Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (4 Viewers)

[jahsoul357]

You mean the pdf I quoted just a few posts earlier to explain it. The one you ignored in this reply?

You're gaslighting me now.

*google search gaslighting*
How do these definitions line up with me missing your post? lol. Gaslighting...really? LOL

I didn't even notice that post because the notification took me to the second post (that I quoted). We still cool?

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



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.

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

Help me understand what you are saying? Are you saying that so few under 30 are vaccinated that they are less likely to get tested? How does this explain the huge discrepancy in numbers and rate at most of the age groups?

 

[Saint_Ward]

*google search gaslighting*
How do these definitions line up with me missing your post? lol. Gaslighting...really? LOL

I didn't even notice that post because the notification took me to the second post (that I quoted). We still cool?




Help me understand what you are saying? Are you saying that so few under 30 are vaccinated that they are less likely to get tested? How does this explain the huge discrepancy in numbers and rate at most of the age groups?

No, that's not what I was saying. If you re read everything you quoted, I think it makes good sense as is.

 

[jahsoul357]

No, that's not what I was saying. If you re read everything you quoted, I think it makes good sense as is.

I totally misread your post. But can I ask you a question; with most things being equal, what would cause the age group to drop?

 

[Saint_Ward]

I totally misread your post. But can I ask you a question; with most things being equal, what would cause the age group to drop?

Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[jahsoul357]

Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you're asking.

At one point in time, this quote here

The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29

stated this

The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 39

I'm trying to understand why this would change and what would cause an explosion among the vaccinated afterwards.

 

[Saint_Ward]

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.?

Yes, I agree, it's a mathematical model, so it's hard to compare a predictive model to actual data and looking at objectively.

And, I believe the point of that model, which makes sense, is that a leaky vaccine would be the one that would lead to the most spread, if under the critical percentage (which is variable, and they don't say what are some percentages could be). Of course, because from day 1 of that theoretical vaccination program, you'd get some leaked through infections, whereas the fully sterilizing has none in the vaccinated population, and the waning has none for a while. So, assuming the same vaccination rate, any vaccine that allows some 'leakage' is going to end up with more infections. You're just adding more folks to the pile of unvaccinated ones. Again, in this theoretical model that isn't based on anything to do with Covid.

Their take away was that based on what kind of vaccine it is, it would change the roll out and policy. I think in the case of a leaky vaccine, they don't say this, but I'd assume you'd want to roll out as fast as possible, but still keep some mitigation measures. Which is what we've been doing.

the first link to the study is just the abstract, so the article was more helpful. And I cried a little when I read 'differential equations'.. uh... not the most fun class. But, since I can't see the theoretical models, I can't say much about them, other than what I did. However, it doesn't really apply to our talk about real world numbers. Other than it begs the question if the mRNA vaccines act more like a leaky vaccine or a waning immunity vaccine.. or, does it depend on the person? like, a mix of both.

The second link is a link to a bunch of articles. So, I'm not going through all that. But maybe some other time I'll poke around there.

 

[Arathrael]

Tell me in what way I am misrepresenting data? And make sure you do it with data from the report.
The only thing that you are leaning on is the footnote talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. The same pages referred stated that effectiveness for infections were listed with "Medium Confidence" and I gave the definition from the document.

So I will wait for you to explain to me what the raw numbers are telling us, so no more time can be wasted.

The "one thing" I'm leaning on is an understanding of what the datasets represent, their limitations, and how they can, and cannot, be interpreted, which is explained in the report and in the article they linked to (https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/).

One point in particular as it describes there, aside from the differences in the two cohorts, vaccinated and unvaccinated, is how we know how many of them there are. Think about it: how do we know how many unvaccinated people there are? It's a population estimate. And those can be wildly inaccurate. An overestimate of how many unvaccinated people there are leads to the rates in unvaccinated people appearing artificially low. And this is a known problem here:



For that reason, and due to the other differences between the cohorts also described in the report and linked article, you can't use that data to make the comparisons between the two cohorts, vaccinated and unvaccinated, that you keep trying to make.

As the report explicitly states, and as has already been pointed out to you. Repeatedly.

 

[Saint_Ward]

At one point in time, this quote here

stated this


I'm trying to understand why this would change and what would cause an explosion among the vaccinated afterwards.

