Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (7 Viewers)

[Saint_Ward]

This sounds great until you get to page 32.

You mean this (file page 32, report page 33)

Results The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated (Table 11). This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns. The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Interpretation of data These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, for example: • people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace) • many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues • people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19 • people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives

One thing they say, but very nicely... differences in testing patterns. There are so few people unvaccinated over the age of 30, those folks are also less likely to go get tested.

Everything else is clearly explained.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Reread what you sent me.

This is saying that because "vaccines are effective at preventing infection," these people are therefore uninfected, so they can't transmit. This quote hinges on the vaccine stopping or preventing infection.

As I said

This was in your quoted section, "...if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding)."

 

[Saint_Ward]

Reread what you sent me.

This is saying that because "vaccines are effective at preventing infection," these people are therefore uninfected, so they can't transmit. This quote hinges on the vaccine stopping or preventing infection.

As I said

Which it can prevent an infection. Not always. But it does. The probability of infection based on exposure goes down after vaccination, and later boosting.

 

[brandon8283]

If that's what you got from my post, you either lack reading comprehension (which I doubt) or (more probable) your bias towards this topic won't allow you to read any post that doesn't agree with yours objectively. "Fat kids," as you call them, would fall under the groups considered vulnerable.

So you're saying that rather than just vaccinate kids once the vaccine is determined safe for their age group, we should instead take each child on a case by case basis and determine if their particular underlying issues warrants the protection of a vaccine?

And so that begs the question, are you assuming that we will be 100% correct in determining which kids to vaccinate and which kids not to vaccinate?

And assuming you recognize that that is impossible, it now brings me to the next group of kids you've decided are collateral damage - the kids we think are healthy but have underlying issues that haven't yet been detected or aren't deemed risky enough to warrant a vaccine. And also the kids that for unknown reasons have a bad reaction and COVID takes them out.

Yea, fork THOSE kids!

Or we could just vaccinate all the kids and not have this problem.

 

[whiteshadowen]

Which fairy tale version of the book? No, because I think most of it is totally made up....but go on believing a story that is thousands of years old told by multiple authors many of whom I doubt even existed...it is your right to believe every word of it, just as it's my right to believe it is all a fairy tale....

Absolutely is your right. Just a bit ironic.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

For someone who's been quick to repeatedly accuse others of failing to properly read and comprehend posts, you've consistently ignored the point repeatedly made by multiple people that vaccination has a protective effect against infection in the first place, reducing people's chances of being infectious at all and hence having a protective effect for others.

Here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...41593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf

That's the latest COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report from the UK Health Security Agency.

See the section on 'Effectiveness against transmission', that begins:

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding).​

The benefit is categorically not just a personal one; being vaccinated has been shown in multiple studies to reduce the chances of onward transmission. Why are you refusing to acknowledge that?

Data and statistics is clearly not many people's strengths. LOL

 

[jahsoul357]

Which it can prevent an infection. Not always. But it does. The probability of infection based on exposure goes down after vaccination, and later boosting.

The thing is, in the PDF that was linked shows that majority of the cases are among the vaccinated. I know the percentage of population vaccinated plays a factor in the numbers but those high numbers are still in place.

So you're saying that rather than just vaccinate kids once the vaccine is determined safe for their age group, we should instead take each child on a case by case basis and determine if their particular underlying issues warrants the protection of a vaccine?

And so that begs the question, are you assuming that we will be 100% correct in determining which kids to vaccinate and which kids not to vaccinate?

And assuming you recognize that that is impossible, it now brings me to the next group of kids you've decided are collateral damage - the kids we think are healthy but have underlying issues that haven't yet been detected or aren't deemed risky enough to warrant a vaccine.

Or we could just vaccinate all the kids and not have this problem.

That being said, those who regularly take their kids to the pediatrician would have an idea of any issues that could possibly be in place. Also, just as adults, those who are overweight have a higher propensity for those issues. It wouldn't be impossible and the fact is, the ones that are solely against vaccines or taking their kids to the doctor wouldn't be interested in vaccinating the kids anyway.

You speak of collateral damage but how do you view the 18 and under group that will have adverse effects (and already have) based on widespread vaccination of children?

 

[jahsoul357]

Data and statistics is clearly not many people's strengths. LOL

I guess not. *shrugs*

 

[Arathrael]

I guess not. *shrugs*

So in the table you've posted, it says "These data should be interpreted with caution. See information below in footnote about the correct interpretation of those figures"

And above the second table you've partially posted, it states, "Please note that the following table should be read in conjunction with pages 31 to 33 of this report, and the footnotes provided on page 39."

And then the footnotes, and those pages, explain, in precise and great detail, why "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection", and that "Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 14 in this report." They have links to articles - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/ - explaining why not to do what you're doing.

