Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Will!]

44 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

So "if" would be more appropriate.

I think we’ve discussed R numbers, herd immunity, infection-derived immunity and vaccine-derived immunity enough to say it’s more “when” than “if”.

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, Will! said:

I think we’ve discussed R numbers, herd immunity, infection-derived immunity and vaccine-derived immunity enough to say it’s more “when” than “if”.

During a nine month period?

[Ah-so]

33 minutes ago, Quasimodo's Hump said:

Why do you need to deal with them they are entitled to their opinion.

Because this is am internet discussion forum. 

And while they are entitled to their opinion, I'd rather they formed their opinion based on a correct understanding of the facts

[Riedquat]

I see the ZOE numbers, cause last week for the doom-mongers to latch on to, have also turned the peak. Their peak lagged in January just as now, so all entirely consistent. They're an estimate of the number with symptoms rather than newly-detected cases, so a lag is to be expected (since symptoms last several days but a new case shows up once, on the day it's detected).

What next for the lockdown and restrictions enthusiasts to try?

[Ah-so]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I see the ZOE numbers, cause last week for the doom-mongers to latch on to, have also turned the peak. Their peak lagged in January just as now, so all entirely consistent. They're an estimate of the number with symptoms rather than newly-detected cases, so a lag is to be expected (since symptoms last several days but a new case shows up once, on the day it's detected).

What next for the lockdown and restrictions enthusiasts to try?

Which ZOE numbers? Don't they publish various different bits of data?

Apparently about 800,000 are estimated to have COVID at the moment - is that what you refer to?

[anonguest]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

I don't really look at it like that - I just go with asking, for any individual, which is the greater risk, vaccine or disease? (and if both are very low risks then not bothering at all is justifiable as a personal choice).

If there's any expectation that someone should have the riskier option for the overall benefit of society, anyone making that expectation is a monster.

OK....you 're not one of those advocating the whole 'collective' slant being pushed? That getting jabbed is as much to protect others as for ones self?  i.e. the whole "you could kill my granny if you don't get jabbed" narrative.

And so, just to be clear..... you see getting jabbed as being purely a personal matter of self interest? 

In which case, if so, then you have no objection to under 25's opting NOT to get jabbed?  Since IF under-25 the risk of the death from Covid is less than being a murder victim.  And even less risk from Covid if under-18 where, statistically, fatal complications from diahorrea is as great if not greater.

[Riedquat]

22 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Which ZOE numbers? Don't they publish various different bits of data?

Apparently about 800,000 are estimated to have COVID at the moment - is that what you refer to?

The main graph on the ZOE site, yes, it's around 800 000.

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, anonguest said:

OK....you 're not one of those advocating the whole 'collective' slant being pushed? That getting jabbed is as much to protect others as for ones self?  i.e. the whole "you could kill my granny if you don't get jabbed" narrative.

And so, just to be clear..... you see getting jabbed as being purely a personal matter of self interest? 

In which case, if so, then you have no objection to under 25's opting NOT to get jabbed?  Since IF under-25 the risk of the death from Covid is less than being a murder victim.  And even less risk from Covid if under-18 where, statistically, fatal complications from diahorrea is as great if not greater.

Whilst I do have to the concept of collective responsibility I also believe that it should not be forced. So it's not quite a matter of purely self-interest, at least when it gets to the low risk level. When the risk to the individual is actually greater, encouraging that greater individual risk for society as a whole definitely crosses the line of acceptability.

I'd prefer it if under 25s get vaccinated and am happy to say so but I'm certainly not going to outright condemn them for not doing so. They certainly shouldn't be forced or coerced; whilst I think that they should any coercion is the greater evil by a long way. I'd like to think I'd say the same even if I was personally at much higher risk than I am; things have to get pretty bad before I prefer treating everyone like cattle to the risk that they might put me at.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Riedquat

[anonguest]

14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Whilst I do have to the concept of collective responsibility I also believe that it should not be forced. So it's not quite a matter of purely self-interest, at least when it gets to the low risk level. When the risk to the individual is actually greater, encouraging that greater individual risk for society as a whole definitely crosses the line of acceptability.

