CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
cymatty said:
That ignores population size. It's more like 9x reduction
Yeah but why do I need worry about population size? I'm not considering whether the vaccine impacts my chances of getting it.
To me the vax is only about, "if I get Covid, will the vaccine keep me out of hospital, or keep me alive." i.e. will it reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised or worse?
Thus the "hospitalisation rate" for want of a better description, for unvax'd versus vax'd people who have actually got Covid is in orange above (for under 50s) and really shows no meaningful difference between the two groups...
Andy888 said:
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
...
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
That doesn't seem unlikely. The absolute risk reductions are quite small because the absolute risks are not that great, e.g....
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
"Pfizer/BioNTech - relative risk reduction, 95.1%; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79965...
grumbledoak said:
Andy888 said:
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
...
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
That doesn't seem unlikely. The absolute risk reductions are quite small because the absolute risks are not that great, e.g....
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
"Pfizer/BioNTech - relative risk reduction, 95.1%; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79965...
isaldiri said:
johnboy1975 said:
Edit: the reason Delta did do well against Alpha was (at least partly) due to the vaccine blocking Alpha. So in fact, the fault of Delta being prevalent lies partly with the strategy of trying to vaccinate everyone. If we had opened up when the vunerable were jabbed and Alpha was still knocking about in numbers, Alpha could have gone through the non vunerable, whilst the vunerable were actually protected (from infection) by the vaccine. (Not sure if the timelines correlate, and maybe Delta with its alleged higher R0 might have prevailed in any case)
Not entirely sure b1617.2 has achieved that due to vaccine escape capability tbh. Most of the early infections were amongst younger people who would not have been vaccinated. even now, infection rates are higher in those that have 1 dose or less than the double vaxxed people. I think it's a combination of possibly some intrinsic increase in transmissibility that is mixed up with less obvious/different symptoms (a much greater factor I'd suspect) that has caused that difference in transmissibility than immune escape. As I have said, although R0 of 6-7 regularly gets bandied around for the current variant, the rates of transmission amongst the unvaccinated cohorts have absolutely not in any way suggested it is actually a virus of that level of transmissibility as it never seems to have gone much above Rt of 2 irrespective of vaccine status of cohort. unless rule of 6 and the mish mash of tier 3 restrictions were marvellously effective in stopping transmission (in which case that makes the lockdowns especially stupid) that has reduced a R0 ~ 6 virus down to < 2 even amongst unvaccinated people, I still think the earlier claims of 50% more of a prior supposedly 50% increased transmissibility variant is an exceptionally crude way of estimating what B1617.2 actually has as a 'true' R0.
I agree- I can't see many of the restrictions having much of an effect, certainly not to take 6/7 down to 1.5.
Maybe short term sterilising immunity is providing a partial block to the rampant spread of Delta?
Its got some sort of advantage (clearly), I still think its a bit more transmissible. And the vaccine evading properties certainly help
Which would indicate Autumn will be very high cases, if 55m are susceptible to Delta, and what little sterilising immunity wanes further. Football back (70k in old Trafford, plus the pubs, plus the mingling in houses) in 3 weeks. Schools and Unis back
Equally, it says to me July 19th was far too late. All we have done is seed the autumn wave
Andy888 said:
Yeah but why do I need worry about population size?
I'm not considering whether the vaccine impacts my chances of getting it.
To me the vax is only about, "if I get Covid, will the vaccine keep me out of hospital, or keep me alive." i.e. will it reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised or worse?
Thus the "hospitalisation rate" for want of a better description, for unvax'd versus vax'd people who have actually got Covid is in orange above (for under 50s) and really shows no meaningful difference between the two groups...
Ah that makes sense, still seems an odd way to look at it unless you think you will get covid either way, some of the vax benefit is reduction in chance of getting covid in the first place.I'm not considering whether the vaccine impacts my chances of getting it.
To me the vax is only about, "if I get Covid, will the vaccine keep me out of hospital, or keep me alive." i.e. will it reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised or worse?
Thus the "hospitalisation rate" for want of a better description, for unvax'd versus vax'd people who have actually got Covid is in orange above (for under 50s) and really shows no meaningful difference between the two groups...
If it reduces the risk in you getting it by 80% surely that has to be fed into the risk reduction as if you don't get covid you will not be hospitalised.
cymatty said:
Andy888 said:
Yeah but why do I need worry about population size?
I'm not considering whether the vaccine impacts my chances of getting it.
