and therefore high-touch surfaces should be disinfected…

 

After a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 has been in an indoor space, the risk of fomite transmission from any surfaces is minor after 3 days (72 hours)…

 

Conclusion

People can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 through contact with surfaces…

Disinfection is recommended in indoor community settings where there has been a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 within the last 24 hours.

 

[elfenix 34339]

1234

Edited April 20, 2021 by elfenix

[ChiTownDoc 21175]

9 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The problem w/ these high-visibility deniers who get it (with the exception of ol Herman Cain), is they all seem to get the mild version and breeze right through.  That just gives them more ammo for their "see, it's no big deal" narrative.   Wash, rinse, repeat. 

And Cain was black so that just gives them even more ammo.  Trump dying from Covid would have saved 10's of thousands of lives.  Damn shame. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by ChiTownDoc

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

26 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

If we're trying to establish the probability of dying IN A CAR WRECK (the "fatality rate"), it seems we'd want to exclude observations that didn't involve car wrecks.  

If you're trying to determine the fatality rate for testicular cancer, would you use total population as the denominator?

 

Finally, the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, which kills 660K/year.  So by your numbers, 660k/330M = 0.19%.  By that math, there are absolutely zero causes of death that are significant enough to worry about.  Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on cancer research each year if the fatality rate is less than 0.2%?

no one is talking about anything being significant to worry about or not worry about.  They are just numbers.  Death in general is ~1% of the US population each year as i think 3m die from whatever each year.

way back to my original post on this was to see if there was a number to show that vaxes cratered the death rate from Covid.  It does.  74 deaths out of 84m is fan-fucking-tastic.  not sure why you decided to take such issue with comparing that to 550K deaths out of the US population.

[kevwun 15935]

Never forget that Ted Nugent shit his pants for a week before he reported for his physical so that he could get out of being sent to Vietnam.  He is the worst sort of coward because he is also a pretend badass.

Edited April 20, 2021 by kevwun

[jimmyjazz 46245]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I can't believe someone actually wrote this.  

It's only wrong because he used the adjective "true" as a descriptor of the number of cases.  I mean, if we knew the "true" case count, we'd have accurate data to work with there, too.

The problem is that we don't know how many cases have been sustained in the US.  Last I heard, CDC estimated 4.6X the reported case count.  

Death count is reasonably accurate.

[Goredho 17423]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was told there would be no math?

And I was told it was just the flu, but here we are.

[WhatTheBuck 28808]

6 minutes ago, Goredho said:

And I was told it was just the flu, but here we are.

All this Covid talk was supposed to disappear on Nov. 4. Trump and one of his dumbass sons said so within a week before the election. (Can’t remember if it was Don Jr. or Eric but is there really a difference?)

[Anastasis 23489]

I think that I would lean towards analyzing the two outcomes with different specs of the at-risk populations.  It clears up the under-reporting of cases, or at least it should be somewhat non-differential (not really totally true, we know that under-reporting of both cases and deaths is a function of many factors that are differential over time and by region and other factors). 

Outcome: Case positive; Denominator: at risk population (330MM and 84MM)

Outcome: COVID related mortality; Denominator: at-risk COVID + cases (31.8MM or whatever; 6k)

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23489]

So that give you something like:

Cases

31.8MM/330MM = 9.6%

6k/84MM = 0.007%

Mortality

550k/31.8MM = 1.7% 

74/6k = 1.2%

[Anastasis 23489]

Other thing to keep in mind is that the 74 aren't necessarily COVID deaths, they are all-cause deaths. 

From CDC report:

• Of the 74 fatal cases, 9 (12%) were reported as asymptomatic or the patient died due to a cause not related to COVID-19.
• Hospitalizations and deaths that are not a direct result of COVID-19 are still considered vaccine breakthrough cases if the person was fully vaccinated and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19.

So more like 65/6k = 1.1% and that is a high end number, don't know how many were symptomatic and died for cause not related to COVID. 

