Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

The big Coronavirus thread

1117711781180118211831215

Posts

  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 8,075

    I must admit that this thought crossed my mind too. Normalise high figures so that they just become part of news noise.

    Definitely trying to define 50k deaths a year as low. I still don't see the massive down side of masks. If it helps keep pubs and theatres open, all upside, I'd say.

    The other upside of masks is it reminds people that there's still a pandemic.

    Ah, I see why the government doesn't like them.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 21,014

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 17,157
    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    100% of people* have not had Covid. Ergo Covid does not exist.**

    *Context being, in my household.
    **Patently incorrect.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,951
    I think part of the misunderstanding with vaccines is that with most things we are routinely vaccinated against the vaccines have been around for a few generations and that has reduced the prevalence of the vaccine in question. The Covid jabs have been around for 12 months. Considering the amount of time spent in development I think they've been remarkably successful, as has the delivery programme. The big problem is still those that refuse to have the jab and an element of complacency that seems to have allowed the early work to have been undone a bit.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,532
    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 21,014
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
    Wasn't remotely arguing that vaccines are ineffective; just against quoting figures without the context that you have added.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
    Wasn't remotely arguing that vaccines are ineffective; just against quoting figures without the context that you have added.
    TBF I did post a link to the stats in a later post.
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 7,654
    edited 21 October
    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
    Wasn't remotely arguing that vaccines are ineffective; just against quoting figures without the context that you have added.
    Still doesn't quite make sense to me. There is a study out today that says risk of death reduces by 90% with vaccination. And the risk of getting it in the first place is guestimated to be reduced to about 60%.

    So since about 70% of the population has been fully vaccinated, roughly you'd expect about 4% of deaths in the fully vaccinated, if the vaccination rates were flat across all age ranges.

    However, they aren't, they are skewed towards the older age groups, which should mean fully vaccinated deaths make up a much higher percentage of overall Covid deaths at the moment.

    I don't believe the 1% figure is right, basically, or more that it is 1% of something else.

    (But would be happy to be wrong)
  • NcovidiusNcovidius Posts: 191
    Jezyboy said:

    You all seem really down on the vaccine, and to be honest, I'm not really sure why.

    Because it's not really as effective as we'd like it to be?

    I do think the scary graphs are presented without context though, we've had months of close to normality without terrifying levels of death, and all that seems to be thanks to the vaccine.
    The vaccines were originally touted as “they are very likely to prevent infection” well that didn’t age well. Then it was “well they don’t stop you getting infected, but they will prevent infections translating to hospitalisations” ohh dear, another swing and a miss there then. Now it’s “yeahbut hospitalisations aren’t translating to deaths” Well let’s hope it’s third time lucky then eh? I was happy to have both my vaccinations earlier in the year, purely to allow me to access an event earlier in the year. I’m really not sold on them though. There has never been a successful ( by most people’s measure of ‘successful’) vaccine for a human Coronavirus, what makes them think they’ve got it ( usefully) more bang on this time?

  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,396
    Plan B now seems to be quite likely - there are certainly elements of that such as mask wearing that don't seem to be a huge imposition.

    Some talk also of plan C - a weak lock down - limiting social mixing in some ways.

    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,532

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
    Wasn't remotely arguing that vaccines are ineffective; just against quoting figures without the context that you have added.
    Still doesn't quite make sense to me. There is a study out today that says risk of death reduces by 90% with vaccination. And the risk of getting it in the first place is guestimated to be reduced to about 60%.

    So since about 70% of the population has been fully vaccinated, roughly you'd expect about 4% of deaths in the fully vaccinated, if the vaccination rates were flat across all age ranges.

    However, they aren't, they are skewed towards the older age groups, which should mean fully vaccinated deaths make up a much higher percentage of overall Covid deaths at the moment.

    I don't believe the 1% figure is right, basically, or more that it is 1% of something else.

    (But would be happy to be wrong)
    I think the biggest issue is that at 40 I was only getting offered vaccines in June/July. This will be impacting the figures somewhat. As essentially only the over 50-60s would probably have had both jabs by may onwards. This is all guesswork though.
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 7,654
    Ncovidius said:

    Jezyboy said:

    You all seem really down on the vaccine, and to be honest, I'm not really sure why.

    Because it's not really as effective as we'd like it to be?