To me the vax is only about, "if I get Covid, will the vaccine keep me out of hospital, or keep me alive." i.e. will it reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised or worse?
Thus the "hospitalisation rate" for want of a better description, for unvax'd versus vax'd people who have actually got Covid is in orange above (for under 50s) and really shows no meaningful difference between the two groups...
Ah that makes sense, still seems an odd way to look at it unless you think you will get covid either way, some of the vax benefit is reduction in chance of getting covid in the first place.I'm not considering whether the vaccine impacts my chances of getting it.
To me the vax is only about, "if I get Covid, will the vaccine keep me out of hospital, or keep me alive." i.e. will it reduce the likelihood of being hospitalised or worse?
Thus the "hospitalisation rate" for want of a better description, for unvax'd versus vax'd people who have actually got Covid is in orange above (for under 50s) and really shows no meaningful difference between the two groups...
And yes, in my mind I will get it at some point, irrespective of vax or not. And there seems to be stuff appearing now that would indicate it's not as good as hoped at stopping transmission, but that's neither here nor there.
Personally speaking I have paid scant regard to rules for 16 months and have managed to avoid it thus far, or not noticed it. So yes, I'm really only interested in whether it'll keep me from being properly sick or dead. And atm there doesn't look to be much advantage.
johnboy1975 said:
Good points....
I agree- I can't see many of the restrictions having much of an effect, certainly not to take 6/7 down to 1.5.
Maybe short term sterilising immunity is providing a partial block to the rampant spread of Delta?
Its got some sort of advantage (clearly), I still think its a bit more transmissible. And the vaccine evading properties certainly help
Which would indicate Autumn will be very high cases, if 55m are susceptible to Delta, and what little sterilising immunity wanes further. Football back (70k in old Trafford, plus the pubs, plus the mingling in houses) in 3 weeks. Schools and Unis back
Equally, it says to me July 19th was far too late. All we have done is seed the autumn wave
And those 70,000 vaccinated football fans will be able to spread Covid asymptomatically between themselves, increasing the chance of vaccine busting variants emerging. I agree- I can't see many of the restrictions having much of an effect, certainly not to take 6/7 down to 1.5.
Maybe short term sterilising immunity is providing a partial block to the rampant spread of Delta?
Its got some sort of advantage (clearly), I still think its a bit more transmissible. And the vaccine evading properties certainly help
Which would indicate Autumn will be very high cases, if 55m are susceptible to Delta, and what little sterilising immunity wanes further. Football back (70k in old Trafford, plus the pubs, plus the mingling in houses) in 3 weeks. Schools and Unis back
Equally, it says to me July 19th was far too late. All we have done is seed the autumn wave
scottyp123 said:
skwdenyer said:
Let's play this out from a scientific perspective.
Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
Its all iff's and maybe's though, in any given year the flu virus could have mutated into a mass killer of everyone but we never decided to vaccinate the whole planet just in case.Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
What about a killer asteroid, its possible one could be hurtling towards us right now big enough to wipe our whole country out, it could be a matter of days away for all anyone knows, why are we not building massive underground bunkers to sustain life just in case?
Much more of this stuff I'll be checking out. Pretty much done
Andy888 said:
grumbledoak said:
Andy888 said:
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
...
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
That doesn't seem unlikely. The absolute risk reductions are quite small because the absolute risks are not that great, e.g....
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
"Pfizer/BioNTech - relative risk reduction, 95.1%; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79965...
Unfortunately this is what happens when the anti-science crew keep steam-rolling the thread with nonsense, the good stuff gets lost.
A scary NEW variant is thought to be behind todays RISE in cases.
Speaking from the bulls
t bunker Professor Neil Ferguson said "what can I say. I told you that we were not out of the woods and some can't see the forest for the trees. I can be right even when I'm wrong but I will remain strong and resolute."
The distinguished top notch scientist added that "It's clear that this new variant is possibly probably a more virulently viral variant of the deviously inclined variant that took us all by surprise last week as I urged caution whilst pontificating we may be over the worst of it"
When questioned about the ability of the vaccine to cope the professor raised the idea that paying to have a double mixed jab of various vaccines one in the arm and one in the left buttock may be the way foreward.
Speaking from the bulls
t bunker Professor Neil Ferguson said "what can I say. I told you that we were not out of the woods and some can't see the forest for the trees. I can be right even when I'm wrong but I will remain strong and resolute."The distinguished top notch scientist added that "It's clear that this new variant is possibly probably a more virulently viral variant of the deviously inclined variant that took us all by surprise last week as I urged caution whilst pontificating we may be over the worst of it"
When questioned about the ability of the vaccine to cope the professor raised the idea that paying to have a double mixed jab of various vaccines one in the arm and one in the left buttock may be the way foreward.
