Hospital outbreak of COVID among a highly vaccinated population

7,316 Views | 70 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by G. hirsutum Ag
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 10/7/21
AG
Simple statistics make the discussion easier:

95-97% of hospitalized in US are not vaccinated
30% of adult population is not vaccinated.

So 30% of adult population is leading to 95-97% of hospitalizations.

For the "natural immunity" crowd. We don't know how many of the 30% have natural immunity, so arguably those 95-97% hospitalizations are coming from a much smaller population pool: whatever percentage of the 30% are unvaccinated and lack natural immunity.

In Texas, since February there have been 19,000 Covid deaths, of that number 120 of them were fully vaccinated.

Any arguments that "the vaccine doesn't work" should be largely ignored.

Is it as good about preventing infections with the Delta variant as it was with the initial variants (especially Pfizer)? No. Is it as effective at preventing serious illness? Yes.

So if we were all vaccinated then Covid would be like a cold, would go around and no one would really care, because it would be greatly less people getting the virus and would not have any significant effects for most people.
Reply Quote
23
Scruffy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 11:32a, 10/7/21
AG
Aston94 said:
Simple statistics make the discussion easier: ...

95-97% of hospitalized in US are not vaccinated...
That "statistic" was admitted to only be for cases through April of 2021.
The CDC was forced to admit that a month ago. It didn't receive much news coverage, but that is when the CDC changed it reporting/tracking metrics.

One major problem we've had this entire time is poor reporting and bad data collection that is then stated as fact followed by retractions that are not as loudly and clearly reported.
Reply Quote
4
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 12:03p, 10/7/21
Aston94 said:
Simple statistics make the discussion easier:

95-97% of hospitalized in US are not vaccinated
30% of adult population is not vaccinated.

So 30% of adult population is leading to 95-97% of hospitalizations.

For the "natural immunity" crowd. We don't know how many of the 30% have natural immunity, so arguably those 95-97% hospitalizations are coming from a much smaller population pool: whatever percentage of the 30% are unvaccinated and lack natural immunity.

In Texas, since February there have been 19,000 Covid deaths, of that number 120 of them were fully vaccinated.

Any arguments that "the vaccine doesn't work" should be largely ignored.

Is it as good about preventing infections with the Delta variant as it was with the initial variants (especially Pfizer)? No. Is it as effective at preventing serious illness? Yes.

So if we were all vaccinated then Covid would be like a cold, would go around and no one would really care, because it would be greatly less people getting the virus and would not have any significant effects for most people.


The bigger picture is that it is and always has been very unlikely to end up in the hospital or even die from covid. Maybe this is seen as an easy way out of an argument or not nuanced enough to satisfy the professionals, but the death rate for those under 60 is so minuscule and most deaths are made up of older and overweight people.

I can easily flip your statistics to prove my point that 95%-97% of the population will be fine, with or without the vaccine. It's been beaten like a dead horse that we do not have many hospitals beds as is so the percentages that you and others reference may be true, but actually does not reinforce your point well to those who look at the numbers in relation to total population.

Your last paragraph is accurate for the majority of the population. Those who are surrounded by covid at hospitals or have been at home watching the news the whole time really believe that the vaccine is the end game.
Reply Quote
2
Joe Boudain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Duncan Idaho • 12:09p, 10/7/21
Are you oem Duncan or Ghola Duncan?
Reply Quote
1
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 12:13p, 10/7/21
AG
Quote:
The bigger picture is that it is and always has been very unlikely to end up in the hospital or even die from covid. Maybe this is seen as an easy way out of an argument or not nuanced enough to satisfy the professionals, but the death rate for those under 60 is so minuscule and most deaths are made up of older and overweight people.
The problem with your probability weightings is that they do not give a value to the low-probability outcome. We know in this case that the low-probability outcome ranges from awful (long hauler symptoms, permanent lung damage, etc.) to death.

The Pentagon used to make this clear in their discussions with the media. The probability of a terrorist setting off a dirty bomb is extremely low given the safeguards in place, but the implied outcome is so terrible that we go above and beyond to minimize any and all chance of it happening including waging war overseas against hostile non-state actors.

And it is bit puzzling that people don't grasp this more keenly given the steady daily drip of severe cases or COVID deaths in the the Alfred E. Nuemann population that supposedly has nothing to worry about.


Reply Quote
12
1 edit
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Joe Boudain • 12:55p, 10/7/21
AG
Quote:
Ghola Duncan
Ghola Duncan was lame, as was the ending of Chapterhouse: Dune.