    I do think the scary graphs are presented without context though, we've had months of close to normality without terrifying levels of death, and all that seems to be thanks to the vaccine.
    The vaccines were originally touted as “they are very likely to prevent infection” well that didn’t age well. Then it was “well they don’t stop you getting infected, but they will prevent infections translating to hospitalisations” ohh dear, another swing and a miss there then. Now it’s “yeahbut hospitalisations aren’t translating to deaths” Well let’s hope it’s third time lucky then eh? I was happy to have both my vaccinations earlier in the year, purely to allow me to access an event earlier in the year. I’m really not sold on them though. There has never been a successful ( by most people’s measure of ‘successful’) vaccine for a human Coronavirus, what makes them think they’ve got it ( usefully) more bang on this time?

    There has never been a Coronavirus vaccine of any kind before 2021. Except the trial versions for MERS. Not sure why you would therefore reason that something brand new will not be any different to before it existed. It would be like reasoning that an aircraft will be just about as fast as walking.

    These vaccines do reduce risk of infections, but not by as much as hoped. The risk of actual symptoms is indeed greatly reduced, but this means the risk of transmission while the infection is being eliminated from the upper airway is not reduced as much as hoped. So it can transit within a vaccinated population.

    I'm reading wildly different numbers on all of this, I think because journalists are a bit lax when it comes to deleting words such as "serious" from in front of the word "infection".
  • JezyboyJezyboy Posts: 1,076
    Ncovidius said:

    Jezyboy said:

    You all seem really down on the vaccine, and to be honest, I'm not really sure why.

    Because it's not really as effective as we'd like it to be?

    I do think the scary graphs are presented without context though, we've had months of close to normality without terrifying levels of death, and all that seems to be thanks to the vaccine.
    The vaccines were originally touted as “they are very likely to prevent infection” well that didn’t age well. Then it was “well they don’t stop you getting infected, but they will prevent infections translating to hospitalisations” ohh dear, another swing and a miss there then. Now it’s “yeahbut hospitalisations aren’t translating to deaths” Well let’s hope it’s third time lucky then eh? I was happy to have both my vaccinations earlier in the year, purely to allow me to access an event earlier in the year. I’m really not sold on them though. There has never been a successful ( by most people’s measure of ‘successful’) vaccine for a human Coronavirus, what makes them think they’ve got it ( usefully) more bang on this time?

    Unless you lack the ability to read graphs, it's pretty plain that the with vaccine scenario is many times better than the without scenario.

    It's just that it appears that, possibly, it's not quite good enough not to have some jitters over winter.



  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 21,014

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think I heard on the news earlier that 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated? If so surely that shows how successful the vaccine has been.

    That would be remarkable - is that right?
    It didn't sound right to me but sure that's what was said. It was GMB though :D
    Stats with no context are meaningless.
    The link posted to the ones statistics is pretty clear. Between 2 Jan and 2 of July 52281 people died from covid. Only 650 were double vaccinated and got covid fourteen days after the second jab. This is about 1.22%. the evidence is pretty clear that if you want to live get vaccinated. I will point out that many of those without the vaccine in this time frame probably were not eligible at the time due to roll out. The antivaxers should probably have a long hard think about those numbers.
    Wasn't remotely arguing that vaccines are ineffective; just against quoting figures without the context that you have added.
    Still doesn't quite make sense to me. There is a study out today that says risk of death reduces by 90% with vaccination. And the risk of getting it in the first place is guestimated to be reduced to about 60%.

    So since about 70% of the population has been fully vaccinated, roughly you'd expect about 4% of deaths in the fully vaccinated, if the vaccination rates were flat across all age ranges.

    However, they aren't, they are skewed towards the older age groups, which should mean fully vaccinated deaths make up a much higher percentage of overall Covid deaths at the moment.

    I don't believe the 1% figure is right, basically, or more that it is 1% of something else.

    (But would be happy to be wrong)
    I think the Ed Conway thread posted previously covers this. There are more fully vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated in the most recent period. Almost all in the over 60s. But the vaccinated outnumber the unvaccinated so significantly in this group that the estimated CFR for vaccinated over 60 is still significantly lower than the CFR for unvaccinated over 60.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • focuszing723focuszing723 Posts: 2,648
    This thread is bigger than big now, it's global. Surely it deserves to be renamed "The Pandemic Coronavirus Thread"?

    Breath through your nose!
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 8,075

    This thread is bigger than big now, it's global. Surely it deserves to be renamed "The Pandemic Coronavirus Thread"?

    Breath through your nose!