Andy888 said:
Just had another earful from wife about not taking the vaccine. Apparently here in Northern Ireland there are plans afoot to start winding down the vax programme.
To me, all the press around this reads very much like typical marketing patter - restrict the access and create some urgency in order to sell more!
Anyway, then it came - majority of those in ICU are un-vaxed, under 40s.
Now maybe I've missed it, but where exactly is the data that shows the vax/unvax split of those in hospitals? It seems to be all over the press but I can't actually find any source data showing same...
Our local news was playing the same tune. Apparently everyone in ICU is unvaccinated and 40% are under 45 or something. Like you say, try and get this data quantified, you can’t. To me, all the press around this reads very much like typical marketing patter - restrict the access and create some urgency in order to sell more!
Anyway, then it came - majority of those in ICU are un-vaxed, under 40s.
Now maybe I've missed it, but where exactly is the data that shows the vax/unvax split of those in hospitals? It seems to be all over the press but I can't actually find any source data showing same...
Carl_Manchester said:
Andy888 said:
grumbledoak said:
Andy888 said:
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
...
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
That doesn't seem unlikely. The absolute risk reductions are quite small because the absolute risks are not that great, e.g....
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
"Pfizer/BioNTech - relative risk reduction, 95.1%; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79965...
Unfortunately this is what happens when the anti-science crew keep steam-rolling the thread with nonsense, the good stuff gets lost.
APontus said:
Andy888 said:
Except Israel are now saying Pfizer is supposedly only 39% effective! Ah sure!
Different regions may see different efficacy at different times depending on the local strains' ability to overcome the vaccines. https://www.jpost.com/%20israel-pfizer-news/is-isr...
APontus said:
Different regions may see different efficacy at different times depending on the local strains' ability to overcome the vaccines.
The truth seems close to that.https://mobile.twitter.com/dvir_a/status/142005912...
cymatty said:
Reading that thread, it seems eerily close to what Geert Vanden Bossche was predicting back in May. With mass vaccination the virus becomes more infectious and is spread asymptomatically amongst the vaccinated. This then begins to affect the unvaccinated who are more likely to become infected and suffer illness (the Twitter thread asks why it switched to the unvaccinated- this may be why). His prediction is then that the virus will further mutate and become vaccine resistant, at which point the vaccinated will be most at risk (as they will be reliant on the now ineffective vaccine antibodies, whilst the unvaccinated will be able to create their own ones that are specific to the new strain). Scary stuff.
APontus said:
cymatty said:
Reading that thread, it seems eerily close to what Geert Vanden Bossche was predicting back in May. With mass vaccination the virus becomes more infectious and is spread asymptomatically amongst the vaccinated. This then begins to affect the unvaccinated who are more likely to become infected and suffer illness (the Twitter thread asks why it switched to the unvaccinated- this may be why). His prediction is then that the virus will further mutate and become vaccine resistant, at which point the vaccinated will be most at risk (as they will be reliant on the now ineffective vaccine antibodies, whilst the unvaccinated will be able to create their own ones that are specific to the new strain). Scary stuff.
APontus said:
Reading that thread, it seems eerily close to what Geert Vanden Bossche was predicting back in May. With mass vaccination the virus becomes more infectious and is spread asymptomatically amongst the vaccinated. This then begins to affect the unvaccinated who are more likely to become infected and suffer illness (the Twitter thread asks why it switched to the unvaccinated- this may be why). His prediction is then that the virus will further mutate and become vaccine resistant, at which point the vaccinated will be most at risk (as they will be reliant on the now ineffective vaccine antibodies, whilst the unvaccinated will be able to create their own ones that are specific to the new strain).
Scary stuff.
No it bloody well doesn't for goodness sake. your continued insistence in 'vaccine resistant mutants' etc is so far utterly irrational and pointlessly scaremongering.Scary stuff.
The PHE and Israel data is very clear on this - efficacy vs severe illness and death remains extremely high. A lot of various studies irrespective of variant (and including the SA variant thought to be the most immune escape variant) has clearly shown t cell and neutralising antibodies being effective such that said severe illness is very considerably reduced. That is ultimately the medical end point that should be the measure of success rather than symptomatic illness.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff