Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Clarky Cat]

12 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

Just to make it clear for people like @Timm, the "per 100,000" figures makes the absolute number of vaccinated or unvaccinated people irrelevant. That's why they started including these figures. They show a much better comparison.

If we look at the 40-49 age group, yes most are vaccinated. So yes, we'd expect to see more cases in the vaccinated (although not if it were a proper vaccine!)

But we wouldn't expect to see the vaccinated catching covid at a rate of 1,455 per 100,000 compared with the unvaccinated at 696 per 100,000.

That makes the vaccine actually worse than useless, in terms of preventing you from getting covid.

So @Timmwould be correct if we were looking at absolute case numbers. But we're not. We're looking at relative case numbers, i.e. "per 100,000".

You have interpreted the per 100,000 correctly, but then it is difficult to extrapolate that to mean that the vaccine makes it more likely that you will catch covid. At present the cases are being driven by school-age children and their parents. Are people who have children more likely to be vaccinated? Are people who are vaccinated much more likely to get themselves tested? There's too many confounding factors to draw anything from it.  It's possible to mangle the statistics in the other direction:

If you take the 40-49 age group, those figures give a case fatality rate of 0.28% in the unvaccinated and 0.085% in the vaccinated, with risks of hospital admissions of 2.7% and 0.31% respectively.  In the 50-59 age group the CFR is 2.0% versus 0.14% and the admission risk is 5.3 against 1.4%.

Of course those statistics are also pretty meaningless and affected by similar factors. 

 

[FallingAwake]

2 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

You have interpreted the per 100,000 correctly, but then it is difficult to extrapolate that to mean that the vaccine makes it more likely that you will catch covid. At present the cases are being driven by school-age children and their parents. Are people who have children more likely to be vaccinated? Are people who are vaccinated much more likely to get themselves tested? There's too many confounding factors to draw anything from it.  It's possible to mangle the statistics in the other direction:

If you take the 40-49 age group, those figures give a case fatality rate of 0.28% in the unvaccinated and 0.085% in the vaccinated, with risks of hospital admissions of 2.7% and 0.31% respectively.  In the 50-59 age group the CFR is 2.0% versus 0.14% and the admission risk is 5.3 against 1.4%.

Of course those statistics are also pretty meaningless and affected by similar factors. 

 

Yes, I agree.

What will be interesting to see is how these figures change over time.

If they get worse for the vaccinated over time, then I'd suggest that's definitely evidence of the vaccine itself having a negative effect.

[zugzwang]

26 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

Yes, it's just as bad as the flu vaccine... although I wasn't aware that people had to take a mumps, measles and rubella vaccine every 5 months.

MMR efficacy declines with age. A second dose is recommended for children age 4 to 6. A booster dose every ten years has been suggested for adults.

[Bruce Banner]

25 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

MMR efficacy declines with age. A second dose is recommended for children age 4 to 6. A booster dose every ten years has been suggested for adults.

I haven't had any of those, they weren't around when I was a kid, we went to measles and mumps parties and got natural immunity. I did have a tetanus shot once but have never bothered with boosters. Polio and smallpox vaccinations are good for life, I think.

[anonguest]

Curious as to why the scope of the Coronavirus Act 2020 includes enabling the extension of keeping of DNA/fingerprint records?  What's all that about?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/section/24/enacted

Also, someone here sometime back made some mention asserting/implying that actions taken by policy makers would, if things went wrong/badly, by legally indemnified by the Act???  Was it our resident conspiracy theorist?  Whoever it was I find no mention of such - so is there any truth to such claims of indemnity existing?

 

[Bruce Banner]

7 hours ago, Glenn said:

Not at all. The ITV morning people were in full 'should there be another lockdown mode' this morning. Egged on by Dr Hilary and the stats of 50,000 cases yesterday.

Sky in full panic mode too, not enough coming forward for their jabs. I wish they'd make up their minds. 

[scottbeard]

16 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

So how does this happen?

Good question, but the truth is  -  us bunch of random internet posters don't know the answer.

Could be all sorts of things, from the vaccine actually making it more likely to catch COVID (which seems unlikely) to the figures being plain wrong (note that ** caveat at the bottom) to more subtle things like: if you're the sort of person to turn down the vaccine, are you really the sort of person to diligently complete a COVID test and log the result with the NHS?  Or do you just put your runny nose down to a cold and carry on?

In other words, the unvaccinated may be just as likely if not MORE likely to get COVID, but they are not as good at reporting it.

