Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Groucho]

Not sure. But if you decide to use that as opposed to getting vaccinated, you’re definitely a bit of a neighsayer.

I’ve had both jabs mate.

Was a little ill afterwards but not furlong.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Any ideas what driving this increase?


Especially as things seem to be improving in England

 

[LinekersLegs]

I’m going to put this here as I think it’s important show. It’s not a direct response to you btw but it’s to show the importance of vaccinations.

I’ve made a couple of fairly conservative assumptions that I’ll happily adjust for people. They are as follows:

R0 is 6 for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people (assuming it is highly infectious and the same for both cohorts). So for every 1 person that gets it, they’ll spread it to 6 people all things being equal.

The efficacy of the vaccine is 50%. That is, if you are vaccinated it is 50/50 you’ll contract covid. The efficacy after two vaccines is much higher.

So I’m assuming that the vaccine efficacy is lower than what has been shown so far and I’ve assumed that once it’s been contracted you are equally likely to pass it on if you are vaccinated or not.

So using conditional probabilities of A) contracting the virus and B) spreading it onto others, the formula would be as follows:

For one vaccinated person the expected outcome based on the conditional probability of getting the virus and then passing it on would be :

(Efficacy x number of people) x (infectious factor x r0)

or

(0.5 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 3.

The same formula for an unvaccinated person would be: (1 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 6

The infectious factor is 1 for both assuming you are equally infectious.

These are all relative to each other. That 50% chance of getting it relative to and unvaccinated person reduces the probability of spreading it by half relative to unvaccinated. Assuming you can’t spread it if you don’t contract it.

If I used an efficacy figure closer to the actual figure (80%), the vaccinated figure would be 1.2.

To say that vaccinations don’t make a difference to the spread is insane, basically.

The whole thread I took this from is worth a read but particularly like this visual representation of what you are describing above

 

[roydo]

Any ideas what driving this increase?


Especially as things seem to be improving in England

Cases in Scotland have rocketed in the Glasgow and just south of Glasgow area.

The highest case numbers, per 100,000 folk, in England is Newquay. (Festival related). My area has the highest infection level like for ever, but deaths and admissions are remarkably low. So, amateur hour, Delta is by a mile more infectious, restrictions are pretty non existent, (masks/SD notwithstanding), so perhaps we have reached the point that Prof JVT said months ago, "We will learn to live with it".

 

[grandjoeblue]

Any ideas what driving this increase?


Especially as things seem to be improving in England

Schools have been back for 2 weeks in Scotland. England they go back tomorrow or later this week. Same will happen here.

 

[BlueStevie35]

Hospital figures - 31 deaths were announced today, nothing to compare from yesterday but it is down 131 on last Tuesday. 24 deaths were in English hospitals, again nothing to compare from yesterday but it is down 129 on last week. The 7 day rolling average falls to 78.57

All settings - for the 28 day cut off, 50 deaths were announced today, up 2 on yesterday and down 124 on last Tuesday. The 7 day rolling average falls to 97.29

For the 60 day cut off, 56 deaths were announced today, up 7 on yesterday and down 135 on last Tuesday. The 7 day rolling average falls to 113.14

Bare in mind these figures are low on account of it being a bank holiday, the catch up figures will be published tomorrow so will be higher

 

[RAFUH]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Even despite over 80% of California’s eligible population receiving at least one dose of the #COVID19 vaccine we still have a few trouble spots.

Client Challenge

Client Challenge

COVID increasingly crowding out other types of care in San Diego hospitals

Hospitals are continuing to delay surgical cases as the Delta variant and a simultaneous surge in demand for non-COVID-19 care continue to put pressure on already burned-out medical staffs across the region.Chris Van Gorder, chief executive…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Wildfire smoke and evacuations are likely going to worsen things too.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Really hope so

 

[LinekersLegs]

Informative thread

 

[verreauxi]

I’m going to put this here as I think it’s important show. It’s not a direct response to you btw but it’s to show the importance of vaccinations.

I’ve made a couple of fairly conservative assumptions that I’ll happily adjust for people. They are as follows:

R0 is 6 for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people (assuming it is highly infectious and the same for both cohorts). So for every 1 person that gets it, they’ll spread it to 6 people all things being equal.

The efficacy of the vaccine is 50%. That is, if you are vaccinated it is 50/50 you’ll contract covid. The efficacy after two vaccines is much higher.

So I’m assuming that the vaccine efficacy is lower than what has been shown so far and I’ve assumed that once it’s been contracted you are equally likely to pass it on if you are vaccinated or not.

So using conditional probabilities of A) contracting the virus and B) spreading it onto others, the formula would be as follows:

For one vaccinated person the expected outcome based on the conditional probability of getting the virus and then passing it on would be :

(Efficacy x number of people) x (infectious factor x r0)

or

(0.5 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 3.

The same formula for an unvaccinated person would be: (1 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 6

The infectious factor is 1 for both assuming you are equally infectious.

These are all relative to each other. That 50% chance of getting it relative to and unvaccinated person reduces the probability of spreading it by half relative to unvaccinated. Assuming you can’t spread it if you don’t contract it.

If I used an efficacy figure closer to the actual figure (80%), the vaccinated figure would be 1.2.

To say that vaccinations don’t make a difference to the spread is insane, basically.

I was messing around with a similar equation earlier today that I saw in the Washington Post article and built a little plot of Re (effective reproductive number--a measure of how many people an individual could infect when the population has some immunity built in) against % population vaccinated and vaccine effectiveness. The best way to lower Re is to get everyone vaccinated. Increasing vaccine effectiveness (such as via a booster shot) won't help as much to lower Re as just making sure everyone is vaccinated (which was the point of the WaPo article).

 

[verreauxi]

Joe here will not post for a bit hoping this goes away, then return to this same opinion once I'm gone...and I am off after today for the rest of the year, you'll all be happy to know.

You said that about 2 months ago and failed because you couldn't resist doing your obfuscating sh1tposting, you tendentious boring right-wing ideologue. Please keep your word this time.