The point you make about the need for a new metric to measure the effect of Covid 19 infections on hospitalizations and deaths is specific and valid. It seems to me that using hospitalization per number of cases and death per number of cases could be easily calculated. Then, the numbers per those vaccinated and not vaccinated could be reported. It is my understanding that ~70% of new cases occur in those who are unvaccinated. A final category could be that subset who are immunocompromised in terms of their rate of infections and their outcome. The distinctions that you are making are not subtle or difficult to grasp; they are vital! Thank you.
Appreciate your perspective, Gene. I think the point about identifying and measuring risk among the most vulnerable people is important, as well. The challenge is that it's so hard to create a metric that is sufficiently broad as to include all types, and you risk missing key folks.
Always appreciate your perspective! Curious as to why you suggest the rates of hospitalization in counties with > or < 70% versus rates of hospitalization for vaccinated and unvaccinated? I can see +/- 70% as helpful when comparing counties but would see vaccinated/unvaccinated hospitalization rates for daily/weekly tracking in my community potentially more useful and to actually see the lower rate of hospitalization for vaccinated.
That's a good point, Amy. The reason I chose to focus on the community level is that risk is a environmental, and specifying risk by environment is critical. It's also easier to track vaccination records by community than by hospitalization. I do think, though, that it's worth looking a simply vaccinated/unvaccinated differentials among the hospitalized!
The point you make about the need for a new metric to measure the effect of Covid 19 infections on hospitalizations and deaths is specific and valid. It seems to me that using hospitalization per number of cases and death per number of cases could be easily calculated. Then, the numbers per those vaccinated and not vaccinated could be reported. It is my understanding that ~70% of new cases occur in those who are unvaccinated. A final category could be that subset who are immunocompromised in terms of their rate of infections and their outcome. The distinctions that you are making are not subtle or difficult to grasp; they are vital! Thank you.
Appreciate your perspective, Gene. I think the point about identifying and measuring risk among the most vulnerable people is important, as well. The challenge is that it's so hard to create a metric that is sufficiently broad as to include all types, and you risk missing key folks.
Thank you, yes, what you have said here makes sense and is needed. Imagine, rapid antigen tests for everyone, once a week! That is sorely needed!
Always appreciate your perspective! Curious as to why you suggest the rates of hospitalization in counties with > or < 70% versus rates of hospitalization for vaccinated and unvaccinated? I can see +/- 70% as helpful when comparing counties but would see vaccinated/unvaccinated hospitalization rates for daily/weekly tracking in my community potentially more useful and to actually see the lower rate of hospitalization for vaccinated.
That's a good point, Amy. The reason I chose to focus on the community level is that risk is a environmental, and specifying risk by environment is critical. It's also easier to track vaccination records by community than by hospitalization. I do think, though, that it's worth looking a simply vaccinated/unvaccinated differentials among the hospitalized!