[satsuma]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58962049

 

Oh no, all those massive mortgages are getting harder to pay, pity the BTL scumlords cant eat bricks 

[winkie]

Everybody without exception is wearing a face covering on buses, trains, inside public places such as shops.......very low infection rates, few deaths.......masks help stop infection therefore potential death when with other people inside with poor ventilation.

[Bruce Banner]

BBC just showed footage of Gove being accosted by "anti vaccine" protesters, or so the BBC reported. 

I can't see why anyone would be protesting against the vaccines but it makes their protest seem totally unreasonable. I suspect they may be anti lockdown or anti vaccine passport or anti vaccine coercion, but anti vaccine? I doubt it, as until it becomes illegal to refuse vaccination it's a matter of choice so no protest necessary.

[winkie]

divide and rule......instead of bringing people together, your neighbour is your enemy.

[vadst43]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

I can't see why anyone would be protesting against the vaccines

Really? Vax mandates/passports/sececy/corruption.....?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

6 hours ago, Clarky Cat said:

 

If you take the 40-49 age group, those figures give a case fatality rate of 0.28% in the unvaccinated and 0.085% in the vaccinated, with risks of hospital admissions of 2.7% and 0.31% respectively.  In the 50-59 age group the CFR is 2.0% versus 0.14% and the admission risk is 5.3 against 1.4%.

Of course those statistics are also pretty meaningless and affected by similar factors. 

 

 

It's not just the age though, it is the comorbidities. They really should be expressing the hospitalisations and CFR by age as numbers from a set of healthly individuals, putting  the unhealthy in the same bucket is just a way of making the numbers look worse than they area.

[anonguest]

24 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

It's not just the age though, it is the comorbidities. They really should be expressing the hospitalisations and CFR by age as numbers from a set of healthly individuals, putting  the unhealthy in the same bucket is just a way of making the numbers look worse than they area.

It would be a start IF they just started reporting the ages, or even average ages, of the daily victims - never mind existing conditions the victims more often than not have.

It's clear to me that the absence of this even simple additional amount of 'context' to the deaths has not just been not dwelt on by the media/TPTB, but actually deliberately and consciously not publicised.  The only time that sort of data comes out is via ONS/PHE data releases that the average tabloid journo, never mind member of the public, is not going to go looking for.

And I can understand why.  If Joe Average was being told, routinely, along with the daily death numbers that the vast majority were over 70, never mind had one or more serious medical/health impairing conditions, they would never have got anywhere near as many people voluntarily jabbed as they have done.

IF this additional context had been routinely reported the public would have realised long ago that this virus is not any sort of existential threat to us - and adjusted their behaviour accordingly.  Instead we will be left with people walking around in open spaces wearing masks for years to come, for some possibly forever.

Edited October 19, 2021 by anonguest

[Clarky Cat]

 

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

It would be a start IF they just started reporting the ages, or even average ages, of the daily victims - never mind existing conditions the victims more often than not have.

It's clear to me that the absence of this even simple additional amount of 'context' to the deaths has not just been not dwelt on by the media/TPTB, but actually deliberately and consciously not publicised.  The only time that sort of data comes out is via ONS/PHE data releases that the average tabloid journo, never mind member of the public, is not going to go looking for.

And I can understand why.  If Joe Average was being told, routinely, along with the daily death numbers that the vast majority were over 70, never mind had one or more serious medical/health impairing conditions, they would never have got anywhere near as many people voluntarily jabbed as they have done.

IF this additional context had been routinely reported the public would have realised long ago that this virus is not any sort of existential threat to us - and adjusted their behaviour accordingly.  Instead we will be left with people walking around in open spaces wearing masks for years to come, for some possibly forever.

This data is freely available if people are interested. On a contrarian note I wonder whether if regularly publicised we might end up with demand for reintroduction of restrictions. Elsewhere on this site it's often pointed out that government policy is often dictated by "boomers" - 42% of deaths over the past 8 weeks have been in an age band that roughly approximates to the boomer generation. 

[FallingAwake]

Anyway, I trust the news to be completely impartial 🤣

 

[anonguest]

2 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

 

This data is freely available if people are interested. On a contrarian note I wonder whether if regularly publicised we might end up with demand for reintroduction of restrictions. Elsewhere on this site it's often pointed out that government policy is often dictated by "boomers" - 42% of deaths over the past 8 weeks have been in an age band that roughly approximates to the boomer generation. 

I said/acknowledged it such data/info was freely available. It just isn't actively and routinely publicised.  All we ever see is the daily death toll or case numbers without ages, never mind the pre-existing health condition of the victims - that latter info even harder to get hold of.  There is never any 'context' to the death numbers.