Well, I'm not totally sure. One, I have to go off what the researchers said about comparing the numbers (like, not to). So, if we shouldn't do it one way, I shouldn't try to do it the other way.

You'd also have to look at the % of population vaccinated by age, where there is likely a higher % or at least a much more significant % of unvaccinated at younger ages. i.e. just making up a number here.. if 13% of those 65+ are unvaccinated, but 40% of 18-29. So, the population bias isn't as strong for the younger folks.

Also, vaccinated young people probably have no idea they have covid, more likely to have mild or no symptoms, so why get tested if you're not sure you're even sick. Unvaccinated young people who get sick, likely know it, or at least enough to get tested.

Older people, again, the vast majority of the population at older ages are vaccinated, and probably more likely to know they got sick, get more sick, and more likely to be responsible at get tested. Especially those vaccinated. Odds are they mask more. Odds are they submit to testing more often, in order to protect themselves and their families or coworkers. Would we find other correlations such as, do people who got vaccinated and wear masks, generally follow rules more often? Do they use their turn signal more often? haha, who am I kidding, no one uses their turn signal.

Another big point they mention in the study, and it's evident in your chart, is that it only covers weeks 46-49 of 2021. that's basically early Nov to late Nov. See below. That misses the big wave before it, especially in June when states and counties that were largely unvaccinated had very high case counts. That fire likely burned out and now waining immunity (or leaky?) started to take over in other areas. The green lines are the approximate study time, the blue circle wasn't in the study. We also have some states that aren't reporting this info. They're only getting limited states, more likely states that have pretty high vaccination rates.




Regionally, you see that starting around Halloween to early November, the Midwest and North East started getting the most cases, still mostly riding the delta wave. The NE is overall highly vaccinated, and may or may not have gotten boosted yet. And, those that aren't vaccinated are mostly younger. Where earlier in the summer, most of the unvaccianted like in Mo, Arkansas, etc were in all age groups. Still leaned a bit younger, but not as dramatically.

 

[Rickboy]

Has anyone seen any data on the efficacy on omicron with J&J vaccine followed up with a Pfizer booster? I read that the J&J was totally ineffective but I haven’t seen anything regarding the mix.

 

[kcirdor]

The second link is a link to a bunch of articles. So, I'm not going through all that. But maybe some other time I'll poke around there.

Thanks... the second link was really for me to reference later... even though I bookmarked it afterwards and didn't need to post it I guess.

 

[Super44]

A recent study by a group of scientist from Columbia university and the University of Hong Kong, say the Omicron variant shows to be markedly resistant to the vaccine. We shall see very quickly the validity of this study. And I am sure it has legs, but we ALL should know by now, THE VACCINE DOES NOT GUARANTEE ANYONE THEY WILL NOT CATCH THE VIRUS. But it helps anyone that does catch the virus, to not become deathly ill, or worse; DIE! Maybe the Omicron variant is resistant to the vaccines. But I have not heard anywhere else, that the vaccine does ZERO good, against this variant.

We also should know, the Omicron variant has shown to be more contagious, but less lethal. This is typical how viruses work. As they evolve and mutate (to remain in the environment), they become weaker in their ability to make someone gravely ill, or to kill someone. But they become more contagious, as well. A virus needs a host. And without a host, the virus goes away. A virus is very smart and does not want to kill off the hand (a host) it needs to survive and continue to mutate. We will always have this virus; ALWAYS!

 

[Super44]

Well, I'm not totally sure. One, I have to go off what the researchers said about comparing the numbers (like, not to). So, if we shouldn't do it one way, I shouldn't try to do it the other way.

You'd also have to look at the % of population vaccinated by age, where there is likely a higher % or at least a much more significant % of unvaccinated at younger ages. i.e. just making up a number here.. if 13% of those 65+ are unvaccinated, but 40% of 18-29. So, the population bias isn't as strong for the younger folks.

Also, vaccinated young people probably have no idea they have covid, more likely to have mild or no symptoms, so why get tested if you're not sure you're even sick. Unvaccinated young people who get sick, likely know it, or at least enough to get tested.

Older people, again, the vast majority of the population at older ages are vaccinated, and probably more likely to know they got sick, get more sick, and more likely to be responsible at get tested. Especially those vaccinated. Odds are they mask more. Odds are they submit to testing more often, in order to protect themselves and their families or coworkers. Would we find other correlations such as, do people who got vaccinated and wear masks, generally follow rules more often? Do they use their turn signal more often? haha, who am I kidding, no one uses their turn signal.

