×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

加州监狱今年1月到7月的数据,打过2阶疫苗的犯人感染率为3.24%, 没打过疫苗的犯人感染率为2.72%。

Background In 2023, breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated individuals and reinfections in previously infected people have become common. Additionally, infections are due to Omicron subvariants of the virus that behave differently from those at the onset of the pandemic. Understanding how vaccination and natural immunity influence COVID-19 infection rates is crucial, especially in high-density congregate settings such as prisons, to inform public health strategies. Methods We analyzed COVID-19 surveillance data from January to July 2023 across 33 California state prisons, primarily a male population of 96,201 individuals. We computed the incidence rate of new COVID-19 infections among COVID-bivalent-vaccinated and entirely unvaccinated groups (those not having received either the bivalent or monovalent vaccine). Results Our results indicate that the infection rates in the bivalent-vaccinated and entirely unvaccinated groups are 3.24% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06-3.42%) and 2.72% (CI: 2.50-2.94%), respectively, with an absolute risk difference of only 0.52%. When the data were filtered for those aged 50 and above, the infection rates were 4.07% (CI: 3.77-4.37%) and 3.1% (CI: 2.46-3.74%), respectively, revealing a mere 0.97% absolute risk difference. Among those aged 65 and above, the infection rates were 6.45% (CI: 5.74-7.16%) and 4.5% (CI: 2.57-6.43%), respectively, with an absolute risk difference of 1.95%. Conclusion We note low infection rates in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with a small absolute difference between the two across age groups. A combination of monovalent and bivalent vaccines and natural infections likely contributed to immunity and a lower level of infection rates compared to the height of the pandemic. It is possible that a degree of 'herd immunity' has been achieved. Yet, using p<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance, the bivalent-vaccinated group had a slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rate than the unvaccinated group in the statewide category and the age ≥50 years category. However, in the older age category (≥65 years), there was no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups. This suggests that while the bivalent vaccine might offer protection against severe outcomes, it may not significantly reduce the risk of infections entirely. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these findings and to consider other factors, such as underlying health conditions. This study underscores the importance of developing vaccines that target residual COVID-19 infections, especially in regard to evolving COVID-19 variants.
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下家园 / 医药保健 / 加州监狱今年1月到7月的数据,打过2阶疫苗的犯人感染率为3.24%, 没打过疫苗的犯人感染率为2.72%。 +4
    Background In 2023, breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated individuals and reinfections in previously infected people have become common. Additionally, infections are due to Omicron subvariants of the virus that behave differently from those at the onset of the pandemic. Understanding how vaccination and natural immunity influence COVID-19 infection rates is crucial, especially in high-density congregate settings such as prisons, to inform public health strategies. Methods We analyzed COVID-19 surveillance data from January to July 2023 across 33 California state prisons, primarily a male population of 96,201 individuals. We computed the incidence rate of new COVID-19 infections among COVID-bivalent-vaccinated and entirely unvaccinated groups (those not having received either the bivalent or monovalent vaccine). Results Our results indicate that the infection rates in the bivalent-vaccinated and entirely unvaccinated groups are 3.24% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06-3.42%) and 2.72% (CI: 2.50-2.94%), respectively, with an absolute risk difference of only 0.52%. When the data were filtered for those aged 50 and above, the infection rates were 4.07% (CI: 3.77-4.37%) and 3.1% (CI: 2.46-3.74%), respectively, revealing a mere 0.97% absolute risk difference. Among those aged 65 and above, the infection rates were 6.45% (CI: 5.74-7.16%) and 4.5% (CI: 2.57-6.43%), respectively, with an absolute risk difference of 1.95%. Conclusion We note low infection rates in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with a small absolute difference between the two across age groups. A combination of monovalent and bivalent vaccines and natural infections likely contributed to immunity and a lower level of infection rates compared to the height of the pandemic. It is possible that a degree of 'herd immunity' has been achieved. Yet, using p<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance, the bivalent-vaccinated group had a slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rate than the unvaccinated group in the statewide category and the age ≥50 years category. However, in the older age category (≥65 years), there was no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups. This suggests that while the bivalent vaccine might offer protection against severe outcomes, it may not significantly reduce the risk of infections entirely. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these findings and to consider other factors, such as underlying health conditions. This study underscores the importance of developing vaccines that target residual COVID-19 infections, especially in regard to evolving COVID-19 variants.
