Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[tsubaki]

These numbers are from the latest dataset published by the government regarding the delta variant;

Total cases in those unvaccinated = 151,054
Total deaths in those unvaccinated = 253
% chance of death = 0.167%

Total cases in those having received 2 doses = 47,008
Total deaths in those having received 2 doses = 402
% chance of death = 0.855%

If we break it down into ages groups

Over 50s, total cases in those unvaccinated = 3,440
Total deaths, over 50s, unvaccinated = 205
% chance of death = 5.6%

Under 50s, total cases in those unvaccinated = 147,612
Total deaths, under 50s, unvaccinated = 48
%chance of death = 0.0325%

Over 50s, total cases in those having two doses = 21,472
Total deaths, over 50s, two doses = 389
% chance of death = 1.81%

Under 50s, total cases in those having two doses = 25,536
Total deaths, under 50s, two doses = 13
%chance of death = 0.051%

Some interesting stats there. If you are over 50, the vaccine is worth having as chance of death is about 3 times greater than if you had two doses

If you are under 50, then the vaccine is basically useless and more people are dying after two doses than those unvaccinated.

Not what I expected.

Data set here - https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf

er - no

under 50s vaccinated deaths = 13
under 50s unvaccinated deaths = 48

… so not “more people are dying after two doses”. The rate of death appears higher, but that is almost certainly due to other factors (other risk issues such as already existing respiratory or cardiac complaints).

Also you are using total cases as the number to compare it against, not total number of under 50s having had both jabs. Case numbers for vaccinated people will always be lower than unvaccinated people for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[Nymzee]

This'll be a good watch. Liverpool too.

Channel 4 releases first look image from Jack Thorne and Marc Munden’s Help (w/t) starring Jodie Comer and Stephen Graham | Channel 4

Channel 4 has today released the first look at Help (w/t).

www.channel4.com

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

er - no

under 50s vaccinated deaths = 13
under 50s unvaccinated deaths = 48

… so not “more people are dying after two doses”. The rate of death appears higher, but that is almost certainly due to other factors (other risk issues such as already existing respiratory or cardiac complaints).

Also you are using total cases as the number to compare it against, not total number of under 50s having had both jabs. Case numbers for vaccinated people will always be lower than unvaccinated people for reasons that should be obvious.

er - no

I used a % figure - the % of deaths in those unvaccinated is lower than the % of deaths in those having two jabs (in the under 50s age bracket)

The other factors you quote can be equally applied to both vaccinated & unvaccinated. We must assume an even spread of comorbidities in each group.

You are wrong again, I split the data into age groups. I compared under 50s with two jabs against under 50s with no jabs.

Interesting you say the case numbers for vaccinated will always be lower when the data says otherwise. In over 50s there are more cases in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

I'm just saying what I see in the data.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Big shout out to Mark Drakeford and his Labour Government, now in receipt of my WG Social Care Recognition Payment of £735.00 for our work during the pandemic., tax to be deducted, so round £500. "Diloch".

 

[tsubaki]

er - no

I used a % figure - the % of deaths in those unvaccinated is lower than the % of deaths in those having two jabs (in the under 50s age bracket)

The other factors you quote can be equally applied to both vaccinated & unvaccinated. We must assume an even spread of comorbidities in each group.

You are wrong again, I split the data into age groups. I compared under 50s with two jabs against under 50s with no jabs.

Interesting you say the case numbers for vaccinated will always be lower when the data says otherwise. In over 50s there are more cases in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

I'm just saying what I see in the data.

No, you are completely misusing the data to make a point, as is the norm for your ilk.

When determining whether a vaccine is statistically a success (and to justify your argument), you have to know the numbers of people have been vaccinated as well as the number of cases and the number of deaths.

What you’ve done here is tried to argue that because there appears to be a higher rate of deaths in the vaccinated group of under 50s, that the vaccine is “basically useless”. This is impossible to say without knowing how many under 50s have been vaccinated - if the majority have been and it results in less cases and less deaths, it clearly works.

 

[dholliday]

Imagine trying to score points by using a metric of "recommends" of a posted comment in response to a Guardian Op-Ed in order to further misrepresent science. Just wow.

Who did that? I was showing how public sentiment may be changing.

As a lot of you do on here (not @LinekersLegs to her credit) you misrepresent what I'm saying. It's a bit weak, and serves only to further divide. What's happening on this thread is a microcosm of what's happening in the wider debate...worldwide. If you truly want to understand things (and I don't think you do) then you first have to stop misrepresenting what people of different opinions are saying. What you're doing only makes your position stronger within your echo chamber - objectively however, it makes your position weaker...which widens the divide between you and those with different views.

This divide is one of the big reasons so many remain vaccine-hesitant. The quality of the debate is often at idiocracy-levels (on both sides, let's be fair).

The CDC has a breakdown re age and health status of ICU, the age at least seems to be updated weekly.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations

gis.cdc.gov

I don't see how your latter plan of "those not at relative risk" is feasibly workable, especially as between age and pre-existing conditions a majority would fall into the relative risk bucket for hospitalization (as we are unfortunately seeing across many US hospitals in the states that do not have high vaccination rates).

