I wish they would break down breakthrough hospitalizations by vaccine. Anecdotal reports suggest a higher than expected share of J&J but real data would be nice to have.
As someone who got the J&J, any news that even acknowledges it's existence is typically nice to hear. But, I don't think our media is capable of this type of reporting in a meaningful way. I suspect some science journal is more likely to publish a paper on it, but it'll be months after the fact. Perhaps useful for determining who needs a booster and what that booster should be. Months later because a research team will need to decide it's worth writing and then do all the data gathering.
I can see already see it now, something like a national number: We looked at 100 breakthrough cases, 45 were A, 40 B, and only 15 C.
Completely leaving out how they picked those 100. If they're all within the same area or just picked from wherever. It doesn't tell us much if 45% of breakthroughs are from A, if all the A examples are from an area that has say 90% of vaccinated people with A or if the area has high community spread. That 15 of C sounds great. But, what if it's because in the area studied there is almost nobody with C, mostly A and B. Then, even a low number for C would be bad.
Unless we're controlling for vaccine distribution and community spread, reporting on the percentages of breakthroughs of each vaccine is kind of meaningless. But, it would cause huge storms of people saying that need to get the one that's best.
They could do reporting like: In area X where 25% of vaccinated people got C, and C represents 25% of breakthrough cases. Which would tell us C is about the same as the comparison. Controlled for community spread and comparing vaccinated population to breakthrough population.
At least for about 10 minutes. Until the next publication took the data and wrote the meaningless stats creating hysteria about getting the vaccine that's the best.
