MZ Mark Zlochin 2 Months Ago I see that the HR estimates were calculated using adjustment for various factors, such as the age. Has there been any considerable variation of HR values across various ages? 2 Reply as... Cancel
DB dan bolton 2 Months Ago Why is there no data comparing to unvaccinated and previously infected without vaccination? This report only shows results for those that have received vaccines. This report would be more well rounded with additional data showing these 2 new variables with corresponding odds ratios. 2 Reply as... Cancel
DB Dave B 2 Months Ago The sample size in this study is to small and in fact this is a poor study that does not prove what it says it does. I expect better from the government. 0 Reply as... Cancel
VB Victor Bolbot 1 Month Ago I absolutely agree with Mark Zlochin. It would be very interesting to compare the vaccine effectiveness in various age groups. 1 Reply as... Cancel
PR Peter Ringrose 23 Days Ago Where are the comparisons to the unvaccinated? Why was this group not included? 0 Reply as... Cancel MC Michael C 15 Days ago in reply to Peter Ringrose . I believe the Hazard Ratio (HR) and Odds Ratio (OR) and therefore Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) are defined with respect to unvaccinated people - so this group is included by definition. They explicitly state this for the HR in the last sentence of page 1. When they claim a vaccine effectiveness of e.g. 96% for 2 doses of Pfiser this means that if you catch the virus, you are 96% less likely (i.e. ~20 times less like) to be hospitalised if you take the vaccine compared to if you don't. Someone correct me if I'm wrong- I had to google HR and OR! On the other hand there seems to be enormous variability in the data e.g. HR=0.34 (0.10-1.18). Does anyone know if the number in brackets represent the variation with age group? 1 Reply as... Cancel
MC Michael C 15 Days ago in reply to Peter Ringrose . I believe the Hazard Ratio (HR) and Odds Ratio (OR) and therefore Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) are defined with respect to unvaccinated people - so this group is included by definition. They explicitly state this for the HR in the last sentence of page 1. When they claim a vaccine effectiveness of e.g. 96% for 2 doses of Pfiser this means that if you catch the virus, you are 96% less likely (i.e. ~20 times less like) to be hospitalised if you take the vaccine compared to if you don't. Someone correct me if I'm wrong- I had to google HR and OR! On the other hand there seems to be enormous variability in the data e.g. HR=0.34 (0.10-1.18). Does anyone know if the number in brackets represent the variation with age group? 1 Reply as... Cancel