Another big point they mention in the study, and it's evident in your chart, is that it only covers weeks 46-49 of 2021. that's basically early Nov to late Nov. See below. That misses the big wave before it, especially in June when states and counties that were largely unvaccinated had very high case counts. That fire likely burned out and now waining immunity (or leaky?) started to take over in other areas. The green lines are the approximate study time, the blue circle wasn't in the study. We also have some states that aren't reporting this info. They're only getting limited states, more likely states that have pretty high vaccination rates.




Regionally, you see that starting around Halloween to early November, the Midwest and North East started getting the most cases, still mostly riding the delta wave. The NE is overall highly vaccinated, and may or may not have gotten boosted yet. And, those that aren't vaccinated are mostly younger. Where earlier in the summer, most of the unvaccianted like in Mo, Arkansas, etc were in all age groups. Still leaned a bit younger, but not as dramatically.

You can go deep into anslyzing data all you want, as it relates to numbers, based on age groups, male/female…etc. But what is not showing up, is factors that are really difficult to include. Genetic factors, race, obesity, people who have had strokes previously, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, cancer, HIV and other auto-immune diseases (MS, ALS, Diabetes; type I and type II…etc.). And what I have mentioned, goes across all races, ages and genders of society. Lots of factors to consider, outside of just age groups, gender and race.

The fact is. GET VACCINATED!

 

[Saint_Ward]

You can go deep into anslyzing data all you want, as it relates to numbers, based on age groups, male/female…etc. But what is not showing up, is factors that are really difficult to include. Genetic factors, race, obesity, people who have had strokes previously, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, cancer, HIV and other auto-immune diseases (MS, ALS, Diabetes; type I and type II…etc.). And what I have mentioned, goes across all races, ages and genders of society. Lots of factors to consider, outside of just age groups, gender and race.

The fact is. GET VACCINATED!

Of course.

And it all gets worse with age.

 

[Arathrael]

We also should know, the Omicron variant has shown to be more contagious, but less lethal. This is typical how viruses work. As they evolve and mutate (to remain in the environment), they become weaker in their ability to make someone gravely ill, or to kill someone. But they become more contagious, as well. A virus needs a host. And without a host, the virus goes away. A virus is very smart and does not want to kill off the hand (a host) it needs to survive and continue to mutate. We will always have this virus; ALWAYS!

Just to note, we still don't know that Omicron is inherently less lethal; we're still comparing different groups in terms of ages, vaccinations, previous infections and resulting immunity, etc. There are some really good indications, as it's becoming clearer that deaths are substantially lower in SA than in their Delta wave. The problem is that they have ~40% vaccinated compared to ~4%, and high seroprevalence from previous waves, so it's hard to say to what extent the outcomes are due to the population's increased immunity and to what extent it's due to Omicron being different. So the data could be showing it's inherently less deadly (best-case scenario), but it could also just be reflecting increased population immunity.



And that said, while viruses can become less lethal, they can also, well, not. They can also become more lethal. E.g. smallpox, polio, measles, didn't mutate away to harmlessness, we needed vaccines. Influenza strains have become less lethal and more lethal, but they haven't all mutated away to common cold levels.

To put it another way, it's certainly reasonable to think that a virus that rapidly kills its host would have an advantage in transmission if it evolved to not kill them so quickly and so extend the chance to be transmitted. The problem with SARS-CoV-2 is that it's typically infectious before severe symptoms kick in, so there may not actually be that particular evolutionary pressure as it it may not really gain or lose much of an advantage if it's more or less lethal. That is, a virus may not really care if it leaves its host dead if it's already spread by then.

One read along these lines: https://theconversation.com/will-coronavirus-really-evolve-to-become-less-deadly-153817

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Not great news for those of us that got the J&J... although it appears any adverse effects occur soon after injection - I still think this shot messed up by blood pressure, but haven't seen any hard data to support my theory.

CDC recommends Pfizer or Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine over Johnson & Johnson's due to rare blood clots

A rare side effect is linked to nine deaths out of more than 16 million people vaccinated with the J&J shot.

www.cbsnews.com