[set fair (OP)]

Both Israel and the UK report a 48% increase in cases amongst vacinees during the first week after their first jab. The obvious reason is change in behavior. I'm not sure I believe that - it would be shocking if people weren't properly informed. Could the vaccine or the immune response awaken a latent infection?

[Colin2B]

The obvious reason is change in behavior. I'm not sure I believe that - it would be shocking if people weren't properly informed.

Can you quote the study, I can only find info relating to Pfizer in Israel which shows a 6.6% infection rate post 1st vaccination.
For Pfizer the delay between vaccination and developing any significant immunity appears to be about 2 weeks. The need to continue distancing and masking, has been widely presented in the press, however, people are notoriously bad at taking in detail and just take the top line “I’ve been vaccinated”. From what I hear of people attending our local centres they are being told to continue taking precautions.

[set fair (OP)]

Can you quote the study, I can only find info relating to Pfizer in Israel which shows a 6.6% infection rate post 1st vaccination.

https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/Early+effectiveness+of+COVID+vaccines.pdf/ffd7161c-b255-8e88-c2dc-88979fc2cc1b?t=1614617945615
from page 2 --- my italics

Individuals aged > = 80 years vaccinated with BNT162b2  prior to 4th January, had a higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratioup  to 1.48, 95 %CI  1.23-1.77), indicating that those initially  targeted had a higher underlying risk of in fection

This is a preprint, I would be surprised if the bit I italicised makes it through peer review.

I will try and hunt down the Israeli study.

[Colin2B]

from page 2 --- my italics

Individuals aged > = 80 years vaccinated with BNT162b2  prior to 4th January, had a higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratioup  to 1.48, 95 %CI  1.23-1.77), indicating that those initially  targeted had a higher underlying risk of in fection

This is a preprint, I would be surprised if the bit I italicised makes it through peer review. .

Why do you think that?
Can you see an error in the methodology, data, or analysis that negates this conclusion?

[set fair (OP)]

I know some of us have a 48% greater chance of dieing, but I don't know of anyone who has a 48% increased risk of catching the virus.

[Colin2B]

I know some of us have a 48% greater chance of dieing, but I don't know of anyone who has a 48% increased risk of catching the virus.

These 2 groups are not mutually exclusive, if you know some in the 1st group you will know some in the second.

Anyone with a weakened immune system (immunocompromised) has a higher chance of contracting any infection, not just to CV19.
People usually think of AIDS, but it can be the result of any condition or treatment which weaken a person’s immune system including:
Cancer
Bone marrow transplant
Solid organ transplant
Stem cells for cancer treatment
Genetic immune deficiencies
Lupus
Rheumatoid arthritis
Type 1 diabetes - even well-controlled diabetics are immunocompromised to a degree
Use of oral or intravenous corticosteroids or other medicines called immunosuppressants that lower the body’s ability to fight infection
Conditions like asthma can also affect your immune system because they cause it to overreact.
Leukemia or lymphoma are diseases of the immune system
Some cancer treatments weaken the immune system.
Treatment of an autoimmune disease - a suppressed immune system is the desired result.
Dementia affects a persons ability to clear mucus from the throat and lungs and are more susceptible to getting respiratory infections
Age - the immune system doesn't respond normally to infections because it doesn’t work as well as a younger person’s. Also, older people have many more of the conditions mentioned than the general population.
Smoking damages the lungs, so those who smoke also may not have enough healthy lung tissue to withstand the initial exposure to the virus.

Even if you can’t think of a reason this group might be more likely to catch the virus a peer reviewer would not suggest removing a result unless the data or analysis was invalid.