Coronavirus Thread

[shade]

8 minutes ago, Soup said:

Do we have the actual figures of how many young fit people have died? And if possible do we know how people who spent 20+ hours in the gym have ended up in ICU. Just out of curiosity I'd like to know where you get your info from.

we know over 90% of deaths had underlying health conditions so...

[Parafox]

10 minutes ago, Soup said:

Do we have the actual figures of how many young fit people have died? And if possible do we know how people who spent 20+ hours in the gym have ended up in ICU. Just out of curiosity I'd like to know where you get your info from.

For one, I said "unexpected deaths in fit, healthy adults"  not "young".

The "20 hrs in the gym" was a comparative example. Never claimed it to be a fact.

[Soup]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

For one, I said "unexpected deaths in fit, healthy adults"  not "young".

The "20 hrs in the gym" was a comparative example. Never claimed it to be a fact.

Oh fair enough i obviously only skim read your post. Would just be nice to know actual numbers though and not just anecdotal stuff. 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Can you accept that there's a difference between 'not as lethal as Ebola' and 'remarkably mild'? 

 

The common cold infects millions each year with no fatalities, that's remarkably mild, anything with a consistent death toll should not be put in the same bracket unless you're trying to spin a narrative.

Fair point yeh

[grobyfox1990]

50 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

 

Bollocks. Where do you pluck your information from. 

28,000 people died from 'flu in 2018. Many of them had underlying health conditions. Is 'flu a mild infection? Yes, if your fit and healthy and under maybe, 65 yrs old.

Covid has caused a large number of unexpected deaths in fit, healthy adults and the ICU's were on the verge of being overwhelmed with admissions and the need for ventilators from everyone with long term respiratory illnesses to the guy who does 20 hrs in gymn the per week.

Completely not a mild infection. 

‘Large number of unexpected deaths’ - back that up straight away and not from a Twitter or Facebook feed 

 

what is so difficult to understand with the icu point. If we had adequate icu capacity and resource in this country would it be ‘overwhelmed’ ? Do you seriously think the nhs has been sufficiently funded over the years to deal with a novel virus which isn’t unexpected? If the answer to that is yes you are truly and madly deluded. The tories will continue to rip the nhs apart allowing hospitals to be overwhelmed and people like you won’t see why/how

 

again, 4 in 5 are asymptomatic = mild infection. Go back to Facebook 

[grobyfox1990]

49 minutes ago, Parafox said:

You do know what his profession is, don't you?

I suggest that you don't fully understand the link between rates of infection and the number of very sick people in ICU who don't die but need the bed and the treatment. That is what overwhelms the NHS. That is why measures have had to be taken. 

 

I know exactly why measures have had to be taken and why I’ve followed them to the letter and support them. You are completely missing my point for some strange reason 

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

‘Large number of unexpected deaths’ - back that up straight away and not from a Twitter or Facebook feed 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityandmortalitydisplacementinenglandandwales/2020tomid2021

[Guest Kopfkino]

52 minutes ago, shade said:

genuinely?

Yes

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, shade said:

If this is correct (and my German speaking doctor friend has corroborated it), it's pretty worrying...

 

Robert Koch Institute report released today states that 95.58% of the #Omicron cases in Germany are fully vaccinated (28% of those had a "booster"), 4.42% are unvaccinated.

 

71.1% of the total population is fully vaccinated in Germany.

I'm genuinely confused as to how this is worrying? Aren't germany one of the countries currently banning the unvaccinated from public services? Surely that would mean they have less chance to catch the virus...eh? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

59 minutes ago, shade said:

we know over 90% of deaths had underlying health conditions so...

Hardly surprising when what, 60% of the country is overweight? 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Hardly surprising when what, 60% of the country is overweight? 

If we measure weight by relativity (like poverty) then I think you’ll find i am slim pal. So stick that in a cob and eat it.

[shade]

45 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'm genuinely confused as to how this is worrying? Aren't germany one of the countries currently banning the unvaccinated from public services? Surely that would mean they have less chance to catch the virus...eh? 

what about in this country, where the vaccinated and unvaccinated can do the same things, ahhh yes, they find different reasons here...vaxxed get tested more, they socialise more etc. don't you ever step back and think, why are we constantly having to explain away data. nobody is explaining away how Pfizer's claims the vaccine was 90% effective at STOPPING covid infection have proved out to be demonstrably false at zero percent or even negative?

 

 

Edited 30 December 2021 by shade

[FoxesDeb]

19 minutes ago, shade said:

what about in this country, where the vaccinated and unvaccinated can do the same things, ahhh yes, they find different reasons here...vaxxed get tested more, they socialise more etc. don't you ever step back and think, why are we constantly having to explain away data. nobody is explaining away how Pfizer's claims the vaccine was 90% effective at STOPPING covid infection have proved out to be demonstrably false at zero percent or even negative?

 

 

The claim of 90% efficacy was true though after the initial study. 

 

https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-rate-above-90-really-means-149849

 

What do you mean by 'zero or negative'? Are you claiming that the vaccine is zero percent effective, and possibly actually causing infections? 

 

[shade]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

The claim of 90% efficacy was true though after the initial study. 

 

https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-rate-above-90-really-means-149849

 

What do you mean by 'zero or negative'? Are you claiming that the vaccine is zero percent effective, and possibly actually causing infections? 