And yet, you've somehow missed all of that, and run full pelt into the incorrect interpretation of those figures.

And that's the problem here. You're confusing your lack of reading comprehension with everyone else's. Maybe don't.

 

[jahsoul357]

So in the table you've posted, it says "These data should be interpreted with caution. See information below in footnote about the correct interpretation of those figures"

And above the second table you've partially posted, it states, "Please note that the following table should be read in conjunction with pages 31 to 33 of this report, and the footnotes provided on page 39."

And then the footnotes, and those pages, explain, in precise and great detail, why "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection", and that "Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 14 in this report." They have links to articles - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/ - explaining why not to do what you're doing.

And yet, you've somehow missed all of that, and run full pelt into the incorrect interpretation of those figures.

And that's the problem here. You're confusing your lack of reading comprehension with everyone else's. Maybe don't.

Except I didn't estimate effectiveness. Read page 5-14 and look at the data that is presented.
Pointing out the rate of infection does not equal estimating the effectiveness of the vaccine.
The tables that are listed shows the amount of people that has gotten COVID. What you are pointing to is speaking about is "J&J is 85% effective against this; Phizer is 90% effective against that."
So looking at the table 11, even taking the percentage of vaccinated persons into consideration, the vaccinated are catching COVID at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated, unless one of my medical peeps or statisticians tells me I'm reading the numbers wrong.

And you keep coming at me about reading comprehension, but you clearly didn't read what I said in that post.

If that's what you got from my post, you either lack reading comprehension (which I doubt) or (more probable) your bias towards this topic won't allow you to read any post that doesn't agree with yours objectively. "Fat kids," as you call them, would fall under the groups considered vulnerable.

 

[Arathrael]

Except I didn't estimate effectiveness. Read page 5-14 and look at the data that is presented.
Pointing out the rate of infection does not equal estimating the effectiveness of the vaccine.
The tables that are listed shows the amount of people that has gotten COVID. What you are pointing to is speaking about is "J&J is 85% effective against this; Phizer is 90% effective against that."
So looking at the table 11, even taking the percentage of vaccinated persons into consideration, the vaccinated are catching COVID at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated, unless one of my medical peeps or statisticians tells me I'm reading the numbers wrong.

And you keep coming at me about reading comprehension, but you clearly didn't read what I said in that post.

I've read what you've said in every post. I've understood the implications of what you've said as well, which is apparently more than you have.

As is the case here. Your claim is that the report on effectiveness on transmission (on page 12, which is very much part of pages 5 to 14) where it states,

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding).​

​

only 'sounds great' until you 'get to page 32'.

Except, as shown, page 32, clearly states, in bold, that 'These raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness', which would include effectiveness against transmission since, as described on page 12, effectiveness against infection is part of effectiveness against transmission. Additionally, as stated in the post you just replied to, the footnote to the table on page 39 is explicit about the rates shown not being applicable to vaccine effectiveness estimates, and that these have been summarised on pages 5 to 14. Again, page 12 is a page in the ranges 5 to 14. Because 12 is more than 5 and less than 14.

In other words, the report is literally and repeatedly explicit on 'page 32' and the tables you've copied and pasted having no bearing whatsoever on the formal estimates on vaccine effectiveness, including the effectiveness on transmission, on page 12.

So it doesn't 'sound great until you get to page 32'.

It just sounds great. Because it is pretty great. Because it shows that vaccination helps reduce other people's risk of exposure as well as helping protect those vaccinated.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From David Frum

 

[kcirdor]

Preface: I'm posting this for Ward to look at as a continuation of the discussion from the Covid statistics thread.... so go read that before jumping my bones.

Inside Science

Epidemiological Consequences of Imperfect Vaccines for Immunizing Infections | SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics

The control of some childhood diseases has proved to be difficult even in countries that maintain high vaccination coverage. This may be due to the use of imperfect vaccines, and there has been much discussion on the different modes by which vaccines might fail. To understand the epidemiological...

epubs.siam.org

I do find it interesting that all imperfect vaccine types require the same critical ratio to eliminate a disease. This is just data modeling and predicting, so it's not to prove anything.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

ooooo learnins time.

edit: why does it say Error.. cookies etc.?

@Saint_Ward? Pretty much every study I've looked at leans towards it does promote more virulent stands. I was hoping you'd shoot this down too?

 

[Optimus Prime]

CDC recommends Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 shots over J&J's

U.S. health officials say most Americans should get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines instead of the Johnson & Johnson shot.

apnews.com

 

[Sailorsaint]

CDC recommends Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 shots over J&J's

U.S. health officials say most Americans should get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines instead of the Johnson & Johnson shot.

apnews.com

I got all Moderna, even the booster. I figured why mess with a good thing.