Who would have thought a rabbi and a bunch of secret Jews would have popped up tens of thousands of years in the future? Did not see that one coming. I was also confused about the old couple gardening.
Reply Quote
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Windy City Ag • 1:55p, 10/7/21
I understand what you're saying, but if that's the best explanation after 2 years it is not compelling.
Reply Quote
2
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 2:24p, 10/7/21
AG
texan12 said:
Aston94 said:
Simple statistics make the discussion easier:

95-97% of hospitalized in US are not vaccinated
30% of adult population is not vaccinated.

So 30% of adult population is leading to 95-97% of hospitalizations.

For the "natural immunity" crowd. We don't know how many of the 30% have natural immunity, so arguably those 95-97% hospitalizations are coming from a much smaller population pool: whatever percentage of the 30% are unvaccinated and lack natural immunity.

In Texas, since February there have been 19,000 Covid deaths, of that number 120 of them were fully vaccinated.

Any arguments that "the vaccine doesn't work" should be largely ignored.

Is it as good about preventing infections with the Delta variant as it was with the initial variants (especially Pfizer)? No. Is it as effective at preventing serious illness? Yes.

So if we were all vaccinated then Covid would be like a cold, would go around and no one would really care, because it would be greatly less people getting the virus and would not have any significant effects for most people.


The bigger picture is that it is and always has been very unlikely to end up in the hospital or even die from covid. Maybe this is seen as an easy way out of an argument or not nuanced enough to satisfy the professionals, but the death rate for those under 60 is so minuscule and most deaths are made up of older and overweight people.

I can easily flip your statistics to prove my point that 95%-97% of the population will be fine, with or without the vaccine. It's been beaten like a dead horse that we do not have many hospitals beds as is so the percentages that you and others reference may be true, but actually does not reinforce your point well to those who look at the numbers in relation to total population.

Your last paragraph is accurate for the majority of the population. Those who are surrounded by covid at hospitals or have been at home watching the news the whole time really believe that the vaccine is the end game.
The point of my post was not "you should get the vaccine no matter what". If you want to take your chances with the virus over a vaccine that has shown itself to be very safe then so be it, that is up to you.

But if you argue "the vaccine doesn't work" then that is what I take issue with.

It is America, everyone should be able to determine their own risk, but don't argue the infectivity of a very effective vaccine.
Reply Quote
7
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Scruffy • 2:27p, 10/7/21
AG
Scruffy said:
Aston94 said:
Simple statistics make the discussion easier: ...

95-97% of hospitalized in US are not vaccinated...
That "statistic" was admitted to only be for cases through April of 2021.
The CDC was forced to admit that a month ago. It didn't receive much news coverage, but that is when the CDC changed it reporting/tracking metrics.

One major problem we've had this entire time is poor reporting and bad data collection that is then stated as fact followed by retractions that are not as loudly and clearly reported.
I don't discount bad data collection as an issue, but more recent hospital surveys have shown the 95-97% hospitalized being unvaccinated to still be an accurate number.
Reply Quote
3
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 2:35p, 10/7/21
My apologies
Reply Quote
Stringfellow Hawke
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stringfellow Hawke • 4:22p, 10/7/21
AG
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Diyala Nick said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
ORAggieFan said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.

The vaccine that has way less people hospitalized and dying is what's making things worse?


It seems that is the logical conclusion.


This has to be a troll.


[Wrong forum for the political rhetoric. - Staff]


Spreadsheet updated. I can be called a troll.
Reply Quote
4
gunan01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Diyala Nick • 11:34p, 10/7/21
AG
Diyala Nick said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
ORAggieFan said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.

The vaccine that has way less people hospitalized and dying is what's making things worse?


It seems that is the logical conclusion.


This has to be a troll.
Ya there's no doubt it's a troll. No one can be that unintelligent.
Reply Quote
1
fullback44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stringfellow Hawke • 4:31a, 10/8/21
AG
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.
they are calling you a troll because you are not going along with their mentality, you people working in the hospitals see what is going,on with first hand knowledge i respect your post, it goes along with what a lot of scientist have been warning about, that if you keep vaccinating we will create a super bug that will eventually kill lots of people, thats what is scary about all of this. are we creating a super bug that will eventually kill people if they dont keep taking the muriad of boosters? this really is the million dollar question
Reply Quote
5
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fullback44 • 6:35a, 10/8/21
AG
fullback44 said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.
they are calling you a troll because you are not going along with their mentality, you people working in the hospitals see what is going,on with first hand knowledge i respect your post, it goes along with what a lot of scientist have been warning about, that if you keep vaccinating we will create a super bug that will eventually kill lots of people, thats what is scary about all of this. are we creating a super bug that will eventually kill people if they dont keep taking the muriad of boosters? this really is the million dollar question

Indeed its a credential fight now. Many arguments about which doctors to trust, which professional sources are accurate, and who is more in the know. Seems both sides only use the authority figure and data that best confirm their priors.

