Remember that hospitalizations take at least 2-3 weeks post infection to occur, and that you don’t see protection from the first dose for at least five days or so.
So you’d expect hospitalizations to lag 18-26 days or so. Also the chart is not saying all those groups had vaccines: those under 60 largely haven’t been. The labels could have been clearer.
It’s just a chart of change in hospitalization by age from a starting date.
Actually, I was wrong. I checked the source paper. I believe the labels refer to cohorts from cities that were early in the vaccination campaign vs cohorts from cities that were late in the campaign.
So 0-59 late vaccinated means some vaccines but later in time and fewer in number.
I'm not sure that is true. As I understand it, it's a cohort of people of that age who live in a geographical area of Israel where vaccination was started early. So it includes people of that age who declined the vaccine/didn't get it fr other reasons.
Of course, you're also correct that another important factor is that some of the cohort are not yet fully protected.
Quote:
In order to distill the possible effect of the vaccinations from other factors, including a third lockdown imposed in Israel on January 2021, we compared the time-dependent changes in number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations between (1) individuals aged 60 years and older, eligible to receive the vaccine earlier and younger individuals (0-59 years old); (2) early-vaccinated cities compared to late-vaccinated cities; (3) early-vaccinated geographical statistical areas (GSAs) compared to late-vaccinated GSAs;
Obviously anecdotal, but my wife is a nurse and she's been hearing some frightening things about the vaccine. Young people getting it are basically bed-ridden for days and are calling out of work...one lady couldn't lift her arm anymore and is now getting physical therapy...one guy went out to dinner with his family after getting it and had complete memory loss of the entire dinner.
At what point does common sense risk to reward ratio come into play for young people?
This is what you say about something that looks like "good news" above:
> Serious question: How do we know any of this reporting is true?
> There's no data sources provided, no way to check follow up health (i'e. what if these people all dropped dead a week later), no way to prove the data isn't a complete fabrication, etc. Also, they make sure to use dynamic terms so we can't be sure these numbers have any valuable meaning at all (e.g. were Covid tests with drastically different cycle counts used?). Not to mention all of this reporting is praising a single vaccine producer in a billion dollar industry.
> I just read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and this whole thing is the epitome of a manipulatable situation.
Combine the two and you no longer look "hey lets make sure people aren't lying to us," you just look like you have your own agenda.
So if you can lie with statistics, you can certainly lie even more with claimed anecdotes...
(The point of a vaccine is to trigger and train the immune system. The immune system revving up can cause symptoms of its own. If you get the fever of the immune system responding, without the lung damage cause you don't have the original actual virus, that's a huge win!)
it looks that way because it's a relative chart - exaggerates the uptick in hospitalizations of unvaccinated non-elderly people
If you toggle the 'relative' button you'll see the actual numbers - basically, hospitalization count for vaccinated elders is is decreasing, and the hospitalization of unvaccinated non-elders is slightly increasing.
