Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 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?

They were told that there was a 90% efficacy against the original strain, a slightly lower efficacy against Delta and early studies suggested as low as 25% against Omicron. I think most people grasp the fluidity of that.

 

They were also told how effective it is at stopping hospitalisation and severe disease and that probably still holds better than against infection and certainly with the booster. Something that your own presented data also shows, so they’ve still got a vaccine to help protect them from harm so no not particularly worried.

 

And in fact the data you show us shows how effective it is at presenting potential serious harm. You say moderate reduction (either cos you don’t understand maths or wilful misdirection). Risk of hospitalisation is ~8.5x greater for those unvaccinated or in other words an 88% reduction in the risk of hospitalisation being vaccinated. 
 

So no, not much concerned that people have been offered a vaccine to reduce their risk of serious harm and that’s exactly what it’s doing.

[Zear0]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

Food for thought

 

 

Might be a stretch given the last few pages.

[HighPeakFox]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Might be a stretch given the last few pages.

One can but try.

[shade]

24 minutes 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  6 onwards) the  statisticians calculate vaccine efficiency against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation etc.

Fair enough, I will look in to that, my initial reaction is that the database can't possibly have THAT many duplicates and dead people in it so as to effect the results that strongly, but I'll read more. I also find it strange that many other countries, including Denmark report higher case rates amongst vaccinated, can you explain that as you kindly did for the UK statistics?

 

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

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

 

 

 

when you attack the person and not the argument, you have already lost the argument.

[Guest Col city fan]

5 minutes ago, shade said:

Fair enough, I will look in to that, my initial reaction is that the database can't possibly have THAT many duplicates and dead people in it so as to effect the results that strongly, but I'll read more. I also find it strange that many other countries, including Denmark report higher case rates amongst vaccinated, can you explain that as you kindly did for the UK statistics?

 

when you attack the person and not the argument, you have already lost the argument.

Look at the graph I posted above mate. Tells you all you need to know, including Denmark 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, shade said:

 

when you attack the person and not the argument, you have already lost the argument.

I wasn’t referring to you actually ……….just a general bit of banter 

[Ric Flair]

Omicron is surely making a mockery for the importance of a vaccine passport. 

[st albans fox]

29 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Food for thought

 

 

That does look like we are headed into tighter restrictions immediately after new year ….

[Guest Col city fan]

Covid is just about everywhere in leicester at the moment. Most people not getting as ill from it as other variants (though some still are). But it’s spreading like wild-fire. Many people STILL not wearing face masks in shops etc. They must be absolutely fookin stupid 

[rachhere]

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That does look like we are headed into tighter restrictions immediately after new year ….

I really hope Boris' decision to let new year go ahead without any restrictions is data driven, rather than politically driven. Right now looking at this data and the lack of availability for testing it seems madness. 

[Stivo]

27 minutes ago, shade said:

Fair enough, I will look in to that, my initial reaction is tha

Try here 

 

http://sonorouschocolate.com/covid19/index.php?title=Population_estimation_using_vaccine_survey

 

there was a ft article on the subject but its paywalled.

 

in the age 35-49 NIMS overestimates by about 20% and so all 2m get counted as unvaccinated.  the vaccine survey estimate is 800k lower than ONS. I am surprised how it’s so out.  The only countries with accurate values are those with mandatory identity cards which excludes the uk and Denmark.

[fox_favourite]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That does look like we are headed into tighter restrictions immediately after new year ….

And that is before schools open! If they do, then covid will spread even more quickly. Working in education, I can see this happening. 
 

Edited 30 December 2021 by fox_favourite

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

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

Is there a confused emoji? This data only goes up to July 2021. There’s no hard numbers or percentages for fit and healthy adults, only ‘above average’ well I’ve got two arms and two legs which is above average for a human….

 

tbf to you I didn’t quote the exact sentence from the poster. ‘Large number of unexpected deaths in fit, healthy adults’ is what they foolishly claimed. I think it’s astonishing someone can type this populist, divisive Facebook driven hyperbole with a straight face. I’m not sure your link corroborates this? 

Edited 30 December 2021 by grobyfox1990

[foxile5]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Then I sincerely hope that someone smarter than me comes up with it and applies it rapidly.

The American one seems to make way more use of cardboard than ours. The plastic disposal bags and vials are criminal. 

[Heathrow fox]

4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

The American one seems to make way more use of cardboard than ours. The plastic disposal bags and vials are criminal. 

Is it really worth worrying about?How many test kits = a supermarket shopping bag for instance?Another Christmas has passed and despite wall to wall climate change coverage,I would bet my life plastic use has never been higher.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Food for thought

 

 

Just some random things to take from it:

 

1.  Letting the virus run free will mean lots of cases and the NHS can't cope.  We need to lock down to stop cases rising.  (She doesn't give any indication as to when this danger will pass, but as she says that this won't be the last variant, I presume she means never.)

