COVID-19

[Cackalacky2.0]

Interesting data, still won't take the vax though!

Stay strong my man.

 

[sixstar]

It's not age stratified or separated by vax status. It's majorly, majorly confounded.

What is the purpose of the graph? To show vax efficacy? If so, this is a very poor and incorrect way of doing so.

No, this graph is politically motivated, as evidenced by the state colors.

Answer this question: using that graph, how many deaths of each of those states had at least one dose?

 

[sixstar]

Stay strong my man.

He should be dead by now. What's going on!?

 

[TorontoGold]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/980326?reg=1#vp_1

You use a lot of statistical analysis 101 words, but still no studies to support that vaccines aren't effective. At some point the onus is on you to provide backup to your point.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Again, this is the cultural Science/Anti-Science split.
Politics is a secondary issue. ... but fine, get angry about politics --- seems weirdly to translate hatred into strange pleasures.

I, as all know, am an old (retired) science professor, so I have my severe bias against the Anti-Science crowd.

 

[TNUtoNotreDame]

Not anti-science, pro facts. My age range, health factors do not benefit enough for me to inject it. Have at it if you like though! My triple Vax family member just recovered from a awful case, so I will tell them to get booster 4. That'll stop them from getting it a 3rd time. Lol.

 

[sixstar]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/980326?reg=1#vp_1

You use a lot of statistical analysis 101 words, but still no studies to support that vaccines aren't effective. At some point the onus is on you to provide backup to your point.

Okay, here you go. We have to use UK data because CDC doesn't post raw numbers (why not?)

UK Week 10 COVID Data Update

UKHSA 2022 Week 10 Report

hold2.substack.com

Pay attention to the case, hospitalization, and death rate data stratified by age about halfway down.

 

[TorontoGold]

Okay, here you go. We have to use UK data because CDC doesn't post raw numbers (why not?)

UK Week 10 COVID Data Update

UKHSA 2022 Week 10 Report

hold2.substack.com

Pay attention to the case, hospitalization, and death rate data stratified by age about halfway down.

Since your post was from March 2022, first chart regarding cases %. Unvax had higher shares of reported cases than all other vax statuses. Having a higher share of the cases being unvaxxed is.....not good.

 

[ulukinatme]

Using Florida as a barometer for COVID is a bit of cherrypicking. We know that 9 out of 10 COVID deaths are from people 50 and older. Florida's average age is also 6 years higher than other states like New York. It's probably one of the highest destination states for retirement, if not the highest. Regardless they remain #3 in total deaths overall behind California and Texas respectively, which makes sense given the fact Florida is #3 in population among the states. Viruses gonna virus.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Using Florida as a barometer for COVID is a bit of cherrypicking. We know that 9 out of 10 COVID deaths are from people 50 and older. Florida's average age is also 6 years higher than other states like New York. It's probably one of the highest destination states for retirement, if not the highest. Regardless they remain #3 in total deaths overall behind California and Texas respectively, which makes sense given the fact Florida is #3 in population among the states. Viruses gonna virus.

Exactly. The chart, while semi-interesting is nearly useless in providing anything meaningful in which to draw any conclusions. I'm extremely curious what reputable source Cack pulled this information from. The States with the highest overall COVID death counts are almost entirely made up of states with high prevalence of underlying health conditions AND/OR states with higher than typical 65+ individuals.

Here's a map from the NY Times towards the beginning of COVID showing areas of the United States and the levels of underlying health conditions.

There are so many components that would effect COVID death rates that it's hard to draw any concrete conclusions on how effective the vaccines were. Utah doesn't have a great vaccination rate yet they did really well (primarily because they don't have many with underlying health conditions). New Mexico had a high vaccination rate but yet did not do very well.

I again will shout from the mountain tops. Strongly encourage vaccination of those that are most at risk. Even if they are vaccinated, still no certainty because the immune systems of those people are not very robust as well as ongoing mutations.

Everyone else.... I could care less if they get vaccinated or not. We should not be mandating or shaming people into taking the vaccine. Don't even get me started with pushing these vaccines on kids that don't have underlying health conditions.

Countries thinking that they can actually control this virus has proven to be a useless endeavor. As Ulukinatme said, the virus is going to virus. It was always going to take a route towards being endemic.

 

[sixstar]

Since your post was from March 2022, first chart regarding cases %. Unvax had higher shares of reported cases than all other vax statuses. Having a higher share of the cases being unvaxxed is.....not good.

View attachment 3051626

Remember, the UK stopped posting raw data in March 2022 because the stats were looking so bad and government officials decided to stop it. And no other nation provides this raw data, so it's the still one of the best datasets we can use.

