Australians could require four or five jabs to be considered ‘up to date’

[stevil]

In one particular cherry-picked week. In a different week, 1 dose mortality rates were an order of magnitude lower. Perhaps it is premature to get too excited concluding that this post has uncovered data which overturns years of vaccine research by finding a fortunate bit of noise in a single week of data?

His numbers are misleading because in the unvaxed group it includes all the children less than 10 years old, which is a significant number of people considering that 90% of Scotland is vaccinated.

As an example just to illustrate how this works. (I'm making up all the numbers here)
But lets say Scotland has 10,000 people who are not vaccinated but have recently been impacted by the disease. Out of that we find that 50 people died, and 500 hospitalised.
It would seem that 0.5% die and 5% hospitalised.
But if we take all the <10 year children from that group (because we know people < 10 are typically not hospitalised or killed by the disease), so let's just say that 6,000 are the children (no kids under 10 are vaccinated in Scotland so this would be a significant proportion). This leaves us with 4,000 unvaccinated over 10s and if all the hospitalisations and deaths were from over 10s, then
we would find that 1.25% are dying, and 12.5% are being hospitalised.

It would even get worse if you accounted for people who have previously recovered from Covid (but remain unvaccinated)
Lets say 1,300 people of that unvaccinated group had previously recovered from Covid and that all the recent deaths and hospitalisations came from those that had not previously recovered. This group is now 2,700 strong.
we would find that for unvaccinated over 10y who have never had covid before but who catch the disease then 1.85% are dying and 18.5% are being hospitalised.

I've just made those numbers up. But see how they change based on looking into relevant details.
It doesn't make sense to lump all the < 10 year old scottish kids into a single statistic for unvaccinated hospitalisation and death rates as it severely skews the outcome.

What people need, in order to be more informed is to get stats that match their own situation, and this will help them to make an informed decision on whether to get vaccinated or not.
For example. If I am 65 years old then I want to know how wll 65 years old cope with Covid in a comparison to unvaxed vs vaxed. That will help me know if I should get vaccinated or not.
The prognoses for a 5 year old is not relevant to a 65 year old and if the unvaccinated group contains all the < 10 year olds in the country, because they haven't been vaccinated by that time, then that is seriously skewing that groups stats.

 

[KCfromNC]

His numbers are misleading because in the unvaxed group it includes all the children less than 10 years old, which is a significant number of people considering that 90% of Scotland is vaccinated.

I agree with this analysis, as you've mentioned it is a pretty basic part of the understanding of the stats about a disease where both the vaccination rate and mortality rates are age dependent. Heck, even the original source of the numbers talked about these sorts of issues, you wouldn't think we'd have to explain it given that the posts touting those numbers have obviously carefully investigated that source before risking spreading misinformation about a deadly disease.

But I was also looking at the week to week numbers and seeing that they varied by nearly 10x due to the very small number of deaths per week per category. One week it was 3 deaths, the next 1, the next 7, and so on. That's a huge percentage change week to week from just a few extra deaths one way or the other. I mean, if one single person died a day earlier or later, it could mean a 100% change in that kind of data.

With that much noise in the data, there are bound to be individual samples which are not representative of the overall trend. The post I quoted seemed to be cherry-picking one of those sample weeks, ignoring the rest of the data, and then failing to admit that it was an outlier or talk about the huge error bars that go along with such a small sample size. Instead, it was presented as airtight proof that the single sample was perfectly representative of what was happening overall.

 

[stevil]

you wouldn't think we'd have to explain it given that the posts touting those numbers have obviously carefully investigated that source before risking spreading misinformation about a deadly disease.

Yes, I don't think these people that are creating these threads are naiive.
I think they are intentionally misleading people.
I don't know why (whether they get kicks about thinking of the people they are killing, whether they are hyper partisan, being paid by partisan employers to help create a Democrat/Republican divide, working for Putin to help divide USA and the west, or something else???)

I just don't know.