ETA: Further have to consider in the mortality comparisons that the vaccinated population is not representative of the overall population in terms of risk profile (age, medical conditions, etc.) so a biased sample comparisons of mortality rates.  

Edited April 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[Beau Vine 54467]

41 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's only wrong because he used the adjective "true" as a descriptor of the number of cases.  I mean, if we knew the "true" case count, we'd have accurate data to work with there, too.

The problem is that we don't know how many cases have been sustained in the US.  Last I heard, CDC estimated 4.6X the reported case count.  

Death count is reasonably accurate.

I was in disbelief that he suggested that the number of Covid deaths was indisputable, after a full year of hospitals-get-paid-more-to-call-it-a-Covid-death and guy-died-in-a-car-wreck-and-they-said-he-died-of-covid posts in DT.

[Brisketexan 105449]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So that give you something like:

Cases

31.8MM/330MM = 9.6%

6k/84MM = 0.007%

Mortality

550k/31.8MM = 1.7% 

74/6k = 1.2%

But that analysis is very deceptive.  Shit, let's say that vaccines reduced COVID cases to 10, but 5 of those died.  Then your "case fatality rate" would be 50%.....but we KNOW that outcome is way better than among the unvaxxed.  The important measure is deaths per number of people who could have contracted and died from a deadly disease.  The fact that the number of cases is SO reduced is a positive thing. 

What the numbers you are citing show is 1) you are much, much less likely to catch a deadly disease, and 2) if you do, you're materially less likely to die from it.  But the comparison should be dead as a numerator, over "people who could catch it and die" as the denominator.  So, 74 over 84 million (.000088%), and 555k over 330 million (.16%).  Of people with clean lungs, not yet sick....your chances of becoming sick and dying are over 1,800X higher if not vaccinated than vaccinated (if my math is right, in a hurry).

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So that give you something like:

Cases

31.8MM/330MM = 9.6%

6k/84MM = 0.007%

Mortality

550k/31.8MM = 1.7% 

74/6k = 1.2%

so huge difference on catching it but not needle moving to the public eye on not dying from it.  Show only the bottom 2 Mortality numbers with no context and get blank stares with drumming up support from a vax hesitant crowd.  my whole point was that not catching it at a staggeringly lower rate contributes to not dying from it at a similar rate; and that should be expressed.  expressing death rates using positive cases for data sets does not tell the complete picture, imo

 

[Anastasis 23489]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But that analysis is very deceptive.  Shit, let's say that vaccines reduced COVID cases to 10, but 5 of those died.  Then your "case fatality rate" would be 50%.....but we KNOW that outcome is way better than among the unvaxxed.  The important measure is deaths per number of people who could have contracted and died from a deadly disease.  The fact that the number of cases is SO reduced is a positive thing. 

What the numbers you are citing show is 1) you are much, much less likely to catch a deadly disease, and 2) if you do, you're materially less likely to die from it.  But the comparison should be dead as a numerator, over "people who could catch it and die" as the denominator.  So, 74 over 84 million (.000088%), and 555k over 330 million (.16%).  Of people with clean lungs, not yet sick....your chances of becoming sick and dying are over 1,800X higher if not vaccinated than vaccinated (if my math is right, in a hurry).

Yeah, it's a two part model. I don't think it's deceptive necessarily, but you have to consider both parts.

[Brisketexan 105449]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, it's a two part model. I don't think it's deceptive necessarily, but you have to consider both parts.

Right....but isn't the ultimate conclusion what I posted below?

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

your chances of becoming sick and dying are over 1,800X higher if not vaccinated than vaccinated (if my math is right, in a hurry).

That seems like a really, really important takeaway.  Hey, generic person living in the world.....get vaccinated, and you have reduced your chances of getting sick enough to die by a factor of 1,800.  