I'd prefer it if under 25s get vaccinated and am happy to say so but I'm certainly not going to outright condemn them for not doing so. They certainly shouldn't be forced or coerced; whilst I think that they should any coercion is the greater evil by a long way. I'd like to think I'd say the same even if I was personally at much higher risk than I am; things have to get pretty bad before I prefer treating everyone like cattle to the risk that they might put me at.

OK.  Am trying to get a picture of the individual viewpoints of the various 'regulars' here.

Edited August 1, 2021 by anonguest

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, Ah-so said:

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across in my point above. Based on the 58000 who die in a normal year in Scotland, about 5000 die a month anyway, so you would expect approximately that number to die within 28 days of a vaccination.  

And my point is that you’re wrong because the 5000 post vaccine deaths is over 6 months and the 58000 is for a year.  
 

So it’s not as simple as 58/12 is about 5 - that would be fine if the vaccine statistic was also over a whole year but it isn’t 

In fact more people have died shortly after a vaccine than would be expected if it were truly random

However the fact that the vaccines were administered to the old and weak first means it’s non random 

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

A pregnant woman of my acquaintance had a eureka moment when she heard the recommendation that she should get jabbed. Having previously been quite receptive to the government line, she said "That's ridiculous, they're just trying to panic everyone. I won't be getting jabbed!". 

A bridge too far?

I disagree entirely.  There’s no point jabbing young people as they aren’t at risk.

But pregnant women are at big risk of Covid, as pregnancy already gives you a compromised immune system and lower lung capacity as the baby grows.

My pregnant wife got double jabbed as soon as she passed the first trimester, before which it isn’t recommended.

[Will!]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

During a nine month period?

Given what we know about the seasonality of coronaviruses in general and Covid-19 in particular (so far), if that nine-month period includes winter in the UK then I would say more likely than not.

And I would say to your acquaintance what I say to everyone to whom I talk who thinks that not having the vaccine is in some way about defying the government:  the virus doesn't care.

[Arpeggio]

Patent for testing for COVID-19 dated 2015

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-2020279585-A1

[Bruce Banner]

10 minutes ago, Will! said:

Given what we know about the seasonality of coronaviruses in general and Covid-19 in particular (so far), if that nine-month period includes winter in the UK then I would say more likely than not.

And I would say to your acquaintance what I say to everyone to whom I talk who thinks that not having the vaccine is in some way about defying the government:  the virus doesn't care.

Fortunately for her, it doesn't.

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Now here is a thought?

 

 

 

If the second part of the curve ticks up for the World Daily Deaths I am wondering if we'll get a sinusoidal pattern.

My rationale is that we are driving vaccine resistance by vaccinated people with dodgy immune systems. Where as in the 1918 influenza, those people died out. The only non lethal solution would be 100% to isolate those with weak immune systems. Having  them mixing with everyone else is a bit like have an insecure router connected to your network.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[anonguest]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

I disagree entirely.  There’s no point jabbing young people as they aren’t at risk.

But pregnant women are at big risk of Covid, as pregnancy already gives you a compromised immune system and lower lung capacity as the baby grows.

My pregnant wife got double jabbed as soon as she passed the first trimester, before which it isn’t recommended.

IF, as you say, it is established scientific fact that pregnant women are one of those categories of people who have significantly elevated risk from Covid then that does muddy the waters slightly in so far as there is one group of people who we just don't know yet what the effect of the vaccines will be on them - the as yet unborn. 

IF the background theory/scientific assumptions are that there will be no risk...then great. BUT this is one area of social policy where mistakes or errors could be HUGELY socio-economically costly IF they get any part of that no risk assertion wrong.  Given that pregnant women have been eligible for vaccines for at least few months now? Then we will start to know soon enough I would have thought.

[Bruce Banner]

Vaccine passports row as Boris Johnson faces calls to recall Parliament amid Tory rebellion over scheme (inews.co.uk)

The threat of a Tory rebellion over Boris Johnson’s controversial plans for vaccine passports is growing as the Prime Minister faces calls to recall Parliament early to vote on the scheme.