My responses, my efforts to show this stuff is nonsense, isn't to educate the posters, but instead is to educate the readers. There are some people that are genuinely confused, because there is so much conflicting information, some of these people genuinely don't know how to distinguish one from the other.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Meanwhile, in France, childhood deaths 'with covid' have rocketed after they rolled out the covid vaccine. The data is for children 0-9 years of age, and the red line indicates the date when vaccination commenced.

https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1497870479775969280

 

[Bradskii]

Meanwhile, in France, childhood deaths 'with covid' have rocketed after they rolled out the covid vaccine. The data is for children 0-9 years of age, and the red line indicates the date when vaccination commenced.

https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1497870479775969280

Why would a doctor just post that graph without adding the relevant information that would allow us to assess it correctly? I'd say it's because he's anti-vaccination and doesn't want us to have the complete info. So how about some more info.

Around the time of that increase in deaths, France experienced a new wave of covid.



From here: As Covid cases soar among France's children, experts baffled by relaxed school protocol

'On paper, the math is blunt. France's Covid-19 incidence rate, the number of infections weekly per 100,000 people, has shot past 300 nationwide – six times the country's alert level of 50, where it lingered in October. But that rate is 650 for children aged 6 to 10, their highest since the start of the pandemic.'

Read that again: The general increase in covid cases was 6x the average. And the increase for children was 13x. And as tragic as even one death of a child would be:

'Children under the age of 10 represent just 13 of the 119,000 Covid-19 deaths in France since the start of the pandemic, although more than half of those children have died since August; three have died over the past 10 days.'

So how about we crank back the shameful rhetoric on child deaths for whatever agenda you are pushing. The deaths that have 'rocketed' on that graph you posted represent an additional 12 kids. Tragic of course, so I'll refrain from saying 'just 12'. But their deaths should not be used to push your anti-vaccination barrow. Notwithstanding this:

'The European Medicines Agency did recommend approval of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine for 5-to-11-year-olds last week. But Véran said vaccinating this age group would not begin in France until January at the earliest, pending the advice of France's own ethics and health authority.'

That red line on the graph represents the date that the vaccine was approved. Not the date that the vaccines were started. So those poor children were almost certainly not vaccinated in any case.

I don't know how low the bar can be set for misinformation regarding covid. It seems that nothing is off limits. But using the deaths of children means it surely cannot get any lower.

Absolutely shameful. You should apologise for reproducing this nonsense.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Around the time of that increase in deaths, France experienced a new wave of covid.

Your covid infections (new cases) chart has three waves. The chart I posted has only one surge in deaths, directly after they started vaccinating children.

Ergo, your correlation with new cases fits only 33% of the childhood deaths data. My correlation with vaccination roll out fits 100% of the childhood deaths data.

'The European Medicines Agency did recommend approval of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine for 5-to-11-year-olds last week. But Véran said vaccinating this age group would not begin in France until January at the earliest, pending the advice of France's own ethics and health authority.'

Thanks for pointing out that vaccination of children didn't commence until January. It's hard to get an exact date from the chart I posted, because the chart text is small. However, it is clear that January is about the time that childhood deaths started rocketing on the chart I posted (a few weeks after the red line).

That's pretty much an exact correlation of childhood deaths rocketing at the time covid vaccines were rolled out to children. Clearly it's not caused by a new wave of covid infections, because the first two waves did not have that impact, and in any case, Omicron is supposed to be less severe than the first two waves.

Absolutely shameful.

I reject your attempt to shame me. I consider it an 'appeal to emotion', and that is the antithesis of logical, rational thought.

 

[Bradskii]

Your covid infections (new cases) chart has three waves. The chart I posted has only one surge in deaths, directly after they started vaccinating children.

Ergo, your correlation with new cases fits only 33% of the childhood deaths data. My correlation with vaccination roll out fits 100% of the childhood deaths data.


Thanks for pointing out that vaccination of children didn't commence until January. It's hard to get an exact date from the chart I posted, because the chart text is small. However, it is clear that January is about the time that childhood deaths started rocketing on the chart I posted (a few weeks after the red line).

That's pretty much an exact correlation of childhood deaths rocketing at the time covid vaccines were rolled out to children. Clearly it's not caused by a new wave of covid infections, because the first two waves did not have that impact, and in any case, Omicron is supposed to be less severe than the first two waves.


I reject your attempt to shame me. I consider it an 'appeal to emotion', and that is the antithesis of logical, rational thought.

That you are using the tragic deaths of a few children to score cheap anti-vaccination points is beneath contempt. I want no further part of this discussion.