And I thought case rates didn't matter, only hospitization and death rates? At least that's what the vax proponents have been saying ever since vaxxed case rates exploded. So which is it?

 

[sixstar]

Toronto, using UK's official numbers, quantitatively show me evidence of vax efficacy:

EDIT: IGNORE GRAPH BELOW - MISTAKENLY POSTED THE INCORRECT FIGURE.

USE THIS FIGURE INSTEAD:

 

[ab2cmiller]

New Zealand reached the 90% vaxed mark back in Dec 2021. Had a ton of restrictions that "seemed" to have COVID under control as they almost entirely avoided COVID. You can guess what happened..... Of course even with doing "everything right" with the Prime Minister insisting on draconian measures, they experienced their very first big COVID wave starting in February 2022. Wave finally got under control by the end of August.

Virus gonna virus.

 

[TorontoGold]

Remember, the UK stopped posting raw data in March 2022 because the stats were looking so bad and government officials decided to stop it. And no other nation provides this raw data, so it's the still one of the best datasets we can use.

And I thought case rates didn't matter, only hospitization and death rates? At least that's what the vax proponents have been saying ever since vaxxed case rates exploded. So which is it?

You know how rate stats work, no?

Unvaxxed people represented a larger proportional share of the COVID cases than what they are represented by in terms of the split between unvaxxed and vaccinated people.

Take a look at this big government conspiracy website - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Why people can't just say "I don't want to take it and I accept the risks of not taking it" instead of just embarrassing themselves. It's like convincing people that actually wearing a helmet on a bike is more problematic than not wearing one. If the vaccine was actually a government ploy to kill us all I'd rather be dead than exist in the horsepaste world post COIVD lmao.

 

[ulukinatme]

You know how rate stats work, no?

Unvaxxed people represented a larger proportional share of the COVID cases than what they are represented by in terms of the split between unvaxxed and vaccinated people.

Take a look at this big government conspiracy website - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Why people can't just say "I don't want to take it and I accept the risks of not taking it" instead of just embarrassing themselves. It's like convincing people that actually wearing a helmet on a bike is more problematic than not wearing one. If the vaccine was actually a government ploy to kill us all I'd rather be dead than exist in the horsepaste world post COIVD lmao.

There are other risks by taking the vaccine in the younger crowd. If you're high risk it certainly makes sense to take the shot, but for the under 40 crowd there's other considerations now:

Florida Department of Health

Protecting, promoting, and improving the health of all people in Florida through integrated state, county, and community efforts.

www.floridahealth.gov

Today, State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has announced new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines. The Florida Department of Health (Department) conducted an

analysis through a

self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety.

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Those with preexisting cardiac conditions, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, should take particular caution when making this decision.

 

[yankeehater]

Again, this is the cultural Science/Anti-Science split.
Politics is a secondary issue. ... but fine, get angry about politics --- seems weirdly to translate hatred into strange pleasures.

I, as all know, am an old (retired) science professor, so I have my severe bias against the Anti-Science crowd.

So, is not getting the jab now considered anti-science?

 

[TorontoGold]

There are other risks by taking the vaccine in the younger crowd. If you're high risk it certainly makes sense to take the shot, but for the under 40 crowd there's other considerations now:

Florida Department of Health

Protecting, promoting, and improving the health of all people in Florida through integrated state, county, and community efforts.

www.floridahealth.gov

Some important context from the study in the article.

Additionally, significant mortality from diagnosed COVID-19 infection occurred among all adult age groups.

This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. We used death certificate data and not medical records. COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID. Cardiac-related deaths were ascertained if an ACME code of I3-I52 were on their death certificate, thus, the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related.

While this method has been used to assess risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination,2 it violates the assumption that an event does not affect subsequent exposure (for mRNA vaccines), which may introduce bias. 6 Further, it does not consider the multidose vaccination schedule required for mRNA vaccination.

 

[sixstar]

You know how rate stats work, no?

Unvaxxed people represented a larger proportional share of the COVID cases than what they are represented by in terms of the split between unvaxxed and vaccinated people.

Take a look at this big government conspiracy website - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Why people can't just say "I don't want to take it and I accept the risks of not taking it" instead of just embarrassing themselves. It's like convincing people that actually wearing a helmet on a bike is more problematic than not wearing one. If the vaccine was actually a government ploy to kill us all I'd rather be dead than exist in the horsepaste world post COIVD lmao.

Whoops - I was posting from my phone and copied the wrong picture. Let's look at the per 100k rates.

