How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
FiF said:
Interesting that ONS are reporting that the % of people positive for antibodies is significantly higher than the modelling prediction which was behind the June 21 plan.
44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
45% of the UK population had had their 1st jab on 27th March, so I don’t believe this 44.6% was predicted by Imperial.44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
CarlosFandango11 said:
FiF said:
Interesting that ONS are reporting that the % of people positive for antibodies is significantly higher than the modelling prediction which was behind the June 21 plan.
44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
45% of the UK population had had their 1st jab on 27th March, so I don’t believe this 44.6% was predicted by Imperial.44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
August (2.0M thereafter), only 44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease
(due to vaccination or recovery from infection) by 21 June ‘21 when NPIs are due to be lifted
From Imperial College London Evaluating England's Roadmap out of Lockdown March 2021
Source:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975910/S1183_SPI-M_Imperial_College_London_Evaluating_England_s_Roadmap_out_of_Lockdown.pdf
FiF said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
FiF said:
Interesting that ONS are reporting that the % of people positive for antibodies is significantly higher than the modelling prediction which was behind the June 21 plan.
44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
45% of the UK population had had their 1st jab on 27th March, so I don’t believe this 44.6% was predicted by Imperial.44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
August (2.0M thereafter), only 44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease
(due to vaccination or recovery from infection) by 21 June ‘21 when NPIs are due to be lifted
From Imperial College London Evaluating England's Roadmap out of Lockdown March 2021
Source:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975910/S1183_SPI-M_Imperial_College_London_Evaluating_England_s_Roadmap_out_of_Lockdown.pdf
isaldiri said:
But it's not just government comms that are the problem but how they are actually behaving. Saying no zerocovid is all and good but if politicians freak out every time there is a new outbreak and try 'something' to suppress cases, how is that not attempting what they are claiming they are not? Which I think was part of NRS's point earlier.
Yeap, that's spot on what I am thinking.Edited by isaldiri on Wednesday 23 June 08:23
CarlosFandango11 said:
FiF said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
FiF said:
Interesting that ONS are reporting that the % of people positive for antibodies is significantly higher than the modelling prediction which was behind the June 21 plan.
44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
45% of the UK population had had their 1st jab on 27th March, so I don’t believe this 44.6% was predicted by Imperial.44.6% predicted (Imperial College) of the entire population including children, actual based on testing 80% adults over 16, almost 70% if you include children in the figures.
Certainly our recent tests have all come back positive incl daughter who has only had one jab so far.
Usual caveats, yes presence antibodies doesn't mean can't catch it, depends which population figures you're using as sources vary, via bla bla.
Locally in other news someone has just hacked down a new 5G mast which has also done collateral damage to nearby property. :shakeshead:
August (2.0M thereafter), only 44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease
(due to vaccination or recovery from infection) by 21 June ‘21 when NPIs are due to be lifted
From Imperial College London Evaluating England's Roadmap out of Lockdown March 2021
Source:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975910/S1183_SPI-M_Imperial_College_London_Evaluating_England_s_Roadmap_out_of_Lockdown.pdf
NRS said:
I'd hazard a pretty good measure of severe disease is one that sticks you in hospital. So if you take the number of people jabbed and look at how many of them end up in hospital I suspect it's a *little* less than 55.4% of them?
Taking the number of people jabbed and looking at how many of them end up in hospital doesn’t give you the % of the population who aren’t protected against severe disease….CarlosFandango11 said:
NRS said:
I'd hazard a pretty good measure of severe disease is one that sticks you in hospital. So if you take the number of people jabbed and look at how many of them end up in hospital I suspect it's a *little* less than 55.4% of them?
Taking the number of people jabbed and looking at how many of them end up in hospital doesn’t give you the % of the population who aren’t protected against severe disease….If not that then how do you define being protected against severe disease? I'd personally think those infected and who didn't have severe disease is a pretty accurate measure...