Plus your moral criticism of some of the current policies was that it created an "out group" that was stigmatized and as I understand it so does yours but instead of the vaccinated/unvaccinated being the difference between having freedom to choose or not your dividing line would be those with medical conditions or not or those that are over 50 or not.

Not only would this mean disclosure of a bigger quantity of data (age plus the 4 factors we discussed above) but it is also far more personal data than mere vaccinations status - “exactly what is your BMI Mr Smith, please stand on this scale and roll up your sleeve so we can determine your blood pressure and see if you make the cut”. These variables would change far more dynamically than vaccination status so would be a nightmare to keep up to date. It would also fail legally, at least here in the US - exclusion/preference policies based on vaccination status have a long history but not on other health conditions like hypertension.

Also your statement that "vaccine's effectiveness seriously wanes after merely a few months" is not that clear cut in current data, especially re hospitalization risk.This whole thread is worth a read

but this is the “choice quote”

This is a high-quality reply, thanks.

I accept my three-prong plan may be flawed, but I also see that the current situation is also flawed. If the aim is to get more folk vaccinated, something profound needs to change either in the debate, or in policy.

What you're replying to did not concern Horse paste, or anything for animals. It concerned That Which Must Not Be Named, which is an FDA-approved* human medicine.

Misrepresentation...the bane of contemporary debate.

Disclaimer: *FDA-approved does not specifically mean approved for Covid-treatment, for that it is not approved nor recommended.

Yeah - I saw this.
Hopefully the medical board is looking at the physician and the hospital will remove privileges from the physician

If a Judge has ruled it's ok, I don't see how - legally - any medical board can begin to remove privileges. The physician has actual legal backing, in such a case. Unless the board wish to take the legalities to a higher court.

Large sections of this country are loosing their minds and I saw a comment amongst all this that we are slow walking our way into our own Capitol Building incident in the UK.

*losing.

The rhetoric (They're coming for our kids!), the calls to resort to violence, the Trump flags (FFS), perpetual grifters like Icke using it as a vehicle to sell their nonsense and the large far right presence.

Right-wing bad.

Data from my hospital system today

View attachment 137431


Older data, but ratio still the same
View attachment 137435

This is potentially very useful...and could serve as a push to help the unvaxxed decide to get the jab. We'd need to know more than just age about the hospitalised: namely BMI & pre-existing illnesses.

Even without that info, it's still clear the vaccines help reduce severe cases, which I've always said they did despite some misrepresenting my posts on here.

 

[Amw79]

If you are under 50, then the vaccine is basically useless and more people are dying after two doses than those unvaccinated.

Not what I expected.

Data set here - https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf

Your conclusion is a bit off here, as it assumes the only usefulness of the vaccine is in preventing death, so doesn’t take into account hospitalisations, reduced symptomatic infection rates etc.

From that data, the under 50s hospitalisation requiring overnight stay numbers are

Vaccinated - 224 (0.9%)
Unvaccinated - 25,536 (1.6%)

The data is a bit incomplete to draw strong conclusions anyway as you’d want to contextualise those numbers against overall population vaccination proportions, as well as looking at the overall incidence of symptomatic infection between the groups.

 

[dholliday]

No, you are completely misusing the data to make a point, as is the norm for your ilk.

There it is again...tsu, why do you say things like this? I think what you're doing is othering your debate-opponent, which in your own mind makes your own position stronger.

Widening the divide...people get more entrenched in their ilk.

Result: muddy debate, almost half the population (whether UK, US or Europe) unvaccinated. Society slowly going mad due to never-ending pandemic.

There needs to be more kickback from within the echo chambers for language like this, in my opinion.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

No, you are completely misusing the data to make a point, as is the norm for your ilk.

When determining whether a vaccine is statistically a success (and to justify your argument), you have to know the numbers of people have been vaccinated as well as the number of cases and the number of deaths.

What you’ve done here is tried to argue that because there appears to be a higher rate of deaths in the vaccinated group of under 50s, that the vaccine is “basically useless”. This is impossible to say without knowing how many under 50s have been vaccinated - if the majority have been and it results in less cases and less deaths, it clearly works.

No, maybe 'basically useless' was the wrong term to use. I am talking about chances of death, so what I should have said was, the vaccine doesn't look like it prevents death in the under 50s compared to those who are unvaccinated.

I am not talking about the effect the vaccine has on preventing infection. I am talking about post infection statistics that lead to deaths, so for those comparisons I don't need to know total people vaccinated/unvaccinated.

Your conclusion is a bit off here, as it assumes the only usefulness of the vaccine is in preventing death, so doesn’t take into account hospitalisations, reduced symptomatic infection rates etc.

From that data, the under 50s hospitalisation requiring overnight stay numbers are

Vaccinated - 224 (0.9%)
Unvaccinated - 25,536 (1.6%)

The data is a bit incomplete to draw strong conclusions anyway as you’d want to contextualise those numbers against overall population vaccination proportions, as well as looking at the overall incidence of symptomatic infection between the groups.