Mr Johnson has been urged to call MPs back from their summer holiday to debate on the issue and was warned vaccine certificates would not be passed if put to a Commons vote.

Critics of the Government’s plan to make proof of vaccination a mandatory requirement to enter nightclubs and “other large venues where crowds gather” from the end of September claim it’s an “infringement on liberties” and will not persuade younger people to get jabbed.

[Ah-so]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

And my point is that you’re wrong because the 5000 post vaccine deaths is over 6 months and the 58000 is for a year.  
 

So it’s not as simple as 58/12 is about 5 - that would be fine if the vaccine statistic was also over a whole year but it isn’t 

In fact more people have died shortly after a vaccine than would be expected if it were truly random

However the fact that the vaccines were administered to the old and weak first means it’s non random 

The point you make of the 5000 being only in 6 months would be valid if the vaccination was given evenly over an entire year and there was no distinction between the ages at the time.

However, nearly all of the elderly and those with serious health conditions were given the two vaccination in the first four or five months of the year. Remember also, that everyone had two jabs, which doubles their chance of dying within 28 days of a vaccination.

It my helpful to walk through this with a worked out case, partly for my own benefit, to make sure I haven't got this entirely wrong. And for the sake of argument, I am going to assume that all of the monthly 5000 that die normally in a month in Scotland fall into a high risk category and would have been entitled to the first wave of jabs (although the reality if probably something more like 95%). I am going to assume that approximately 1/3 of the high risk group are vaccinated each month. . I am also going to assume that vaccination started in January, but I know it started in December, but in relatively low numbers. Several assumptions, but I don't think that any are materially wrong.

By the end of March, it seems like pretty much all the high risk individuals had had a first jab and they had started the 2nd jab.

January: 5000 deaths; percentage of high risk citizens vaccinated 33%

February 5000 deaths; percentage of high risk citizens vaccinated 33%; (deaths within 28 days of first jab, 1,666)

March 5000 deaths; percentage of high risk citizens vaccinated 33%; (deaths within 28 days of first jab, 1,666)

April 5000 deaths: percentage of high risk citizens 2nd vaccination 33%; (deaths with 28 days of first jab, 1,666)

May 5000 deaths; percentage of high risk citizens vaccinated 33%; (deaths within 28 days of second vaccination, 1,666).

So I have managed to get to c. 6,700 deaths within 28 days of a vaccination. Obviously this is higher than the 5,000 odd previously noted, but that will be down to exact numbers and assumptions. And there should be another load of deaths in June that are within 28 days of the May vaccinations.

So in conclusion, having 5000+ deaths within 28 days of the vaccination seems to be entirely consistent with what we would expect.

However, I would now expect those deaths to be dropping because those being vaccinated are not in the population that would ordinarily die of natural causes.

Let me know if my thinking is materially flawed, but I think it is sound.

 

[Ah-so]

[Bob8]

9 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

I wonder if @Arpeggiowill understand this.

[Arpeggio]

10 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I wonder if @Arpeggiowill understand this.

A lot more than you do evidently.

[Arpeggio]

23 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

and you!

[Ah-so]

32 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

and you!

I hoped you'd appreciate it 😚

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

The point you make of the 5000 being only in 6 months would be valid if the vaccination was given evenly over an entire year and there was no distinction between the ages at the time.

However, nearly all of the elderly and those with serious health conditions were given the two vaccination in the first four or five months of the year. Remember also, that everyone had two jabs, which doubles their chance of dying within 28 days of a vaccination.

You're calculations are assuming that the 5522 deaths within 28 days after injection are mostly old people with underlying health conditions.

This information is known for a fact among the 10,324 deaths registered in Scotland where the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is mentioned on the death certificate, in that ~95% of which (at least pre-vaccine) had on average 2.6 underlying health conditions.

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

It my helpful to walk through this with a worked out case, partly for my own benefit, to make sure I haven't got this entirely wrong. And for the sake of argument, I am going to assume that all of the monthly 5000 that die normally in a month in Scotland fall into a high risk category

[Arpeggio]

2 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

I hoped you'd appreciate it 😚

Thanks for the blowing me a kiss. I just rubbed my nips.