izentrop wrote:You're still fooling around by not reading the caption that talks about rare serious cases of severe infections.robob wrote:I had pity, I didn't give you the blue curve.
Even with pipeaux studies, biased everywhere, they do not arrive there: it is to say.
For the general cases these are the curves below.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/ ... pendix.pdf
The 2 curves are imbittable and uninteresting (mathematical approximation model) but at least you downloaded the study rather than swallowing Molimard.
The simple fact of comparing the effectiveness of two different vaccines over two different periods, but the same population, is biased:
- period 1 June/July/August 2022, BA variant, period 2 Sept/Oct/Nov BA BF BQ variants.
- period 2, all the fragile people who died in period 1 are no longer there and those hospitalized in 1 should be immunized in 2: the population is necessarily less fragile.
- the new variants are less virulent than the previous ones.
numbers :
table S2, for the 65+ (the others we don't care) period 1 (monovalent) on 1.6 M only 130 k boosted, on period 2 (bivalent) on 1.2 M more than 500 k boosted!
We must at least wonder about this difference: at the beginning of autumn all the old people are vaccinated, but who can get a "Booster" in July?
Let's take the completely extravagant hypothesis, huh, that only the most fragile get boosted in the spring...