This has been the problem with mixed messages since the beginning. Healthcare authorities, from Fauci to OP, are not considered viable sources or trustworthy by a large segment of the population.
Reply Quote
1
abram97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 8:51a, 10/8/21
AG
I posted a published paper. That is all. Trusting a poster on the internet has nothing to do with it. You choose to trust the data they presented or not.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 9:24a, 10/8/21
AG
Quote:
I understand what you're saying, but if that's the best explanation after 2 years it is not compelling.
As Aston said . . . .you forget to add in To Me there at the end.

Risk appetites are different from person to person. That doesn't make the person right or wrong or smart or dumb. I just reflects a relatively heightened willingness to roll the dice and potentially suffer bad outcomes.

As the numbers show, you seem to be in the minority with your take on things. A vastly greater number of people want to reduce or eliminate their risk.

Reply Quote
1
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stringfellow Hawke • 9:28a, 10/8/21
AG
Quote:
Spreadsheet updated. I can be called a troll.
Spreadsheet updated? Are you keeping a list?

Reply Quote
CondensedFogAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gunan01 • 9:30a, 10/8/21
gunan01 said:
Diyala Nick said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
ORAggieFan said:
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.

The vaccine that has way less people hospitalized and dying is what's making things worse?


It seems that is the logical conclusion.


This has to be a troll.
Ya there's no doubt it's a troll. No one can be that unintelligent.

You haven't seen all the people posting fraudulent data from clickbait scammers, then throwing childish tantrums and resort to personal attacks once the blatant easy to spot errors are pointed out?
Reply Quote
4
GeographyAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Duncan Idaho • 10:25a, 10/8/21
AG
Duncan Idaho said:
out of curiosty what is your speciality?



In this post he says he's a hematologist/oncologist:

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3104849/replies/56321081

If I’m posting, it’s actually Mrs GeographyAg.
Mr. GeographyAg is a dedicated lurker.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to abram97 • 10:32a, 10/8/21
AG
abram97 said:
I posted a published paper. That is all. Trusting a poster on the internet has nothing to do with it. You choose to trust the data they presented or not.

I don't disagree but even here you're expertise and loyalties are questioned. As if you and the paper are not 'good enough.'
Reply Quote
He Who Shall Be Unnamed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stringfellow Hawke • 1:53p, 10/8/21
Stringfellow Hawke said:
Posted it before and will repost now. Myself and other medics worked the 18 months without a vaccine and wearing standard isolation or N95 masks. Since being required to become vaccinated, number of infections have increased as well as admissions to ICU.

The only thing that makes sense is the vaccine is making things worse as opposed to making things better.

Just my opinion.
The Spanish flu had three separate peaks, if I recall. This virus peaked massively around the Holidays 2020 and 2021, with vaccines being rolled out just after that. That peak dropped as the warmer months came, people moved out, and as vaccines got rolled out. Deaths dropped from all of the above plus a better understanding of therapeutics. COVID, and its deaths, was almost nonexistent June/July. The second peak (maybe third peak, depending on how you look at it) is mainly the Delta variant.

With regards to the highlighted portions, correlation does not equal causality. When I was but a socklet, I used to spend summers with my grandparents on the family ranch. Every morning, a rooster would crow. Not long afterwards, the sun would come up. Every. Damn. Time. It was mind boggling.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
abram97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GeographyAg • 1:58p, 10/8/21
AG
GeographyAg said:
Duncan Idaho said:
out of curiosty what is your speciality?



In this post he says he's a hematologist/oncologist:

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3104849/replies/56321081

And internal medicine.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
abram97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 2:00p, 10/8/21
AG
tysker said:
abram97 said:
I posted a published paper. That is all. Trusting a poster on the internet has nothing to do with it. You choose to trust the data they presented or not.

I don't disagree but even here you're expertise and loyalties are questioned. As if you and the paper are not 'good enough.'
That's fine if they think the paper is not good. I want to just bring more info to the discussion - it's better when all info is on the table. Then discussion can take place, hopefully, and we go from there.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
03_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to abram97 • 3:17p, 10/8/21
abram97 said:
GeographyAg said:
Duncan Idaho said:
out of curiosty what is your speciality?