 

 

All the evidence is that it has zero percent efficacy at stopping infection, yes it does a moderately effective job at stopping serious illness (mainly amongst clinically vulnerable people). Never forget it was "shown" to be 90% effective at stopping infection, also never forget the whistleblower who came forward to say how shoddy the trials were and how data was made up. Then never forget that Facebook "fact checked" the British Medical Journal for reporting on how poor Pfizer's trials were. 

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, shade said:

All the evidence is that it has zero percent efficacy at stopping infection, yes it does a moderately effective job at stopping serious illness (mainly amongst clinically vulnerable people). Never forget it was "shown" to be 90% effective at stopping infection, also never forget the whistleblower who came forward to say how shoddy the trials were and how data was made up. Then never forget that Facebook "fact checked" the British Medical Journal for reporting on how poor Pfizer's trials were. 

Can you share your source please, for the claim all the evidence shows it's efficacy at stopping transmission is zero? And also that it only mainly helps the clinically vulnerable with a reduction of serious illness? 

[Guest Kopfkino]

32 minutes ago, shade said:

what about in this country, where the vaccinated and unvaccinated can do the same things, ahhh yes, they find different reasons here...vaxxed get tested more, they socialise more etc. don't you ever step back and think, why are we constantly having to explain away data. nobody is explaining away how Pfizer's claims the vaccine was 90% effective at STOPPING covid infection have proved out to be demonstrably false at zero percent or even negative?

 

 

You didn’t explain why it was worrying

[shade]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You didn’t explain why it was worrying

You don't find it concerning that people have taken a "vaccine" against a disease, which they're were being told would stop them contracting it (ignore the revisionists), and the raw data from numerous countries shows that the vaccinated are overrepresented in the case numbers?

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, shade said:

All the evidence is that it has zero percent efficacy at stopping infection, yes it does a moderately effective job at stopping serious illness (mainly amongst clinically vulnerable people). Never forget it was "shown" to be 90% effective at stopping infection, also never forget the whistleblower who came forward to say how shoddy the trials were and how data was made up. Then never forget that Facebook "fact checked" the British Medical Journal for reporting on how poor Pfizer's trials were. 

I was actually thinking that you were doing a decent job in making your argument and then you wrote the stuff in bold …….

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

You don't find it concerning that people have taken a "vaccine" against a disease, which they're were being told would stop them contracting it (ignore the revisionists), and the raw data from numerous countries shows that the vaccinated are overrepresented in the case numbers?

I would find it concerning if they’d contracted the Wuhan variant - yes 

[Stivo]

44 minutes ago, shade said:

what about in this country, where the vaccinated and unvaccinated can do the same things, ahhh yes, they find different reasons here...vaxxed get tested more, they socialise more etc. don't you ever step back and think, why are we constantly having to explain away data. nobody is explaining away how Pfizer's claims the vaccine was 90% effective at STOPPING covid infection have proved out to be demonstrably false at zero percent or even negative?

 

 

the key word there is unadjusted…
 

You claim to “seek the truth” yet you quote misleading figures that are explained in the report and you state that you are aware of the issues but ignore them.
 

UKHSE know the number of vaccinations given. What they don’t know vis the number of unvaccinated people.  To calculate that you need to know the population. That table uses the NIMS database which consists of people with NHS numbers.  Unfortunately it has duplicates and dead people in it and therefore overestimates relative to the ONS population estimates. The consequence of this is to inflate ( by a lot) the number of unvaccinated which falsely lowers the rates for unvaccinated. That’s why the table is labelled unadjusted and why page 1 warns that you cannot calculate vaccine efficiency from the raw data.
 

Elsewhere in the same document (page  6 onwards) the  statisticians calculate vaccine efficiency against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation etc.

Edited 30 December 2021 by Stivo

[Facecloth]

Isn't the 90% effectiveness for getting serious ill with. I can't find anything that ever said it was 90% effective at stopping you getting covid, just 90% effective at stopping you getting seriously ill and ending up in hospital. Also it was effective at stopping you spreading the virus.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Stivo said:

the key word there is unadjusted…
 

You claim to “seek the truth” yet you quote misleading figures that are explained in the report and you state that you are aware of the issues but ignore them.
 

UKHSE know the number of vaccinations given. What they don’t know vis the number of unvaccinated people.  To calculate that you need to know the population. That table uses the NIMS database which consists of people with NHS numbers.  Unfortunately it has duplicates and dead people in it and therefore overestimates relative to the ONS population estimates. The consequence of this is to inflate ( by a lot) the number of unvaccinated which falsely lowers the rates for unvaccinated. That’s why the table is labelled unadjusted and why page 1 warns that you cannot calculate vaccine efficiency from the raw data.
 

Elsewhere in the same document (page  onwards) the  statisticians calculate vaccine efficiency against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation etc.

Do you have any pictures / drawings for this argument - I fear there may be too many long words ……

 

 

 

[Guest Col city fan]

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Isn't the 90% effectiveness for getting serious ill with. I can't find anything that ever said it was 90% effective at stopping you getting covid, just 90% effective at stopping you getting seriously ill and ending up in hospital. Also it was effective at stopping you spreading the virus.

If we go back six months, i think you’ll find that the accepted position was that Pfizer was 90% effective at preventing infection and AZ around 80%.

 

then delta arrived and it was pretty clear that it would drop those numbers.  I remember having a discussion on here where I guessed that the numbers would drop to around 55% and 70% on the back of delta. 
 

of course, we also have to take into account the waning of vaccines over time which was unknown 

 

Without mutations, we would now be in a good place on covid with vaccines that were developed to deal with the original Wuhan strain ……

[HighPeakFox]

Food for thought