 

[stevil]

Clearly it's not caused by a new wave of covid infections, because the first two waves did not have that impact, and in any case, Omicron is supposed to be less severe than the first two waves.

I hope you have educated yourself enough to know that Omicron is much more contagious than Delta. Much more. So, although slightly less severe, much more people are catching it at a much quicker rate than before, therefore a higher likelihood of large numbers of hospitalisation and death.

The best way to understand the effectiveness of the vaccines and boosters is to compare within age group split up by vaccine status.

 

[flicka]

I've been wondering something, since my brother is unvaccinated let's fast forward to 2023 and maybe a new strain or 6 has bounced around the globe and a NEW version of the vaccine is made that was created especially to protect against the latest one. Would he have to take the original 2, the 3rd (booster) and maybe even the 4th (booster) to catch up? Or can he just take the new and improved 2023 version booster and be even steven with everyone? I mean at some point there will be so many boosters people can't play catchup anymore.

It's not like I have to take flu shots for all the years I missed....fully vaccinated is a dumb term IMO

 

[A_Thinker]

I've been wondering something, since my brother is unvaccinated let's fast forward to 2023 and maybe a new strain or 6 has bounced around the globe and a NEW version of the vaccine is made that was created especially to protect against the latest one. Would he have to take the original 2, the 3rd (booster) and maybe even the 4th (booster) to catch up? Or can he just take the new and improved 2023 version booster and be even steven with everyone? I mean at some point there will be so many boosters people can't play catchup anymore.

It's not like I have to take flu shots for all the years I missed....fully vaccinated is a dumb term IMO

I would think that you'd just want to be vaccinated against what's prevalent at the time. There should be one course of vaccination offered which would counter all relevant COVID threats.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

I hope you have educated yourself enough to know that Omicron is much more contagious than Delta. Much more. So, although slightly less severe, much more people are catching it at a much quicker rate than before, therefore a higher likelihood of large numbers of hospitalisation and death.

That doesn't make sense. Omicron is more contagious, but less lethal. So one effect counteracts the other. Overall result is nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

The best way to understand the effectiveness of the vaccines and boosters is to compare within age group split up by vaccine status.

Nobody believes or trusts the vaccine effectiveness claims made by the authorities any more. The Scottish health authority decided to stop publishing infection, hospitalisation, and death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated, because it was exposing their lies about vaccine effectiveness. The CDC has just admitted that it has been concealing data from the public.

Public Health Scotland to stop publishing Covid data due to anti-vax misuse fears

CDC Isn't Publishing Large Portions of the COVID-19 Data It Collects

 

[KCfromNC]

That doesn't make sense. Omicron is more contagious, but less lethal. So one effect counteracts the other.

One might believe that, but the data shows otherwise.

Nobody believes or trusts the vaccine effectiveness claims made by the authorities any more.

That's also contradicted by reality.

While I'm unimpressed by the accuracy of this post, I am impressed by how quickly the arguments change when they run up against reality. Just look at the number of different anti-vaxx narratives offered up and then quickly discarded once the actual facts surrounding them were shown.

 

[hedrick]

I agree that CDC should publish their data, but most of it is available from the states. NYTimes keeps graphs of lots of it. Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count One is case and death rates by vaccination. Vaccination is less effective for Omicron but the latest data still show infection slightly under 3 times less likely. That’s down from 5 for delta and 19 during early 2021. Death is 10 times less likely, down from 12 and 17. These numbers are not broken down by age. That’s unfortunate, because we know Simpson’s paradox applies to Covid data. Simpson's Paradox and Vaccines - COVID-19 Actuaries Response Group So the real ratios are higher. They also don’t separate by vaccination date or booster status. Boosted would be higher ratios.

 

[A_Thinker]

That doesn't make sense. Omicron is more contagious, but less lethal. So one effect counteracts the other. Overall result is nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

Said like a true non-scientist.

Just generally ... one thing that you're missing ... is the degree of effect.

My furnace can warm my home by 75+ degrees Fahrenheit, ... but if the outside temperature drops 100 degrees Fahrenheit, ... there is still a net negative effect.

Omicron being MORE contagious, ... but LESS deadly ... means, at the very least, ... MORE people catch it (including kids), ... but LESS people die from it overall ...