NRS said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
NRS said:
I'd hazard a pretty good measure of severe disease is one that sticks you in hospital. So if you take the number of people jabbed and look at how many of them end up in hospital I suspect it's a *little* less than 55.4% of them?
Taking the number of people jabbed and looking at how many of them end up in hospital doesn’t give you the % of the population who aren’t protected against severe disease….If not that then how do you define being protected against severe disease? I'd personally think those infected and who didn't have severe disease is a pretty accurate measure...
The quote from Imperial mentions “44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease (due to vaccination or recovery from infection)”. I think that their definition is along the lines of the chance of someone infected in today’s population of being hospitalised compared to that of someone from the population who got infected back when there was no immunity/protection.
I would theoretically calculate the % of the population with protection against severe disease along the lines of:
1) You have a population of a suitably large number of people, say x, all with no immunity/protection (vaccination or prior infection), who are all infected with COVID, and count how many of them get hospitalised, say y people.
2) Then take a large number of new recent cases, say a, and again count how many of them get hospitalised, say b people.
3) Current protection against severe disease = 1-(b/a)/(y/x)
I’m sure there lots of other stuff to worry about, like criteria for hospitalisation & testing changing over time and getting data.
Edited by CarlosFandango11 on Thursday 24th June 19:10
Matty3 said:
Best of luck to you jabbed peeps. 3 folk I know were admitted to hospital within 3 days of their first jab, dont know one person who has been admitted with 'first degree' Covid of whatever mutation. Delaying my jabbing until it is approved in 2023, think I will pass even then.
Presumably you expect to enjoy the benefits of 80% of the population being jabbed?Matty3 said:
abzmike said:
Matty3 said:
Best of luck to you jabbed peeps. 3 folk I know were admitted to hospital within 3 days of their first jab, dont know one person who has been admitted with 'first degree' Covid of whatever mutation. Delaying my jabbing until it is approved in 2023, think I will pass even then.
Presumably you expect to enjoy the benefits of 80% of the population being jabbed?You really do need to research the facts.
abzmike said:
Err… fewer people being admitted to hospital and dying for a start. But you and those of your ilk informed by Facebook will never be convinced so there is no point trying here. Just let the rest us build up the herd and vaccine induced immunity and let you get back to your normal cosy life.
A bit like this time last year then?
The vaccine works in preventing serious illness and hospitalization of those who are very likely to end up in hospital which is good news.
If one looks at the average age of those who were ending up in hospital and sadly dying, it is pretty clear that it was not the younger people. The old and vulnerable have by in ,argue been double vaccinated and are therefore not going to hospital in the numbers they were before.
The young people who caught the virus did not end up in hospital - the stats clearly show that - there was a graph showing the age spread of those with a positive test against the age of those dying.
IIRC it showed that more positive tests were in the young with a very low death rate and lower number of positive tests in the older ranges (over 65?) but far far more deaths.
To my mind, that clearly shows that the younger ones do not need a vaccine to prevent hospitalization because even if they get the virus, which appears to have mutated into a less serious form, they were bone er going to end up in hospital.
And getting the virus, will give immunity as well, if not better, than the vaccine.
The focus on all getting vaccinated, is IMO, now not required - the vulnerable are protected.
If one looks at the average age of those who were ending up in hospital and sadly dying, it is pretty clear that it was not the younger people. The old and vulnerable have by in ,argue been double vaccinated and are therefore not going to hospital in the numbers they were before.
The young people who caught the virus did not end up in hospital - the stats clearly show that - there was a graph showing the age spread of those with a positive test against the age of those dying.
IIRC it showed that more positive tests were in the young with a very low death rate and lower number of positive tests in the older ranges (over 65?) but far far more deaths.
To my mind, that clearly shows that the younger ones do not need a vaccine to prevent hospitalization because even if they get the virus, which appears to have mutated into a less serious form, they were bone er going to end up in hospital.
And getting the virus, will give immunity as well, if not better, than the vaccine.
The focus on all getting vaccinated, is IMO, now not required - the vulnerable are protected.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff