Originally posted by JJackson
View Post
Their data machinations seem to give the vaccinated a leg up:
"Then, previously infected patients were limited to those with more recent infections (i.e., 90–225 days before hospitalization [the lowest two tertiles of number of days since infection]), and fully vaccinated patients were limited to those with the longest interval since completion of vaccination (i.e., receipt of second mRNA vaccine dose 45–213 days before hospitalization"
So there is a 45 day advantage to the vaccinated. More than one scientist has said, "There's lies, **** lies, and then there are statistics."
The study is not peer reviewed, and the authors admit to these weaknesses:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, although this analysis was designed to compare two groups with different sources of immunity, patients might have been misclassified. If SARS-CoV-2 testing occurred outside of network partners’ medical facilities or if vaccinated persons are less likely to seek testing, some positive SARS-CoV-2 test results might have been missed and thus some patients classified as vaccinated and previously uninfected might also have been infected. In addition, despite the high specificity of COVID-19 vaccination status from these data sources, misclassification is possible. Second, the aOR could not be further stratified by time since infection or vaccination because of sparse data and limited ability to control for residual confounding that could be magnified within shorter intervals. The aOR that did not adjust for time might also be subject to residual confounding, particularly related to waning of both types of immunity. Third, selection bias might be possible if vaccination status influences likelihood of testing and if previous infection influences the likelihood of vaccination. Previous work from the VISION net-work did not identify systematic bias in testing by vaccination status, based on data through May 2021 (1). Fourth, residual confounding might exist because the study did not measure or adjust for behavioral differences between the comparison groups that could modify the risk of the outcome. Fifth, these results might not be generalizable to nonhospitalized patients who have different access to medical care or different health care–seeking behaviors, particularly outside of the nine states covered. Sixth, the statistical model incorporated the use of a weighted propensity score method which is subject to biases in estimates or standard errors if the propensity score model is misspecified. Numerous techniques were used to reduce potential suboptimal specification of the model, including but not limited to including a large set of covariates for machine learning estimation of propensity scores, including covariates in both regression and propensity models, ensuring large sample sizes and checking stability of weights, and conducting second-ary analyses to assess robustness of results. Finally, the study assessed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines only; findings should not be generalized to the Janssen vaccine."
My opinion - another nothing burger from the CDC.
Leave a comment: