COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker (News and Updates) (Poll added)

[adnj]

Shots give COVID-19 survivors big immune boost, studies show

Even people who have recovered from COVID-19 are urged to get vaccinated, especially as the extra-contagious delta variant surges — and a new study shows survivors who ignored that advice were more than twice as likely to get reinfected.

Friday’s report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds to growing laboratory evidence that people who had one bout of COVID-19 get a dramatic boost in virus-fighting immune cells — and a bonus of broader protection against new mutants — when they’re vaccinated.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious delta variant spreads around the country.”

https://apnews.com/article/science-heal ... 41a7310c2e

[The_Honourable]

Carried a relative to SAPA to get her 1st dose AZ shot. Lines were fairly long but moving quickly. With the rain, persons who were filling out forms under the tents were forced to break social distancing rules to shelter. You have two tents to pass thru which is some distance from each other. Once you inside the building, you have some walking to do but you good to go.

Relative had her appointment at 10am and got her shot 2 hours later. Observation was approx 25 minutes and she was done. Received a new immunization card with the AZ sticker and SWRHA stamp. Although is day one, I suspect the rain most likely prevented the mad rush, long lines and traffic. The lines should begin to ease up as the week progresses.

Carrying an elderly lady for her 1st Sinopharm shot tomorrow at SAPA, let's see how it goes.

[elec2020]

Shots give COVID-19 survivors big immune boost, studies show

Even people who have recovered from COVID-19 are urged to get vaccinated, especially as the extra-contagious delta variant surges — and a new study shows survivors who ignored that advice were more than twice as likely to get reinfected.

Friday’s report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds to growing laboratory evidence that people who had one bout of COVID-19 get a dramatic boost in virus-fighting immune cells — and a bonus of broader protection against new mutants — when they’re vaccinated.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious delta variant spreads around the country.”

https://apnews.com/article/science-heal ... 41a7310c2e

again making definitive statements using a sample size (less than 1000 individuals) that is literally a fraction of the target population. I don't understand how you can make such definitive statements when you barely, barely used a sample that adequately represents the target population.

[adnj]

Shots give COVID-19 survivors big immune boost, studies show

Even people who have recovered from COVID-19 are urged to get vaccinated, especially as the extra-contagious delta variant surges — and a new study shows survivors who ignored that advice were more than twice as likely to get reinfected.

Friday’s report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds to growing laboratory evidence that people who had one bout of COVID-19 get a dramatic boost in virus-fighting immune cells — and a bonus of broader protection against new mutants — when they’re vaccinated.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious delta variant spreads around the country.”

https://apnews.com/article/science-heal ... 41a7310c2e

again making definitive statements using a sample size (less than 1000 individuals) that is literally a fraction of the target population. I don't understand how you can make such definitive statements when you barely, barely used a sample that adequately represents the target population.

What's the necessary sample size in this instance? We are trying to achieve 95%+ confidence.

[VexXx Dogg]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

[adnj]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

[paid_influencer]

https://www.facebook.com/CCNTV6/posts/5888031844572292

MASS CHAOS

There was mass chaos at UTT Munroe Road vaccination site today as hundreds of people rushed for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The confusion stemmed from no proper system in place as those with appointments and walk-ins were all lumped into one.

Having an appointment was useless.

Tempers flew as the rains fell and people stood in line drenched.

Express senior journalist Anna Ramdass captured this video.

laff

[hover11]

Well if covid don't kill them pneumonia sure will

https://www.facebook.com/CCNTV6/posts/5888031844572292

MASS CHAOS

There was mass chaos at UTT Munroe Road vaccination site today as hundreds of people rushed for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The confusion stemmed from no proper system in place as those with appointments and walk-ins were all lumped into one.

Having an appointment was useless.

Tempers flew as the rains fell and people stood in line drenched.

Express senior journalist Anna Ramdass captured this video.

laff

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

[paid_influencer]

people just standing up in that rain normel normel yes

[timelapse]

people just standing up in that rain normel normel yes

You fraid rain more than covid?

[paid_influencer]

Trinidad and Tobago Police Service
·
CoP: TTPS did not shut down SAPA Vaccine Drive

Commissioner of Police, Gary Griffith, says that contrary to reports, the TTPS did not shut down the vaccination drive at the Southern Academy for the Performing Arts (SAPA) this morning.

The CoP said because of the large number of persons expected for appointments and walk-ins, as well as the inclement weather, persons had to break their lines to seek shelter.

Commissioner Griffith noted that SAPA was open at 7.15 am with lines for the first and second dose of the
Sinopharm vaccine; the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, as well as those who walked in. The organizers of the event catered for at least 1,000 persons.

The CoP said that police officers were assigned to monitor the event, but because some persons turned up before their appointment times, together with the arrival of the walk-ins, and the constant rain, persons left their lines to seek shelter.

The CoP said because of the rain, operations at the SAPA compound were disrupted for a short while. Commissioner Griffith said more persons are expected at SAPA tomorrow, Tuesday, August 10th. He assured the officers of the TTPS will also be out for tomorrow's vaccination drive.

[hover11]

People in this country like to cause their own distress. The last few weeks vaccines were available all over the country and they not going. Today they rather wait in the rain for AZ

[paid_influencer]

people just standing up in that rain normel normel yes

You fraid rain more than covid?

I fraid crowds too. This shiet is nightmare for me


https://www.facebook.com/CCNTV6/videos/232320485436198

[DMan7]

People really think AZ better than Sinopharm?

[redmanjp]

People in this country like to cause their own distress. The last few weeks vaccines were available all over the country and they not going. Today they rather wait in the rain for AZ

doh know why dey eh walk with an umbrella. like plenty ppl flying out to canada. hope they thank them for the vax when they touch down in Toronto

[VexXx Dogg]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

[VexXx Dogg]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

I know it was directed at elec2020.

I'm all for valid research

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

[bluefete]

^^^ Proper research costs money!

[bluefete]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

[gastly369]

People really think AZ better than Sinopharm?

You tell we nah doctor...we don't know

[The_Honourable]

good news. so ppl weren't vaccine hesitant, just sinopharm hesitant!

This...

People really think AZ better than Sinopharm?

It's more to do with ease of travel. The U.S is about to implement requirements that foreign visitors needs to be fully vaccinated. Canada is reopening their borders to foreign visitors on Sept 7th and requires same. You are considered fully vaccinated if you've taken full doses of Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen (J&J) or AstraZeneca vaccines. This means you skip further testing and quarantining.

Sinopharm is not accepted at this time and since we have AZ now which is much more accepted travel-wise hence the rush.

[adnj]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

@Vex Dogg: your point was clear and well made, in my opinion. The argument that our f*cked-up homie attempted to make is that the sample size was too small. He makes this dumbass comment often. He is unaware that when the possible outcomes are reduced, the quality of the study's result is not significantly enhanced by further increasing the sample size.

Although I appreciate your humility, most statistical analyses are more a consequence of the chosen parameters than the discipline. Studies in the Social Sciences just tend to be more complex.

[Mmoney607]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

I was reading that study but I really wasn't understanding what they were saying. The highlight for the cdc is that persons who were infected previously and unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who had been infected previously and got vaccinated. So they use this as to basis to say that people who were infected previously should still get vaccinated.

Elec2020, What was the total sample size? How many unvaccinated got reinfected vs unvaccinated?

[DMan7]

Yea I understand that but isn't the line of thinking for awhile now take whichever vaccine is available to you? Why didn't these people take the Sinopharm vaccine like alot of other people? Remember these same people who are now lining up for AZ were most likely alot of people who were vaccine hesitant but just all of a sudden now that you can travel overseas you throw all that vaccine hesitancy out the window?

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

In statistics you will never be able to capture your full target population. So yes, you extrapolate the results. Thats where margin of error comes in. Given that concept, you will have a ridiculous margin of error for conclusions extrapolated on a dataset that represents 0.001 per cent of your target population. Is that not a fair assessment?

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

@Vex Dogg: your point was clear and well made, in my opinion. The argument that our f*cked-up homie attempted to make is that the sample size was too small. He makes this dumbass comment often. He is unaware that when the possible outcomes are reduced, the quality of the study's result is not significantly enhanced by further increasing the sample size.

Although I appreciate your humility, most statistical analyses are more a consequence of the chosen parameters than the discipline. Studies in the Social Sciences just tend to be more complex.

I still waiting on the answer. My sample of 0.001 per cent (20 individuals) of the national population (1.35 million people) called you a fool. Does that therefore mean that like the paper you quoted, that represents 0.001 per cent of its target population, that you are a fool? You deflecting from the numbers. You want to delve into my area and shift the facts to suit your agenda? Come on. 0.001 per cent is never a good representation of any target population.

[adnj]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

In statistics you will never be able to capture your full target population. So yes, you extrapolate the results. Thats where margin of error comes in. Given that concept, you will have a ridiculous margin of error for conclusions extrapolated on a dataset that represents 0.001 per cent of your target population. Is that not a fair assessment?

95% confidence interval was 1.58 to 3.47 times as likely to be reinfected.

[paid_influencer]

the MFO survey say it have 400k that would rush for vaxx, 200k that vaxx hesitant and 400k that completely anti-vaxx. The first 400k done gone clear. Right now we in that 200k portion that wants to do their own research, want vaxx they know about, etc. I expect the line up for Pfizer will be epic.