    Does it help to talk through one's ärse too? Asking for a friend...
  • JezyboyJezyboy Posts: 1,076

  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 9,138
    ^ The entitled, rich and privileged don't catch Covid, it only affects the poor vassal scrotes. Oh hang on, wasn't Spaffer hospitalised last year?
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 8,075
    There's some optimism here, and a possible explanation for why London looks better at the moment than most of the country:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/21/deep-within-the-uks-shocking-covid-data-there-may-be-reasons-for-optimism

    In London, fresh cases of Covid are barely increasing, suggesting the capital may be close to a peak – at least for now. In the south-west, where immunity in children is thought to have been much lower before schools went back, cases are rising fast. If herd immunity starts to drive cases down, it will happen city by city, region by region, not in a coordinated wave across the UK. As ever, other factors muddy the waters, not least mixing patterns among adults. In London, for example, home-working rates are far higher than in many other places, keeping exposure levels down.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 14,399
    London has a lower level of vaccinations as well.

    I'm not shocked by the data given it was forecast in July. Even Australia and NZ are starting to accept that, at some point, they will need to allow the virus to spread.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 23,358
    orraloon said:

    ^ The entitled, rich and privileged don't catch Covid, it only affects the poor vassal scrotes. Oh hang on, wasn't Spaffer hospitalised last year?

    Do you remember when we all thought it would make him take it seriously..?

    lol
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 9,096
    Jezyboy said:


    WHAT A CLINT
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,951
    Jezyboy said:

    Ncovidius said:

    Jezyboy said:

    You all seem really down on the vaccine, and to be honest, I'm not really sure why.

    Because it's not really as effective as we'd like it to be?

    I do think the scary graphs are presented without context though, we've had months of close to normality without terrifying levels of death, and all that seems to be thanks to the vaccine.
    The vaccines were originally touted as “they are very likely to prevent infection” well that didn’t age well. Then it was “well they don’t stop you getting infected, but they will prevent infections translating to hospitalisations” ohh dear, another swing and a miss there then. Now it’s “yeahbut hospitalisations aren’t translating to deaths” Well let’s hope it’s third time lucky then eh? I was happy to have both my vaccinations earlier in the year, purely to allow me to access an event earlier in the year. I’m really not sold on them though. There has never been a successful ( by most people’s measure of ‘successful’) vaccine for a human Coronavirus, what makes them think they’ve got it ( usefully) more bang on this time?

    Unless you lack the ability to read graphs, it's pretty plain that the with vaccine scenario is many times better than the without scenario.

    It's just that it appears that, possibly, it's not quite good enough not to have some jitters over winter.



    The ability to read anything would be welcome progression.
  • mully79mully79 Posts: 516
    It would be nice if we could have some facts nearly 2 years on instead of cherry picked stats to force Uk project fear.

    Last time I looked (month or so ago) Uk was fairly close to USA and France in tests per million population. Now we're double both of those with 4.7 million tests per million population and no other similarly populated country is anywhere near.
  • joe2019joe2019 Posts: 1,264
    Ben6899 said:

    Jezyboy said:


    WHAT A CLINT

    But what he says makes sense.

  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 24,810 Lives Here
    joe2019 said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Jezyboy said:


    WHAT A CLINT

    But what he says makes sense.

    That's very telling
  • joe2019joe2019 Posts: 1,264
    Jezyboy said:

    It does make sense? That's a relief, it's good news that knowing each other offers some protection against viral transmission, means we don't have to worry about schools.


    In as much as that they are following the guideline about the wearing of masks in the workplace, then yes it does make sense.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 17,157
    edited 22 October
    joe2019 said:

    Jezyboy said:

    It does make sense? That's a relief, it's good news that knowing each other offers some protection against viral transmission, means we don't have to worry about schools.


    In as much as that they are following the guideline about the wearing of masks in the workplace, then yes it does make sense.
    Except that the guidelines are confusing, as usual. What is reported is -

    "Conservative MPs don't need to wear masks during debates because they know each other, Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.
    The Commons leader said the party's "convivial, fraternal spirit" meant they were acting in line with government Covid guidance.
    This guidance says people in England should cover their faces around "people you don't normally meet"."

    Bold bit for relevant to this point. Italics for the bit that seems illogical.
    Apparently you only catch covid from people you don't usually meet. 🤔
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 9,138
    Does anyone, outwith the hardcore Toryfanboi club, which seems rather subdued on here recently, expect any logical common sense from Grease-Smug?
Sign In or Register to comment.