In this post he says he's a hematologist/oncologist:

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3104849/replies/56321081

And internal medicine.


I wonder if Duncan will reciprocate.
Reply Quote
4
t - cam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to abram97 • 4:47p, 10/8/21
AG
abram97 said:
You seem to be very confident in your knowledge and very close minded about other people's data/thoughts on the matter.


I think is mostly true of everyone on here. Though I wouldn't pretend to be confident in my knowledge. I honestly just listen to the doctors and I believe they are right.
Reply Quote
G. hirsutum Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nosmo • 8:18a, 10/9/21
AG
Nosmo said:
badbilly said:
gunan01 said:
badbilly said:
gunan01 said:
badbilly said:
https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/09/30/76-of-september-covid-19-deaths-are-vaxxed-breakthroughs/

As seen in Israel and the UK, as vaccination rates go up, the vaccinated have the higher death tolls. I'll put my natural immunity up over any of your vaccines.
this has been debunked many times on this forum. Basically their vaccinated rates are so high that the absolute numbers are going to show higher absolute death numbers in vaccinated folks. Because there are few unvaccinated left to get sick and die!

Simple statistics…..


Exactly, I never claimed otherwise. The vaccine will not prevent death as is often claimed here. It does a poor job against variants and as such, it should never be mandated.
Lol you claimed EXACTLY otherwise. Also, the vaccine absolutely helps to reduce deaths.


No I didn't. Once again, as the vaccinated population grows, they will become more of the deaths. Yes, that has been show through data in the UK and Israel. Why? Because the vaccine does not prevent death. But at least you admit it doesn't prevent death.
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated



This would strongly suggest that the vaccine prevents deaths.


So worse case scenario the highest risk group with no protections in place 99.8% of those infected did not have a severe infection?
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to G. hirsutum Ag • 2:02p, 10/9/21
Why do you say "no protections in place"?
Reply Quote
G. hirsutum Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 4:47p, 10/10/21
AG
Because the unvaccinated group of 90 year olds had 233 severe infections out of 100,000 people. That's 0.2% of the most at risk group according to your data. And according to the data as presented those in that column have no protection. Just making sure we are all on the same page here
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to G. hirsutum Ag • 5:29p, 10/10/21
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Because the unvaccinated group of 90 year olds had 233 severe infections out of 100,000 people. That's 0.2% of the most at risk group according to your data. And according to the data as presented those in that column have no protection. Just making sure we are all on the same page here
I'm sorry, I am just being slow. Must've stayed up too late last night watching the game.

I still don't understand what you mean either in your original or your following post. What exactly do you mean by those 90 or over having no protection? The chart doesn't say anything about any protections that any of the individuals had, other than vaccinations. My surmise is that 90s may be more protected than younger people these days in assisted living and nursing homes. That might be why their percentages are better than those just younger than them.
Reply Quote
3
GenericAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to abram97 • 10:26p, 10/10/21
AG
abram97 said:
You seem to be very confident in your knowledge and very close minded about other people's data/thoughts on the matter.
Reply Quote
3
Bassmaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 03_Aggie • 7:31a, 10/11/21
AG
03_Aggie said:
abram97 said:
GeographyAg said:
Duncan Idaho said:
out of curiosty what is your speciality?



In this post he says he's a hematologist/oncologist:

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3104849/replies/56321081

And internal medicine.


I wonder if Duncan will reciprocate.
He'll hedge. The irony of him demanding an answer as if it matters is funny. He's on here playing doctor and goaltending all day and as far as I know, is not a physician, podiatrist or otherwise.
Reply Quote
3
G. hirsutum Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:04p, 10/11/21
AG
Jabin said:
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Because the unvaccinated group of 90 year olds had 233 severe infections out of 100,000 people. That's 0.2% of the most at risk group according to your data. And according to the data as presented those in that column have no protection. Just making sure we are all on the same page here
I'm sorry, I am just being slow. Must've stayed up too late last night watching the game.

I still don't understand what you mean either in your original or your following post. What exactly do you mean by those 90 or over having no protection? The chart doesn't say anything about any protections that any of the individuals had, other than vaccinations. My surmise is that 90s may be more protected than younger people these days in assisted living and nursing homes. That might be why their percentages are better than those just younger than them.



This chart right here shows that unvaccinated 90 year olds have the highest death rate out of anyone. Correct? 233.4 is the highest number on that chart. That 233.4 number represents the highest risk group because they are the oldest and they have not been vaccinated. We have been told that the only proven treatment for Covid is the vaccine. Masks aren't working, social distancing is impossible. Get the shot and you won't die from Covid is what we have been told time and again. And if you get Covid go to the hospital for treatment. So the most at risk group health wise, while probably not taking the most risks with daily living, have the highest possible death rate according to this graph.

