A badly analyzed and poorly presented epidemiology study asserts that — high COVID vaccination rates are not associated with declines in COVID cases

© 2021 Peter Free

 

21 October 2021

 

 

Gee willikers, is COVID making us all stupid?

 

If you are medically and scientifically knowledgeable, read the following (very short) piece of arguably unscientifically presented data:

 

 

S. V. Subramanian and Akhil Kumar, Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States, European Journal of Epidemiology, doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 (30 September 2021)

 

 

Its authors claim that — with my italics added:

 

 

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1).

 

In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.

 

Across the US counties too . . . . There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated (Fig. 3).

 

© 2021 S. V. Subramanian and Akhil Kumar, Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States, European Journal of Epidemiology, doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 (30 September 2021) (at sections entitled "Findings" and "Interpretation")

 

 

Okay, and y'all analyzed exactly what?

 

The study's Methods section states that:

 

 

We used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021 (Supplementary Table 1) [4].

 

We included 68 countries that met the following criteria: had second dose vaccine data available; had COVID-19 case data available; had population data available; and the last update of data was within 3 days prior to or on September 3, 2021.

 

For the 7 days preceding September 3, 2021 we computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country as well as the percentage of population that is fully vaccinated.

 

 

According to the authors (in the same Methods section), the US portion of the investigation was similarly conducted.

 

 

Would a thoughtful person see anything inadequate with those methods?

 

Or with the presentation of the authors' purported results?

 

How about not defining a COVID "case" anywhere in the paper?

 

Or not investigating how the surveyed nations and US counties defined their own versions of a 'case'?

 

Why is there no analysis of the comparative (and presumably contrasting) thoroughness of epidemiological investigations among the 68 included countries and 2,947 US counties?

 

 

Surely the authors are not telling us that Third World and 'Trumpian' American counties are all collecting numbers with the same purported diligence (and probable numbers inflation) that more 'developed' and politically Covidian Autocracy jurisdictions are.

 

 

And why did the authors fail to explain why they incorporated no statistical analysis (at all) as to why a 7 day period might be reliable indicator of an overall epidemiological trend?

 

 

Especially so, when that week-long period has (apparently) been arbitrarily lifted from amid a pandemic — that has exhibited one-after-another unexplained surges and declines in infection and hospitalization numbers — for a duration of almost two years?

 

Does anyone (of critically thoughtful mind) that think that a 7 day peek is going to indicate (much less explain) anything at all?

 

 

Why does the authorial duo nowhere address these obvious questions?

 

Ordinarily, studies include paragraphs that address their limitations. Those inclusions help to demonstrate that their authors are (at least) trying to think scientifically.

 

 

The moral? — This purported (vaccination versus COVID cases) study is arguably vacuous

 

At best, it would serve as an invitation to study the matter more adequately.

 

 

I am not saying that the authors' collected data is incorrect. Or even that their conclusions and recommendations are erroneous.

 

I am merely pointing out that none of what they dredged up — and inadequately analyzed — persuasively demonstrates anything to either effect.

 

 

Sadly, this sort of flying by the seat of our ignorant pants describes virtually the totality of humanity's response to SARS-CoV-2.