I agree, I should have been more clear that I was talking about deaths. This is only a small dataset.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Your conclusion is a bit off here, as it assumes the only usefulness of the vaccine is in preventing death, so doesn’t take into account hospitalisations, reduced symptomatic infection rates etc.

From that data, the under 50s hospitalisation requiring overnight stay numbers are

Vaccinated - 224 (0.9%)
Unvaccinated - 25,536 (1.6%)

The data is a bit incomplete to draw strong conclusions anyway as you’d want to contextualise those numbers against overall population vaccination proportions, as well as looking at the overall incidence of symptomatic infection between the groups.

These anti vaxxers need to face reality. All the evidence shows vaccines work. Cherry picking random numbers to support their argument is nonsense.

Simple fact when we're back in lockdown later this year because of these anti vax tin hat lunatics clogging up the hospitals they can only blame themselves.

 

[dholliday]

the vaccine doesn't look like it prevents death in the under 50s compared to those who are unvaccinated.

Aye, backed up by the graph I posted the other day (see below)

These anti vaxxers need to face reality. All the evidence shows vaccines work. Cherry picking random numbers to support their argument is nonsense.

Simple fact when we're back in lockdown later this year because of these anti vax tin hat lunatics clogging up the hospitals they can only blame themselves.

When you say anti-vax, do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general? I've asked this question a few times, no one answers it. The reason it's not answered, is because we know why you say "anti-vax": you mean to denigrate the Covid-vaccine-hesitant by putting them in the same boat as the general anti-vax folk. You do this, because it's another example of the othering that many of you are fond of (see my posts above for further explanation of this).

And regarding the 'cherry-picking', it is objectively not cherry-picking if we're separating the under-50's with the over-50's. That is data of high relevance to real life.

 

[tsubaki]

No, maybe 'basically useless' was the wrong term to use. I am talking about chances of death, so what I should have said was, the vaccine doesn't look like it prevents death in the under 50s compared to those who are unvaccinated.

I am not talking about the effect the vaccine has on preventing infection. I am talking about post infection statistics that lead to deaths, so for those comparisons I don't need to know total people vaccinated/unvaccinated.

Again though you can’t say that without knowing what the numbers of vaccinated vs unvaccinated were.

Drawing the line at cases and then using only that to determine deaths rates is always going to result in a misleading conclusion, just as it would if you for example only looked at heart attack patients brought into A&E and then compared under 50s and over 50s.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

Aye, backed up by the graph I posted the other day (see below)





When you say anti-vax, do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general? I've asked this question a few times, no one answers it. The reason it's not answered, is because we know why you say "anti-vax": you mean to denigrate the Covid-vaccine-hesitant by putting them in the same boat as the general anti-vax folk. You do this, because it's another example of the othering that many of you are fond of (see my posts above for further explanation of this).

And regarding the 'cherry-picking', it is objectively not cherry-picking if we're separating the under-50's with the over-50's. That is data of high relevance to real life.

Yes there is a clear distinction between the two groups and by lumping them together it isn't useful.

Sure there is a crossover, but not every covid-vaccine-hesitant is a pure anti vaxxer

 

[tsubaki]

There it is again...tsu, why do you say things like this? I think what you're doing is othering your debate-opponent, which in your own mind makes your own position stronger.

Widening the divide...people get more entrenched in their ilk.

Result: muddy debate, almost half the population (whether UK, US or Europe) unvaccinated. Society slowly going mad due to never-ending pandemic.

There needs to be more kickback from within the echo chambers for language like this, in my opinion.

I say things like that because that is how I feel - we are dealing with here with a really important issue, and yet here we go again with someone misunderstanding / misusing statistics to make a point (“the vaccine is essentially useless”) that even he now acknowledges was too far.

We’ve all seen the real world consequences of people reading and believing this stuff without taking the time to look into whether or not it’s true, but that doesn’t stop people (often the same people) repeatedly raising these issues as if they are a legitimate position to take. You are a particularly good example of those people.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Aye, backed up by the graph I posted the other day (see below)





When you say anti-vax, do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general? I've asked this question a few times, no one answers it. The reason it's not answered, is because we know why you say "anti-vax": you mean to denigrate the Covid-vaccine-hesitant by putting them in the same boat as the general anti-vax folk. You do this, because it's another example of the othering that many of you are fond of (see my posts above for further explanation of this).

And regarding the 'cherry-picking', it is objectively not cherry-picking if we're separating the under-50's with the over-50's. That is data of high relevance to real life.

The majority who have not taken the vaccine yet are anti vaxxers. Getting vaccinated is extremely accessible and takes less than 20 minutes.

As I have mentioned previously I fully support making things as difficult as possible for anti vaxxers. They shouldn't be allowed into any indoor venues. Supermarkets should only offer an outdoor click and collect or delivery service for these individuals as they are causing mass deaths and are dangerous.