 

2.  A firebreak lockdown would have stopped the rise in cases and prevented a peak in January.  (She doesn't provide any evidence for this, but presumably what evidence she has - if any - comes from theoretical models.  real world evidence certainly contradicts this claim.)

 

3.  If we had lockdown, businesses wouldn't have staff shortages due to covid.  Which I suppose is true.  They wouldn't need staff, would they.

 

4.  She doesn't want to talk about tdeath data because increases from omicron won't show up for at least another week and because data is incomplete.  But data for intensive care beds, at least in England, is complete up to date and shows no rise at all.  Why not quote that?

 

5.  She has come up with a graph that says if we let the virus go through the country with no further restrictions, hospital admissions will peak at 5k per day in January and it will all be over by february.  But if we go into full lockdown, gradually easing up to April, then we will keep admssions at about 1k per day for now, rising to 2k per day throughout March and April.  (At which point there is no doubt she will be arguing for more, longer lockdowns.)  I don't see there's any gain there.

Edited 30 December 2021 by dsr-burnley

[dsr-burnley]

5 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.

These figures are wrong.  Plain wrong.  The two numbers must be using different denominators, and so the two percentages can't be compared.

 

Here's why.  More than 10% of the German population are aged between 0-11, and virtually none of them are vaccinated.  Therefore if only 4.42% of cases in Germany are unvaccinated, it means one of three things:

 

1. No children at all are getting the disease and vaccinated adults are getting it slightly more than unvaccinated;

2. Children are getting it at half the rates of adults and no unvaccinated adults at all are getting it.

3. Somewhere in between - children are catching covid at perhaps a quarter of the rate of vaccinated adults, and unvaccinated adults are all but immune.

 

Or 4. The numbers are wrong or contradictory or incomplete.  Because as stated, they do not make sense.  (As far as I can get with the German-translated-via-google-translate, the most likely reason is because they have only tested 4,000 cases and it has resulted in an unrepresentative sample.)

[Legend_in_blue]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Food for thought

 

 

She's part of iSAGE.  Therefore take what she says with a pinch of salt.  Think SAGE but worse. 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Omicron is surely making a mockery for the importance of a vaccine passport. 

They just seem to be pointless, every country that has had them ends up getting huge numbers of cases anyway. Doing a test would surely be better than a vaccine passport, but these can be easily frauded anyway, so again, is it really worth it?

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Bryn said:

In 18 months we've developed a sequence of vaccines, treatments most of which are cheap as chips and absolutely tanked the mortality rate of the thing.

Two further observations on that:

 

1.) Even though we've done such a good job on that, more people have died from this disease in two years than all wars and terrorist incidents in the last twenty. And yet some folks are still more afraid of the latter than the former.

 

2.) Perhaps it's a mark of how successful the response has been overall that there are still people who don't take this thing and what we need to do to fight it seriously, including a few on this very thread. I'm trying to look for other motivations for that beyond self interest as it "won't harm them" or naive bravado.

 

Actually, also a third observation: digital misinformation, on this matter and others, presents a bigger danger to the continued future of civilisation than perhaps any other, as it threatens our ability to take action against anything where needed. It needs to be addressed better.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

Is it really worth worrying about?How many test kits = a supermarket shopping bag for instance?Another Christmas has passed and despite wall to wall climate change coverage,I would bet my life plastic use has never been higher.

Not to nitpick, but carbon emissions leading to increased global average temperature and plastic pollution are two separate issues, unless you're referring to the emissions it costs to create/process them.

[Heathrow fox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not to nitpick, but carbon emissions leading to increased global average temperature and plastic pollution are two separate issues, unless you're referring to the emissions it costs to create/process them.

Yes,separate issues but both tied up together.At least the tests have a significant purpose.The amount of discarded masks ending up in landfill would be just as big a problem,if not bigger,waste wise.Not to mention the damage badly discarded ones do to wildlife.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Yes,separate issues but both tied up together.At least the tests have a significant purpose.The amount of discarded masks ending up in landfill would be just as big a problem,if not bigger,waste wise.Not to mention the damage badly discarded ones do to wildlife.

I don't disagree. That being said, I'm struggling to think of a better way to address the more immediate threat.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

She's part of iSAGE.  Therefore take what she says with a pinch of salt.  Think SAGE but worse. 

 

I always thought that was a movie about a mammoth and a sloth.

[Heathrow fox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't disagree. That being said, I'm struggling to think of a better way to address the more immediate threat.

Yes it is what it is for now.Like I said an extra bit of plastic on top of a mountain of plastic isn’t worth worrying about in the grand scheme of things.