 

[stevil]

That doesn't make sense. Omicron is more contagious, but less lethal. So one effect counteracts the other. Overall result is nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

Only if they were exactly balanced, which they are not. Omicron is exponentially more contagious than Delta but slightly less deadly. Which means that at any particular time much more people are catching and even though the death percentage has dropped, the rate of death per day has gone up. I do wish you would bother to do research, and not make these assumptions.
Deaths Due to Omicron Higher Than From Delta
With the Omicron variant accounting for 99.9% of all COVID-19 cases in the United States, it’s proving even deadlier than the Delta variant.

This week the nation recorded a seven-day average of 2,200 daily coronavirus-related deaths, higher than the daily death count recorded two months ago during the Delta variant surge

“You can have a disease that is for any particular person less deadly than another, like Omicron, but if it is more infectious and reaches more people, then you’re more likely to have a lot of deaths,” Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality-statistics branch at the National Center for Health Statistics

Nobody believes or trusts the vaccine effectiveness claims made by the authorities any more.

Most people believe the vaccine effectiveness claims, these are well supported by the data coming in from all over the world. It is the anti-vax people who don't believe the data, they twist it, they spread outright lies. But they are in the vast minority. The problem is that they are highly motivated to spread nonsense which is why it is easy to find anti-vax nonsense on the internet. Easy to find, easy to refute.

The Scottish health authority decided to stop publishing infection, hospitalisation, and death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated, because it was exposing their lies about vaccine effectiveness. The CDC has just admitted that it has been concealing data from the public.

They didn't stop publishing it because it is lies, they stopped publishing it because of fears it was being used by anti-vaxers to spread lies.
But they can't win. Just the fact of them stopping publishing it, is also being used by anti-vaxxers to spread lies.

Here is a decent graph
United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status
At the top of the graph you can select to "change age group" and it will show the data in graph form broken down by vaccination status.

But if you have got to the point were you won't believe the scientific and medical experts, won't believe the authorities, won't believe the media, but will only believe what your anti-vax sources tell you, then there is no way out of that conspiracy rabbit hole for you. You cannot discover truth if you immediately won't believe anything that contradicts your current position.

 

[stevil]

Nobody believes or trusts the vaccine effectiveness claims made by the authorities any more.

I don't know it this will mean anything to you.
But here is a recount of a guy who was a Dr actively promoting anti-vax

 

[JustSomeBloke]

And now the ugly truth is revealed. The CDC can make the 'covid risk' recede. And it's just as easy as flicking a light switch on and off. I guess they got their orders to put covid on the back burner, while Russia-Ukraine takes centre-stage. Did they think no one would notice?

https://twitter.com/covid_clarity/status/1498360349975842821

 

[Tanj]

And now the ugly truth is revealed. The CDC can make the 'covid risk' recede. And it's just as easy as flicking a light switch on and off. I guess they got their orders to put covid on the back burner, while Russia-Ukraine takes centre-stage. Did they think no one would notice?

Perhaps they thought people would look at the actual data as it exists in reality and not rely on a lying weasel idiotic twitter feed that is the digital equivalent of raw sewage.

Here's the CDC county transmission data as of today
COVID Data Tracker

Here's the CDC country mask wearing/risk map as of today
COVID by County

The amount of lying people will engage in to push their agenda is less dumbfounding to me than the legion of people with no critical thinking skills that swallow the lies whole and beg for more.

That the CDC moved from transmission to hospitalization as their yard stick is clearly explained, independent of the fact both maps still exist and one did not replace the other.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps they thought people would look at the actual data as it exists in reality and not rely on a lying weasel idiotic twitter feed that is the digital equivalent of raw sewage.

The amount of lying people will engage in to push their agenda is less dumbfounding to me than the legion of people with no critical thinking skills that swallow the lies whole and beg for more.

I have no comment. I just wanted the above to be reposted.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

... lying weasel idiotic twitter feed that is the digital equivalent of raw sewage ...

... The amount of lying people will engage in to push their agenda is less dumbfounding to me than the legion of people with no critical thinking skills that swallow the lies whole and beg for more. ...

What triggered that outburst?

That the CDC moved from transmission to hospitalization as their yard stick is clearly explained, independent of the fact both maps still exist and one did not replace the other.

That's great. An admission that they changed the yard stick for measuring covid risk. That's like shortening the length of an athletics track, and then claiming that almost every record got broken.