[Anastasis 23489]

2 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

so huge difference on catching it but not needle moving to the public eye on not dying from it.  Show only the bottom 2 Mortality numbers with no context and get blank stares with drumming up support from a vax hesitant crowd.  my whole point was that not catching it at a staggeringly lower rate contributes to not dying from it at a similar rate; and that should be expressed.  expressing death rates using positive cases for data sets does not tell the complete picture, imo

I don't agree with the bolded.  At a minimum you have to risk adjust the overall population and the vaccinated population on the mortality outcome. Age-adjusted mortality rate would get you there I think. The vaxxed population is over representative of the higher risk age segments. 

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23489]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Right....but isn't the ultimate conclusion what I posted below?

That seems like a really, really important takeaway.  Hey, generic person living in the world.....get vaccinated, and you have reduced your chances of getting sick enough to die by a factor of 1,800.  

Seems reasonable, with the caveat that they are not similar populations in terms of risk for COVID mortality.  I am actually arguing (I think) that those numbers understate the benefits. 

[Brisketexan 105449]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Seems reasonable, with the caveat that they are not similar populations in terms of risk for COVID mortality.  I am actually arguing (I think) that those numbers understate the benefits. 

Agreed, the two populations are not perfectly apples to apples, and those numbers can definitely be adjusted with some sort of weighting for relative vulnerability.  But direct comparisons are easier to understand and shit, if we're hitting an improvement of 1,800X, isn't tweaking the numbers to show that it's actually BETTER just gilding the lily?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Welp.

 

[jimmyjazz 46245]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Welp.

 

There are a dozen reasons why I feel my Christian faith is fading, but the fact that my first reaction to a headline like this is to laugh is pretty much top of the list.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are a dozen reasons why I feel my Christian faith is fading, but the fact that my first reaction to a headline like this is to laugh is pretty much top of the list.

Jesus would have laughed his ass off at that guy. I mean, if he were alive or real, that is.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Anastasis 23489]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed, the two populations are not perfectly apples to apples, and those numbers can definitely be adjusted with some sort of weighting for relative vulnerability.  But direct comparisons are easier to understand and shit, if we're hitting an improvement of 1,800X, isn't tweaking the numbers to show that it's actually BETTER just gilding the lily?

If we are talking messaging and not how to analyze the data, I think that I would message it as:

If you get the vaccine, your risk of developing any COVID, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic is extremely extremely low.  Breakthrough cases that do occur are exceedingly rare. 

If you get the vaccine and later have a breakthrough COVID case, the chances of you dying from COVID are substantially lower than they would be if you didn't get the vaccine. Overall, the chances of you getting the vaccine and dying from COVID appear to be about 100x lower than the risk of you getting struck by lightning during the course of your life. 

If you get the vaccine, you reduce substantially the risk of transmission to others, and the faster everybody in your personal circle and broader community get's vaccines, the faster we get back to acting like human beings again. 

 

There a little slight of hand involved there (course of life vs. short followup post covax), but its all pretty accurate. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Anastasis
Greater/lower. What’s the difference.

[gmr548 16617]

I'm starting to understand the right's issue with CNN. man, they just straight up suck, don't they?

Yes. It’s sensationalist brain rot. It’s not, in my limited experience, Democratic propaganda in the way FOX is to the GOP. But it’s produced for critical thinkers at about the 8th grade level and below. And they will blow anything, I mean anything, out of proportion for eyeballs.

[HenryJames 66189]

 

[Bookman 4642]

34 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Yes. It’s sensationalist brain rot. It’s not, in my limited experience, Democratic propaganda in the way FOX is to the GOP. But it’s produced for critical thinkers at about the 8th grade level and below. And they will blow anything, I mean anything, out of proportion for eyeballs.

I remember the exact time I turned off CNN. It was during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bomber. Haven't watched it since.

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I was in disbelief that he suggested that the number of Covid deaths was indisputable, after a full year of hospitals-get-paid-more-to-call-it-a-Covid-death and guy-died-in-a-car-wreck-and-they-said-he-died-of-covid posts in DT.