    • 所有犯人里有50%的人在某个时候感染过新冠,而没打过疫苗的犯人里,只有35%的人感染过。 +5
      • 而且我估计没死一个人,不管打没打疫苗。这完全就是冒风险打了个寂寞给药厂送钱去了。 +6
        • 犯人里有24%的人没打过疫苗,奇怪加州监狱居然没有强制犯人打疫苗。 +3
          • 真正无产阶级是没法强制的,说明资本主义铁拳只能砸穿鞋的,拿光脚的没办法。😂😂😂 +3
          • 这么一算,打过疫苗还感染的有55%。没打过的是35%。 +3
    • 老调调了,2年前不只是切片犯人群体 +2
    • 早就说过,不打疫苗防感染防重症 +9
      • 还不会有打疫苗后引发的心肌炎,心脏病,血栓,癌症等等的风险 +9
        • 疫苗要有你说的这么多现象,那看来医药公司厂商后面更要只搞mRNA药物了,别的不弄了,因为这玩意儿研制快,功效强,搞别的慢还效能差,反疫苗的这下傻了,后面可能没敢吃的药了 +1
    • 蓝天同学总是喜欢从大象身上拔根毛下来,切成几段,对着其中一段说,看吧,这就是大象。 按照你这个理论, 在疫苗推出以前,全世界所有人都可以看成是“未打疫苗的犯人”, 按照你这数据,感染率这么低,应该也没死多少人,根本不值得大惊小怪,
      武汉封城是假新闻,印度欧洲死了那么多人也肯定是谣言。蓝天同学你揭露真相了,你真厉害。
      • 监狱的犯人处于同样的环境,按人头算出来的感染率是非常准确的。连英国政府都承认,他们大大低估了未接种的人口总数,算出来的未接种感染率、死亡率等都被夸大了,这是各国政府数据的普遍问题。
        • 行吧,各国政府都被你代表了,俺们还能说啥?🤣🤣🤣 请继续你的表演👍
          • 安省数据早就证明打过疫苗的感染率高于不打的,加拿大数据也早就证明新冠死亡里面打过疫苗的比例超过疫苗接种比例,然后政府就不再公布数据了。 +3
            • 你整天整这些不知道真假的数据说明了什么?难道不是以事实来证明吗?打疫苗之前,
              GTA老人院死了很多人,为了减少死人不得不lockdown,到处都关门。从打疫苗之后逐渐开放,死的人没有增加,医院也没有发生挤兑,生活逐渐恢复正轨。这就是疫苗的作用,你不顾事实整天这个数据那个报道,到底想说明啥?
              • 新疫苗出来了,既防老病毒又防新变异,你打不打? +2
              • 逐渐开放是病毒变弱的结果,跟疫苗没关系。不打疫苗的国家也开放了。如果你认为打完疫苗开放了,是疫苗的作用,那么,打完疫苗超额死亡大增,你说是不是疫苗的作用? +1
                • 加拿大打了疫苗开放了,奥秘克荣没有死很多人。天朝2022年下半年开放了,死了一大批老人,你还好意思说是病毒变弱了。你就喜欢睁眼说瞎话。你的超额死亡的证据呢?只是在你不知来源的图表里。加拿大有吗?
                  • 天朝是突然开放,集中死亡而已,加拿大开打疫苗后的2021年,2022年,比没疫苗病毒最强的2020年,死的人更多。
                    Between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022, there were 323,220 deaths reported in Canada.
                    • 难道开始不管什么原因死亡,都往疫苗上算了么?这要命了,世界人口还在增加,死亡率理应也增加,是不是这往后,死亡罪魁就是新冠了。。。
                      • 打了疫苗,开放了,这是疫苗的作用。那么,打了疫苗,超额死亡大增,这又跟疫苗无关了? +2
                        • 有关无关给出数据,不要给个图表就成了某款疫苗的罪过。超额死亡你如何看出?要是有基本的高中知识,至少看的懂那个图表上的死亡率走势曲线和环比差额吧,非要算超额,你是不是该用2001和今天比较,那才是真的超额了
    • 这个争论没有意义,现在新疫苗又出来了,你看有几个所谓的“疫苗爱好者”去打的就可以了。不用别的,疫苗爱好者自己用数据来证明。 +4
      • 你这话问得很低级,引用一位肉友的回复:你发烧了吃了药好了,你要继续把那一瓶药都吃完吗?新的退烧药上市了,又好又便宜,你没发烧,你会去吃新药吗? 你问这样的问题是暴露你自己的智商呢吗? +1
        • 疫苗跟感冒药一样?疫苗是发病了再打?拿感冒药类比疫苗,说你们是脑残好呢还是脑残好呢? +7
          • TA指得是疫苗是危险系数高得时候需要打,如果危险系数很低,中的概率就很低,基本没必要啦。 +1
            • 谢谢你帮着解释,他们听得懂人话,就是自己不说而已,故意搅混水,胡搅蛮缠,拿无聊当有趣。
          • 的确是类比,因为反疫苗的没打疫苗,只能用退烧药解释,这样ta们才能理解。至于事前防护,还是事后救治,都是在需要的时候进行。正常不需要的情况,无需打针吃药。这个常识一致吧,你觉得不懂这类比和常识的是脑残呢还是脑残呢? +1