You are looking at how much the vaccines reduce severe number of cases. Which you're right. They do. I'm looking at how many total severe cases there were in the worst case scenario. So according to this the worst case scenario is 233.4/100,000 people get severely sick from Covid which is 99.8% of cases did not get severely sick. Not sure if I can explain what I mean any better than that
Reply Quote
1
CowtownEng
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to G. hirsutum Ag • 1:29p, 10/11/21
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Jabin said:
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Because the unvaccinated group of 90 year olds had 233 severe infections out of 100,000 people. That's 0.2% of the most at risk group according to your data. And according to the data as presented those in that column have no protection. Just making sure we are all on the same page here
I'm sorry, I am just being slow. Must've stayed up too late last night watching the game.

I still don't understand what you mean either in your original or your following post. What exactly do you mean by those 90 or over having no protection? The chart doesn't say anything about any protections that any of the individuals had, other than vaccinations. My surmise is that 90s may be more protected than younger people these days in assisted living and nursing homes. That might be why their percentages are better than those just younger than them.



This chart right here shows that unvaccinated 90 year olds have the highest death rate out of anyone. Correct? 233.4 is the highest number on that chart. That 233.4 number represents the highest risk group because they are the oldest and they have not been vaccinated. We have been told that the only proven treatment for Covid is the vaccine. Masks aren't working, social distancing is impossible. Get the shot and you won't die from Covid is what we have been told time and again. And if you get Covid go to the hospital for treatment. So the most at risk group health wise, while probably not taking the most risks with daily living, have the highest possible death rate according to this graph.

You are looking at how much the vaccines reduce severe number of cases. Which you're right. They do. I'm looking at how many total severe cases there were in the worst case scenario. So according to this the worst case scenario is 233.4/100,000 people get severely sick from Covid which is 99.8% of cases did not get severely sick. Not sure if I can explain what I mean any better than that


That's not what the data means.

The case rate is a snapshot in time that is scaled for easy reference amongst the various bins of the histogram. The unit in the table is per 100k people, not per 100k infections.
Reply Quote
6
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CowtownEng • 3:17p, 10/11/21
This. And to repeat:

Quote:
The unit in the table is per 100k people, not per 100k infections.
And it's just a snapshot of one moment in time. Not over the entire course of Covid.
Reply Quote
3
G. hirsutum Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CowtownEng • 3:41p, 10/11/21
AG
CowtownEng said:
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Jabin said:
G. hirsutum Ag said:
Because the unvaccinated group of 90 year olds had 233 severe infections out of 100,000 people. That's 0.2% of the most at risk group according to your data. And according to the data as presented those in that column have no protection. Just making sure we are all on the same page here
I'm sorry, I am just being slow. Must've stayed up too late last night watching the game.

I still don't understand what you mean either in your original or your following post. What exactly do you mean by those 90 or over having no protection? The chart doesn't say anything about any protections that any of the individuals had, other than vaccinations. My surmise is that 90s may be more protected than younger people these days in assisted living and nursing homes. That might be why their percentages are better than those just younger than them.



This chart right here shows that unvaccinated 90 year olds have the highest death rate out of anyone. Correct? 233.4 is the highest number on that chart. That 233.4 number represents the highest risk group because they are the oldest and they have not been vaccinated. We have been told that the only proven treatment for Covid is the vaccine. Masks aren't working, social distancing is impossible. Get the shot and you won't die from Covid is what we have been told time and again. And if you get Covid go to the hospital for treatment. So the most at risk group health wise, while probably not taking the most risks with daily living, have the highest possible death rate according to this graph.

You are looking at how much the vaccines reduce severe number of cases. Which you're right. They do. I'm looking at how many total severe cases there were in the worst case scenario. So according to this the worst case scenario is 233.4/100,000 people get severely sick from Covid which is 99.8% of cases did not get severely sick. Not sure if I can explain what I mean any better than that


That's not what the data means.

The case rate is a snapshot in time that is scaled for easy reference amongst the various bins of the histogram. The unit in the table is per 100k people, not per 100k infections.


That's correct. And 234 out of 100,000 is 99.8 of the population according to the most at risk data group have had no serious complications or have been completely unaffected by Covid. Data can mean more than one thing. Yes the purpose of this graph is to show improvements in severe cases using the shot. But it also tells a different story
Reply Quote
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.