Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Huh. Who was it here who was saying that the pandemic was one of the unvaccinated again?  How do you like your crow? Baked, fried or raw? 

It's always easier to nitpick the data rather than read the actual report, specifically, page 46

https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/media/11054/22-01-07-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

"From 04 December 2021 to 31 December 2021, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to individuals with their dose 3 or booster dose of vaccine. In the last week in an age-standardised population, individuals were 4.1 times more likely to be in hospital with COVID-19 if they were unvaccinated compared to individuals that had received a booster dose of vaccine. 


Please note that these statistics do not differentiate between individuals in hospital with COVID-19 illness requiring hospitalisation compared to those in hospital for other reasons (e.g. routine operations) for whom COVID-19 was identified incidentally through testing but they are not requiring hospitalisation because of their COVID-19 symptoms.
The PHS Weekly Statistical Report, published 01 December 2021, provides an updated analysis of hospital admissions ‘because of’ COVID-19 (where COVID-19 is the primary cause of admission) in comparison to admissions ‘with’ COVID-19 (where COVID-19 is not the primary reason for admission, but the individual has tested positive by PCR). This was
based on aggregated data for six NHS Boards up to August 2021 and does not provide a breakdown by vaccine status. It was estimated that in August 2021, 68% of admissions were ‘because of’ COVID-19 and the remaining 32% were ‘with’ COVID-19"

This is important, though

"The first real world results of the effectiveness of the booster vaccination against symptomatic disease shows very high vaccine effectiveness, higher than for the primary course, at 93-94%. Analyses from Scotland show that the booster and 3rd dose of the COVID-19 vaccines are associated with 57% reduced risk of symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant compared to those who are more than 25 weeks post-second dose of COVID-19 vaccine.


Initial analysis of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant have been shown to be lower than compared to the Delta variant, with estimated vaccine effectiveness of between 70 to 75% in the early period after the booster dose. Although lower, this is still a substantial vaccine effect, and is higher than after one or two
doses of vaccine. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, rmgill said:

How do we square that with the report from Holland that showed negative vaccine effectiveness?

This one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.09.21266060v1

"A strongly protective effect of vaccination was found in all comorbidity subgroups. No ICU-admission or mortality were reported among fully vaccinated cases. Of unvaccinated cases, mortality was 10% and 19% was admitted at the ICU"

But I thinks it's apples to oranges, I don't think we can compare different countries, much less for reports for specific time periods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sunday said:

Another one that does not know neither what an infection rate, nor a confidence interval is?

I mean, infection, hospitalization, and dead rates could be inaccurate because of fewer cases due to a smaller population of one type, but there are confidence intervals published there, man!

I wasn't referring to errors due to small samples, but

1) the fact that when big enough majority is vaccinated, the vaccinated will eventually outnumber the unvaccinated in hospitals unless the vaccine is 100% effective, and

2) if the elderly and the otherwise at-risk people have very high vaccination rates and the youngest are the last to get vaccinated, there will come a point when lumped-all-together the vaccinated will have higher hospitalization rate than the unvaccinated, even when at every single age group individually the opposite is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jmsaari said:

I wasn't referring to errors due to small samples, but

1) the fact that when big enough majority is vaccinated, the vaccinated will eventually outnumber the unvaccinated in hospitals unless the vaccine is 100% effective, and

2) if the elderly and the otherwise at-risk people have very high vaccination rates and the youngest are the last to get vaccinated, there will come a point when lumped-all-together the vaccinated will have higher hospitalization rate than the unvaccinated, even when at every single age group individually the opposite is true.

Re the part in bold: that is irrelevant for the purpose of ascertaining if one is more likely to die from kung flu if that one is vaccinated or not.

I find remarkable you have nothing to say about the different lethality rates from covid in vaccinated or no vaccinated.

If your major, and apparently only, concern is keeping the hospitals empty, then there is always the Cuomo option, send back to their homes the ones afflicted with the disease, and let them die without making much fuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health discourage the use of two of the three monoclonal antibody treatments authorized for early-stage covid-19 because the therapies probably will not work against the omicron variant.

The updated guidelines, posted Wednesday, reflect new estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the variant is dominant in all regions of the United States and is responsible for 99.5 percent of cases.

The NIH treatment guidance panel said the therapies by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly “are predicted to have markedly reduced activities” against the omicron variant and that “real-time testing to identify rare, non-omicron variants is not routinely available.”

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Re the part in bold: that is irrelevant for the purpose of ascertaining if one is more likely to die from kung flu if that one is vaccinated or not.

I find remarkable you have nothing to say about the different lethality rates from covid in vaccinated or no vaccinated.

If your major, and apparently only, concern is keeping the hospitals empty, then there is always the Cuomo option, send back to their homes the ones afflicted with the disease, and let them die without making much fuss.

Sloppy on my part, I had already forgotten by evening what i had read in the morning it seems and somehow thought the numbers were about hospitalization rates.. but you're right of course, comparison here was mortality rates.

Both points still stand, though;  if vaccination rates are very high among the elderly and low among the young (as they in many countries are), then lumping all data together can easily make mortality rate of the unvaccinated lower than that of the vaccinated , even when in every single age group individually the opposite is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jmsaari said:

Both points still stand, though;  if vaccination rates are very high among the elderly and low among the young (as they in many countries are), then lumping all data together can easily make mortality rate of the unvaccinated lower than that of the vaccinated , even when in every single age group individually the opposite is true.

