The big Coronavirus thread

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.

Pross

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.

john80

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.

skyblueamateur

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.Aspect

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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)

Ncovidius

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome 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?

DeVlaeminck

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.

john80

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.Aspect

Ncovidius said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome 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".

Jezyboy

Ncovidius said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome 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.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

skyblueamateur said:

rick_chasey said:

skyblueamateur 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

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.

focuszing723

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

Breath through your nose!

briantrumpet

focuszing723 said:

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...

Jezyboy

orraloon

^ 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?

briantrumpet

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.

TheBigBean

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.

ddraver

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

Ben6899

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

Pross

Jezyboy said:

Ncovidius said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome 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.

mully79

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.

joe2019

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

Jezyboy

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.

veronese68

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

That's very telling

joe2019

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.

pblakeney

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. 🤔

orraloon

Does anyone, outwith the hardcore Toryfanboi club, which seems rather subdued on here recently, expect any logical common sense from Grease-Smug?

kingstongraham

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.

No it doesn't. Point out the bit that says the advice is to not wear masks when indoors with lots of people.

I assume you are aware that staff in the house of commons have to wear masks?

Pross

orraloon said:

Does anyone, outwith the hardcore Toryfanboi club, which seems rather subdued on here recently, expect any logical common sense from Grease-Smug?

He was on the news this morning happily defending the cost of the restoration works at the Palace of Westminster. Now, I have mixed feelings on this as I think it is a building that needs preserving but at the same time they could build a new facility that is far more fit for purpose, leading by example on modern sustainable building practices and maybe even having some kind of campus allowing MPs to stay onsite with improved security and doing away with a huge chunk of the expenses bill. However, can you imagine him being supportive of Government spending that sort of money on a scheme benefitting the poorest in our society? I really don't understand how even the most die hard Tory voters can bring themselves to elect him.