And remember - these are UK HSA's official numbers. National COVID data per UK's official Health Security Agency. Remember that the UK HSA stopped posting this after the trends got so bad that they were "encouraging vaccine hesitancy."

Here are my questions. Perhaps you can help me answer them:

1. If the shots are effective, why are cases per 100k higher in vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
2. If the shots are effective, why are hospitalizations per 100k higher in many vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
3. If the shots are effective, why are deaths per 100k higher in most vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
4. Do you remember when "2 shots" was considered the full vaccine course? Why do 2 shots underperform unvax?
5. Does it concern you at all that UK HSA stopped posting these numbers when the trends were displaying rapid decline (into negative efficacy) for the shots? Why or why not?
6. If
   

Cases per 100k - higher in vaxxed cohorts:

Hospitalizations per 100k - higher in many vaxxed cohorts:

Deaths per 100k - higher in most vaxed corhorts:

Trend data showing % share of deaths vs. % population change. If these trends kept going, the graphs above would look much, much worse. No wonder UK HSA decided to stop posting the data.

 

[sixstar]

Why people can't just say "I don't want to take it and I accept the risks of not taking it".

This is exactly what many unvaxxed were saying in Fall 2020. However, governments started to remove our rights to participate in society if we didn't take the shot, so that statement was no longer an option. And MSM jumped in with the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and the general public began viewing unvaxxed as bioterrorists.

 

[TorontoGold]

1. If the shots are effective, why are cases per 100k higher in vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
2. If the shots are effective, why are hospitalizations per 100k higher in many vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
3. If the shots are effective, why are deaths per 100k higher in most vax cohorts than unvax cohorts?
4. Do you remember when "2 shots" was considered the full vaccine course? Why do 2 shots underperform unvax?
5. Does it concern you at all that UK HSA stopped posting these numbers when the trends were displaying rapid decline (into negative efficacy) for the shots? Why or why not?

Do you know the term proportional share? If you did it would answer most of your questions.

Why has the mortality rate decreased yet there are stronger variants? What nifty invention has lead to that?

 

[sixstar]

Please explain to me how proportional share answers any of those questions.

I am truly interested in your explanation as to why per 100k rates are worse in vaccinated cohorts, why the trend was worsening, and why you are seemingly unbothered by the government ceasing to publish the data.

I've provided you with the evidence you requested. Now the onus is on you to defend your position that the shots are effective.

Why has the mortality rate decreased yet there are stronger variants? What nifty invention has lead to that?

Virus gonna virus. Virology 101: viruses get less deadly over time; viruses only want to multiply - can't do that if they kill their host.

 

[notredomer23]

Why has the mortality rate decreased yet there are stronger variants? What nifty invention has lead to that?

Per the CDC, this is not accurate. Omicron became significantly less severe as a cost of its easier spread. I agree that vaccination and prior infection are part of this, but it is also just a more mild version. Shorter hospital stays and lower morality rate for unvaccinated cohorts compared to Delta. The problem that we may see again this winter is because of how rapid it can spread, you will see similar strains on EDs especially now that everyone has returned to normal life.

 

[TorontoGold]

Per the CDC, this is not accurate. Omicron became significantly less severe as a cost of its easier spread. I agree that vaccination and prior infection are part of this, but it is also just a more mild version. Shorter hospital stays and lower morality rate for unvaccinated cohorts compared to Delta. The problem that we may see again this winter is because of how rapid it can spread, you will see similar strains on EDs especially now that everyone has returned to normal life.

Oops yes that's right, my point was more to when Delta was dominant and vaccines helped with that...before omicron came and dusted everyone.

 

[RDU Irish]

You know how rate stats work, no?

Unvaxxed people represented a larger proportional share of the COVID cases than what they are represented by in terms of the split between unvaxxed and vaccinated people.

Take a look at this big government conspiracy website - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Why people can't just say "I don't want to take it and I accept the risks of not taking it" instead of just embarrassing themselves. It's like convincing people that actually wearing a helmet on a bike is more problematic than not wearing one. If the vaccine was actually a government ploy to kill us all I'd rather be dead than exist in the horsepaste world post COIVD lmao.

Saw a dude this weekend wearing a mask while riding his motorcycle around - without a helmet.

 

[sixstar]

Oops yes that's right, my point was more to when Delta was dominant and vaccines helped with that...before omicron came and dusted everyone.

Still looking forward to your answers to my questions.

 

[TorontoGold]

Still looking forward to your answers to my questions.

Ok, I'll hold your hand here.

1. First chart - shows vaccine coverage in the UK


Ok lets take the average of the 4 countries - 91.5% have at least 1 dose.