My point was you cannot have false positive for death.  no one is getting tested again 2 days later and coming up alive.  Also think deaths are more accurate than positive cases in the US.  As far the financial incentive to lie about the nature of covid deaths, I posted this in another thread.  

Here is the link for federal money to hospitals for Covid:  https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/cares-act-provider-relief-fund/general-information/index.html  Most of the money disbursed is based on previous years revenues.  There is a tranche based on C19 admissions, but i could not find one tied to C19 deaths.  There is also an incentive for nursing homes to cover up C19 deaths and show low numbers, so yeah, i think the # of deaths is fairly accurate.  way more accurate than the # of positive cases recorded vs the true number in the wild.

General Fund

Initial $30 Billion

Payment Allocation per Provider = (2019 Medicare Fee-For-Service Payments / $453 Billion**) x $30 Billion

**This is the total sum of Medicare Fee-For-Service Payments in 2019

Additional $20 Billion

Payment Allocation per Provider = ((Most Recent Tax Year Annual Gross Receipts x $50 Billion) / $2.5 Trillion) – Initial General Distribution Payment to Provider

There is no mention of C19 as even being a factor.  The hospitals get $ solely based on revenue from Medicare from 2019.

Below is the only # of Covid cases that would affect a distribution i could find.

$10 Billion to 395 High-Impact Hospitals

• Payment Allocation per Hospital = Number of COVID-19 Admissions* x $76,975

*Hospitals must have 100 or more COVID-19 admissions.

So to get some of that $10B, hospitals would have to show or indicate a positive C19 admission.  But nothing is tied to deaths as netting more money.  Sure i guess they could go back and test a gsw victim that died in the ER for C19 and then fudge the admission form to list C19 if they wanted to up the total number.

There is a benefit paid to nursing home that are below some standard for C19 infections and C19 deaths.  so there would be an incentive to lie about and lower how many C19 deaths a nursing home had

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

[fattyflattie 4638]

6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

First, Ted Nugent is a scumbag and I would celebrate if he died from Covid-19.

But to be fair, I’m pretty sure every male rock musician in the 70’s had sex with underage girls. That’s probably an eternal truth and not just limited to the 70’s. 

We don’t agree on much, but this...this we can agree.  A 12 yo Courtney Love? Gtfo Ted. 

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

We don’t agree on much, but this...this we can agree.  A 12 yo Courtney Love? Gtfo Ted. 

I mean, a 12YO Courtney Love is nothing to kill yourself over.  Right, Kurt?  

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I mean, a 12YO Courtney Love is nothing to kill yourself over.  Right, Kurt?  

This makes me feel like you were more of a Pearl Jam guy...

[Guest Lobo]

Nope, Led Zeppelin and Grateful Dead from middle school 'til my grave.  

I blame Nirvana for using clever marketing, and good but not great music, to convince every other white kid that they too were a tortured soul who had so much pain and passion to share with the world.  Cobain left behind a good catalogue and a cunt of a girlfriend, and he went out on top-kudos to him.  Pearl Jam has long since outlasted their welcome.  I can't remember their last good song.  Nothing against them as musicians, but I hate them for making baggy pants acceptable to girls in the early to mid 90's.  I was just getting into appreciating the female ass, then these fucking assclowns come along and convince everybody from Cindy Crawford to Jennifer Aniston that frumpy pants are the hot new look!  

So I hope that whoever the A&R guys were behind Nirvana and Pearl Jam were, they got Covid-19 (but recovered, but had ample time to regret the folly of their ways).  

[WhatTheBuck 28808]

5 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Yes. It’s sensationalist brain rot. It’s not, in my limited experience, Democratic propaganda in the way FOX is to the GOP. But it’s produced for critical thinkers at about the 8th grade level and below. And they will blow anything, I mean anything, out of proportion for eyeballs.