You may have a point here, but those rates are "age-standardised", and that should take care of that difference:

Quote

Age standardised hospitalisation and mortality rates are used to allow comparisons of hospitalisation and mortality rates between populations that have different age distributions. The 2013 European Standard Population is used to standardise rates. Age-standardised rates for COVID-19 related hospital admissions are standardised to the 2013 European Standard Population and are adjusted to only include individuals 16 years old and over. For more information see the ONS methods. Denominators used to calculate age-standardised mortality rates are the same as the cases and hospitalisations rate figures and tables described above.

See section 4 of that ONS methods website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jmsaari said:

I saw that term used mostly for the US in the middle of the delta wave, though probably equally valid for any country with large numbers of unvaccinated. 

What that table almost certainly tells us (dont have time now to dig into data to check) is that Scotland likely has very high vaccination rates in the population and among the elderly, and the unvaccinated minority are largely among the younger generations, and for this reason precisely they are NOT having a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

Go serve the crow to those claiming Scots are having a pandemic of the unvaccinated now, if you find any :)

You missed this part from the images above : Age-standardized mortality/hospital.. rate (per 100 000 population)

https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/78

Quote

 

Age-standardized mortality rate (per 100 000 population)

Rationale:

The numbers of deaths per 100 000 population are influenced by the age distribution of the population. Two populations with the same age-specific mortality rates for a particular cause of death will have different overall death rates if the age distributions of their populations are different. Age-standardized mortality rates adjust for differences in the age distribution of the population by applying the observed age-specific mortality rates for each population to a standard population.

 

Obviously is not perfect and with a confidence interval of 95% but it is an indicator.  

 

Edit: oops, i was answered to the post above and had not reloaded the thread to see the new posts.

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jmsaari said:

I wasn't referring to errors due to small samples, but

1) the fact that when big enough majority is vaccinated, the vaccinated will eventually outnumber the unvaccinated in hospitals unless the vaccine is 100% effective, and

 

Rate per X Number (Million, 100,000, etc) is a ratio. It cares not for your total counts at all. You have to have a good sample size but that's a different argument. 

If 5 out of 10 is the number for metric , that's workable as 1 in 2 as well. Or 50 in 100. 

This is basically fractions. Maybe this doesn't translate for the metric folks not used to converting fractions? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we really are in a simulation, we'll know that the simulation is winking at us if the next COVID variant, pi, is detected on March 14.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

And, as is written in one comment, the hiatus between the actual jab and the status change from double to triple jabbed could play a role:

Quote

t is also important to note that the boosted have very low rates because of the statistical malpractice of not counting them as such until two weeks after the shot. (El Gato Malo among others has some posts on it.)

On one foot, what happens is that a boosted individual gets sick before the 2 week mark, he is counted as "unboosted", skewing the results - making vaxxed, but not boosted looking worse, and those who are boosted better. This is especially true with very high infection rates, when a large proportion of people gets sick within those 2 weeks.

[Actually, I just saw a similar comment already made, but still keeping this one]

 

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I enjoy the dueling of the statistics I frankly happy to see the data emerge that for all the hysteria Covid-19 is just a dangerous virus.  Prior infection does provide significant immunity and with the new variant it appears that it is at least as protective as the vaccine which is designed to mimic an infection and create those same antibodies.  That's how this sh*t works and the truly infuriating thing is how many scientists and physicians who should have (and I'd bet real money actually did) known better behaved as if they didn't.  Including our employees that run the agencies each of our country has to keep us safe and provide sound medical guidance.  This is virology 101 and yet the experts who have been trained in this stuff pretended this situation was unique and altered all of our lives based on that.  This isn't me trying to be funny or hyperbolic; I cannot describe how crushed I am that the scientific community I believed in has such politicized feet of clay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nitflegal said:

  Prior infection does provide significant immunity and with the new variant it appears that it is at least as protective as the vaccine which is designed to mimic an infection and create those same antibodies.  That's how this sh*t works..

And yet I was told on this very board by some of the 'experts' that I and others making assertions about naturally acquired immunity, we were all wrong on this point. Infection clearance didn't matter. Immunity didn't exist unless you were vaccinated. Now that seems to be entirely the opposite. 



 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 5:28 PM, Angrybk said:

You’re responding to a guy who won’t get vaccinated because he thinks he maybe already got Covid. 

So....what does the medical literature say now about natural immunity? The CDC got cornered on this. They admitted that they have ZERO evidence of anyone having had covid more than once. So, Natural immunity, does it last? It appears to last LONGER than the vaccinations. Or the boosters. 


The Emory Study I referenced earlier
https://thefdrlst.wpengine.com/2021/07/26/study-recovered-covid-19-patients-possess-robust-immunity-to-virus/


Washington University
AntiSpike IgG antibodies last 11 months in appreciable levels. 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4

Cleveland Clinic
Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...the stupidest post about Natural Immunity. Still think it's stupid? What about the aspect of the excess deaths due to failure of medical professionals to teat the patients before they're severe? Does that fit into your calculus of concern over deaths? 

You know the saying that "if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid"? Do you need a better example? 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Of course Reuters is fact checking this as false. They have some reports, but they can't say who they are for privacy concerns. 

😐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sunday said:

Interesting verging on damning, methinks.

This vindicates the Great Barrington people even more. 

The good doctor has defended "the drug that shall not be mentioned" a bunch of times and has had several candid discussions on vaccine adverse reactions.  I wonder how close he is to being booted by Youtube.

Edited by Mikel2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

This vindicates the Great Barrington people even more. 

The good doctor has defended "the drug that shall not be mentioned" a bunch of times too.  I wonder how close he is to being booted by Youtube.

Indeed.

Do you recall when back about the beginnings of 2020 one could have a video deleted from YT only because there was a mention of the Wuhan flu? Channels devoted to computer review and news had to be very careful when mentioning some causes of the chip shortage, like lockdowns in Taiwan because "human malware".

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...