The only time the age of a victim is conspicuously mentioned is when doing so is deemed to be a good for the pro-vax/pro-lockdown/pro-masks/etc 'narrative'  - because they are so much younger than the majority of the victims.  It also, quite rightly and understandably, plays on peoples heartstrings more easily.  People will typically feel more for the loss involved in the death of, say, a 40 year old mum of two than, say, an 85+ year old in an old peoples home.

Never is any overt mention made of what conditions those outlier victims might have had that would have exacerbated their Covid etc.  Instead often, as has happened here many times, it is left to those few who might be observant enough to deduce that there was more to the victims death than claimed (e.g. a photo would show someone clearly obese, etc).

[Clarky Cat]

4 minutes ago, anonguest said:

I said/acknowledged it such data/info was freely available. It just isn't actively and routinely publicised.  All we ever see is the daily death toll or case numbers without ages, never mind the pre-existing health condition of the victims - that latter info even harder to get hold of.  There is never any 'context' to the death numbers.

The only time the age of a victim is conspicuously mentioned is when doing so is deemed to be a good for the pro-vax/pro-lockdown/pro-masks/etc 'narrative'  - because they are so much younger than the majority of the victims.  It also, quite rightly and understandably, plays on peoples heartstrings more easily.  People will typically feel more for the loss involved in the death of, say, a 40 year old mum of two than, say, an 85+ year old in an old peoples home.

Never is any overt mention made of what conditions those outlier victims might have had that would have exacerbated their Covid etc.  Instead often, as has happened here many times, it is left to those few who might be observant enough to deduce that there was more to the victims death than claimed (e.g. a photo would show someone clearly obese, etc).

The data on underlying conditions is as easy to get hold of as the age data. Unfortunately it isn't granular enough to break down this into age brackets also

I fully remember early on the pandemic that they were trying to calm people down by saying that "12 people have died, all but one had underlying medical conditions"

[anonguest]

5 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

The data on underlying conditions is as easy to get hold of as the age data.

Arguable

5 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

Unfortunately it isn't granular enough to break down this into age brackets also

 

Which, in effect, has the end result of making the data less accessible/of meaningful use.

5 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

I fully remember early on the pandemic that they were trying to calm people down by saying that "12 people have died, all but one had underlying medical conditions"

That sort of thing stopped very early on.  They stopped routinely mentioning how 80% of people would have no real meaningful illness, etc....

Edited October 19, 2021 by anonguest

[Clarky Cat]

6 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Arguable

 

Condition and age data here

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

Age data here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England

Edited October 19, 2021 by Clarky Cat

[anonguest]

5 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England

OK. Thanks for that! 

Now just only slightly arguable.  😉

As you say the data is not as 'granular' as desired/enough to be helpful.  Would be a bonus though if they would link the 'conditions' data to ages as well.  Since it would be good to see just how many of the aforementioned 'sob story' victims likely did indeed have exacerbating  existing conditions, etc.

[pig]

3 hours ago, winkie said:

divide and rule......instead of bringing people together, your neighbour is your enemy.

The Brexit disease.

[Bruce Banner]

1 hour ago, vadst43 said:

Really? Vax mandates/passports/sececy/corruption.....?

Er....that is effectively what I said in the part of my post that you edited out of the quote? You obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Here it is again, perhaps you should read it rather than edit out the main context and go flying off in the wrong direction.

BBC just showed footage of Gove being accosted by "anti vaccine" protesters, or so the BBC reported. 

I can't see why anyone would be protesting against the vaccines but it makes their protest seem totally unreasonable. I suspect they may be anti lockdown or anti vaccine passport or anti vaccine coercion, but anti vaccine? I doubt it, as until it becomes illegal to refuse vaccination it's a matter of choice so no protest necessary.

[Arpeggio]

7 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

I haven't had any of those, they weren't around when I was a kid, we went to measles and mumps parties and got natural immunity. I did have a tetanus shot once but have never bothered with boosters. Polio and smallpox vaccinations are good for life, I think.

The reason people say this is because everyone else says it but Registrar General's report from 1838 to 1882 shows quite the opposite.

47 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

Anyway, I trust the news to be completely impartial 🤣

 

Brawndo - the therst mutliator!

32 minutes ago, anonguest said:

That sort of thing stopped very early on.  They stopped routinely mentioning how 80% of people would have no real meaningful illness, etc....

Edited October 19, 2021 by Arpeggio

[vadst43]

15 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

doubt it, as until it becomes illegal to refuse vaccination it's a matter of choice so no protest necessary.

Vax mandate will follow as night follows day. Protest yesterday now and forever is the only way