CNN was a whole hell of a lot better before Fox News came along and dominated the ratings forcing CNN to become more like Fox News just to compete. They didn’t have panels of people shouting at each other before that. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5131]

Yes they did. Crossfire was pre-Fox News. Though to your point Fox made them worse. 

[LTbear 4171]

I haven't read through the last several pages; has anyone posted about the Aggy mega-variant? Because Aggy.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/research-finds-new-coronavirus-variant-potentially-resistant-to-antibodies-665836

[Bookman 4642]

Resistant to antibodies certainly isn't good.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

 

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

[elfenix 34339]

l-i-v-i-n

[Anastasis 23489]

Some more on breakthrough infections, from a high risk population of SNF workers and residents.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7017e1.htm?

1 death - 

Resident O22 experienced fatigue and respiratory symptoms and received a diagnosis of pneumonia. This patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result on hospital admission and had concomitant group B β-hemolytic streptococcal bacteremia and a Pseudomonas urinary tract infection and died 7 days after hospital admission. The death certificate listed complications of COVID-19 infection as primary cause of death; underlying conditions were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease.

Moar:

During the investigation period, an estimated 7,931 SNF residents and 6,834 staff members received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 627 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified across 75 of the 78 Chicago-based SNFs, including 353 (56%) among residents and 274 (44%) among staff members during the investigation period (Table 1). Three facilities had no confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections after their first vaccination clinic. Approximately one half (47%) of resident cases occurred in men, 42% were in non-Hispanic Black persons, and the median age was 71 years. More than two thirds (72%) of staff member cases were in women, 38% were in non-Hispanic Black persons, and the median age was 42 years. Among the 627 cases, 447 (71%) occurred in unvaccinated persons, 145 (23%) in partially vaccinated persons, 13 (2%) in vaccinated but not immune persons, and 22 (4%) in fully vaccinated persons (Figure). These breakthrough infections occurred in 12 residents and 10 staff members and accounted for 16% (22 of 136) of SNF-associated cases occurring across all facilities ≥14 days after the second vaccination clinic at the respective facilities. No demographic or clinical differences were observed by vaccination status.

Among the 22 breakthrough infections, 18 (82%) were detected in persons who received testing as part of routine screening, and four (18%) occurred in residents who received testing before a hospital admission or procedure. Among the 18 breakthrough infections identified during routine screening, 14 were detected (across 10 facilities) while residents were receiving weekly testing from the facilities; staff members at all facilities were receiving testing at least weekly. The median interval from second dose to collection of a positive SARS-CoV-2 specimen was 29 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 23–42 days). The median interval between most recent positive NAAT result and last known negative test result was 7 days (IQR = 7–14 days). Two-dose vaccination coverage among residents and staff members at facilities with breakthrough infections ranged from 62% to 96% and 18% to 85%, respectively. Among the 15 facilities with breakthrough cases, attack rates¶¶ for unvaccinated and vaccinated residents were 15% (89 of 604) and 0.8% (15 of 1,781), respectively. Among staff members, attack rates for unvaccinated and vaccinated persons were 6% (62 of 992) and 1% (12 of 1,135), respectively. Eleven facilities reported a total of 41 confirmed cases within 28 days after initial breakthrough infection at a facility (Table 2).*** No facility-associated secondary transmission was determined to have occurred because the new cases that occurred after the initial breakthrough infection were not close contacts of the persons with breakthrough infections.

Among the 22 persons with breakthrough infections, 14 (64%; eight residents and six staff members) were asymptomatic (Table 2). Three symptomatic persons (B3, E10, and G13) had mild, nonspecific symptoms; two (E8 and G12) had mild, specific symptoms; and three (A1, D6, and O22) had diagnosed pneumonia.††† Four residents were hospitalized: two (D6 and O22) for COVID-19–related reasons and two (A1 and D5) for reasons unrelated to COVID-19; one resident (O22) died.

 

[lemonlime 5503]

We are broken.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Get vaccinated 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Scientist who helped develop Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine agrees third shot is needed as immunity wanes (cnbc.com)