2. Your chart on hospitalizations



18-29 cohort = assigned a value of 4.86 for blue and yellow, therefore total per 100k is 29.39. 4.86/29.39 = 16.53%. So it is basically twice as high as the share of the population that is unvaccinated (8.5%) at the lowest risk cohort. Maybe the highest cohort with coverage the 80+ group? Ok, so the total per 100k is 86.45+ ~142 + ~170 + 71.16 = 469.61 therefore unvaccinated accounts for 18.40%. The vaccine coverage is likely higher than 91.5% for that cohort.

So - even at the lowest risk cohort the vaccine is doing a better job than unvaccinated people, at the highest risk? It clowns it.

That's your introductory course in why proportional share matters. Do you need the cases/deaths explained too?

 

[sixstar]

Ok, I'll hold your hand here.

1. First chart - shows vaccine coverage in the UK
View attachment 3051633

Ok lets take the average of the 4 countries - 91.5% have at least 1 dose.

2. Your chart on hospitalizations

View attachment 3051634

18-29 cohort = assigned a value of 4.86 for blue and yellow, therefore total per 100k is 29.39. 4.86/29.39 = 16.53%. So it is basically twice as high as the share of the population that is unvaccinated (8.5%) at the lowest risk cohort. Maybe the highest cohort with coverage the 80+ group? Ok, so the total per 100k is 86.45+ ~142 + ~170 + 71.16 = 469.61 therefore unvaccinated accounts for 18.40%. The vaccine coverage is likely higher than 91.5% for that cohort.

So - even at the lowest risk cohort the vaccine is doing a better job than unvaccinated people, at the highest risk? It clowns it.

That's your introductory course in why proportional share matters. Do you need the cases/deaths explained too?

You are misinterpreting the data. These rates are total hospitalizations divided by total population size - adjusted to a common denominator, hence the per 100k. It already accounts for population share.

For the 18-29 cohort:
There are 4.86 hospitalizations for every 100k unvaxxed. This has nothing to do with blue or yellow.
There are 4.12 hospitalizations for every 100k triple-vaxxed. This has nothing to do with red.

For simplicity.
Assume that there are 1,000,000 unvaxxed and 10,000,000 boosted.
The rates work out to 48.6 unvaxxed hospitalizations and 412 boosted hospitalizations. That is why you see such a huge difference in raw numbers (see previous post).

Obviously raw numbers without population size is useless. So to compare apples to apples, these numbers are standardized to a per 100k rate. That's why the 3 graphs are per 100k rates - to account for population share. Raw Hospitalizations / Cohort Size.

Next time, please make sure you take time to read the data source and understand the data before you get condescending.

Also - now that you understand the data better, I am still interested in your answers to my questions. If you still don't understand the per 100k charts, let me know, and I can create a graphic that illustrates it better for you.

 

[Rack Em]

Saw a dude this weekend wearing a mask while riding his motorcycle around - without a helmet

That was Mrs. Irish Steelhead, not a dude.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Saw a dude this weekend wearing a mask while riding his motorcycle around - without a helmet.

He probably just got creative and wanted something to keep the bugs from flying into his mouth.

 

[PerthDomer]

You are misinterpreting the data. These rates are total hospitalizations divided by total population size - adjusted to a common denominator, hence the per 100k. It already accounts for population share.

For the 18-29 cohort:
There are 4.86 hospitalizations for every 100k unvaxxed. This has nothing to do with blue or yellow.
There are 4.12 hospitalizations for every 100k triple-vaxxed. This has nothing to do with red.

For simplicity.
Assume that there are 1,000,000 unvaxxed and 10,000,000 boosted.
The rates work out to 48.6 unvaxxed hospitalizations and 412 boosted hospitalizations. That is why you see such a huge difference in raw numbers (see previous post).

Obviously raw numbers without population size is useless. So to compare apples to apples, these numbers are standardized to a per 100k rate. That's why the 3 graphs are per 100k rates - to account for population share. Raw Hospitalizations / Cohort Size.

Next time, please make sure you take time to read the data source and understand the data before you get condescending.

Also - now that you understand the data better, I am still interested in your answers to my questions. If you still don't understand the per 100k charts, let me know, and I can create a graphic that illustrates it better for you.

Here's Reuters saying the exact same thing as the last poster. It's deaths or hospitalizations per 100k of the population. This has come up every time they've released the report since the summer.

Fact Check-UK data does not show COVID-19 vaccination increases chance of death from virus

An article published by a site that has previously been found by Reuters Fact Check to have shared health misinformation suggests COVID-19 vaccines make people more likely to die from the virus. However, it has misrepresented UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data on deaths...

www.reuters.com