Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
It’s a freakin’ letter to the editor. Why wasn’t it submitted for publication in the body of the Journal. Because it won’t pass a peer review.
|
Actually their data and scoring methodology looks pretty solid.
If that were not the case - Do you think the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE would have decided to publish this?
Keep in mind this is just from UC San Diego.
The UC (University of California) system is comprised of eight colleges:
UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Merced, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and UC San Francisco.
Right now as I type this I'm in San Diego (a few hundred yds from the beach) and about a 10 minute drive away from the UC San Diego campus.
I am VERY much aware of the local case load numbers - daily new cases - daily new hospitalizations - and daily new deaths here in the San Diego area.
The local case load numbers here in the San Diego area are not some giant statistical outlier compared to case load numbers elsewhere in California.
If it's happening in the UC San Diego Health Care Network I bet it's happening at the other UC School Health Care Networks too.
If I had to hazard a guess as to why UC San Diego didn't submit this for publication in the body of the Journal:
I bet it's because they are fully aware other studies with much larger sample sizes are currently underway.
Q. If there wasn't fall-off in vaccine efficacy , why are countries around the world - including the US - talking about the need for booster shots?
Circling back to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
A fully vaccinated person has one chance in 5000 of contracting covid.
|
Looking at
Table 1 from the article - UCSD had an average of 15,811 fully vaccinated health care workers during the 5 month time period studied.
If a fully vaccinated person really does have a 1 in 5000 chance of contracting covid then wouldn't the number of fully vaccinated health care workers with covid-19 symptoms in the study be something like 2, 3, 4, or even 5?
Instead, from the article published by
the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE we have this:
Quote:
|
Symptoms were present in 109 of the 130 fully vaccinated workers (83.8%) and in 80 of the 90 unvaccinated workers (88.9%).
|
I can be a bit dense at times.
But doesn't 109 symptomatic fully vaccinated workers seem a bit higher than I don't know... 3?
-jp
.
