FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Save three cost two
Save three cost two
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *arklong88 OP Man
over a year ago
Brighton/north Wales |
Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you saying that for every five people vaccinated, two die ?"
No, the figures are as claimed are if you vaccinate 100 000 people against Covid, three will be spared death from Covid, but two will die from the vaccine".
Peer reviewed papers are not a guarantee of accuracy - necessary but not sufficient. My two minute glance at it leads me to suspect it's probably bollocks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they don't die of Covid hasn't the vaccination saved them too ?"
No, they're saying, take 100k people (it's just a convenient measure point, a proportion of the population).
If you leave them and they catch Covid, three will die.
If you vaccinate them those three will be saved. But two others will die.
As I say, pretty sure it's bollocks, but that's the claim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
No body can know what reaction a person could have from the vaccine or if they might have any underlying causes if never been investigated do people get themselves checked before the vaccine or just roll on health checks alone miss things because they don't check everything as it's costly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The vacsine dosent make you imune you can still die at the start of this month the office for national statistics anounced 42 died of indian variant in uk and 12 of them had both jabs .dont think youre imune youre not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Must remind myself to only trust Facebook fact checker and not peer reviewed papers lol
I did think however that 4 people dying from vaccine for every 100k seemed very high"
Hmm. Why are you claiming that our doubts come from Facebook?
I looked at the claims - and we have not seen a surge in deaths following vaccination - and on their face they don't seem to add up. Ok, that's fine, I can be wrong.
I looked at the submission through turnaround time for peer review and publication, and that seemed suspiciously low compared to what I know to be true of journals and what peer review entails.
I looked at the journal and publisher, and there are people wondering if it's a predatory journal, the kind that will publish anything in exchange for the fee (and there are other issues, like having journals called "Cells" which is a blatant rip off of the famous journal Cell).
I looked up the first author. He's in psychology and complementary medicine, and in the past has supported claims such as the use of chiropractic in infants and the dangers of thimerasol in vaccines. While this point is tenuous - yeesh I wouldn't trust someone with those sorts of credentials as far as I could throw them.
... As I say, two minutes, this smells off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arklong88 OP Man
over a year ago
Brighton/north Wales |
I've done some digging into this as well and have to admit it has flaws...and people shocked it got through peer review journal.
It's brings up that age old question, we what deaths are really from covid and what deaths are really from the vaccine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've done some digging into this as well and have to admit it has flaws...and people shocked it got through peer review journal.
It's brings up that age old question, we what deaths are really from covid and what deaths are really from the vaccine"
If people are shocked it got through and it has flaws, then why are you presenting it as so compelling in your OP?
Side effects from vaccines happen. These include fatality in rare cases. We know this. But so far it does seem to be very rare (and both of the major issues - clots and myocarditis - are largely treatable at this stage).
We also know that Covid, left to spread, overwhelms hospitals. It not only kills people but also leaves people with lingering issues, some we worry might be permanent. To say death is the only bad outcome of Covid is disingenuous.
It's a good question to ask - but a source which doesn't fill me with confidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify. "
You are wrong in your understanding.
Inaswingdress has correctly interpreted it in the fourth post on this thread.
Both in what it means, and the likelyhood being it's almost certainly complete bollocks.
If only 3 out of 100,000 were saved that would be only 30 per million, or 1500 per 50,000,000.
The harsh reality is that the fovernment5 not go to the expense of vaccinating every adult to save 1500 lives. Particularly if 1000 died of the vaccine.
Complete nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
Peer reviewed by the antivax league?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I did the digging after posting..I wasn't aware that I needed to fact check information from medical journals before posting them on a sex site forum  "
The virus forum is a bit different, haha.
And people who possess critical thinking skills, and scientists, and both, also like swinging/unconventional sex  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
It's all lies and the vaccine is doing well and saving lives so spinning untrue evidence that you call will eventually catch up so get the Jab rather than infecting others whom you could end up killing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
I also don't need anyone to make me think differently about the vaccine via mail I know it works and saves lives shame that you still don't realise this by the number of deaths we now have to what we had before the vaccine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
His Wiki entry says it all... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Depends who you apply the stats to. Vaccinate 100,000 healthy people and fewer lives will be saved than if you vaccinate 100,000 unhealthy/elderly.
Given the death-rate among the old is around 7% (62 times higher than the young)....you are probably saving some 6-7 thousand per 100,000.
Harald Walach is seriously into holistic medicine, power of mind over health etc... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Depends who you apply the stats to. Vaccinate 100,000 healthy people and fewer lives will be saved than if you vaccinate 100,000 unhealthy/elderly.
Given the death-rate among the old is around 7% (62 times higher than the young)....you are probably saving some 6-7 thousand per 100,000.
Harald Walach is seriously into holistic medicine, power of mind over health etc..."
Death is not the only bad outcome, and younger healthy people suffer long term effects too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What about the people who don't end up with long term life debilitating effects as a result of catching covid? Are they in the study or is it simply about deaths. Coz I'd rather die than live 40 more years with lethargy, breathlessness and unable to return to work or lead a "normal" life. If the vaccine has saved me from that then job's a good un. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
I'm guessing by what you have written you don't take any forms of medicine or have ever because each one can have an impact on life when it decades medicine helps the body a little boost so the body is able to do the rest and function properly nothing is ever to be taken long term but that's how people are advised which is unprofessional as the body becomes dependant and is only able to function properly with the medication |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've actually read the publication. It's in a peer reviewed journal but not one that is highly regarded.
I would question the study design, as they are using one set of data for vaccine effectiveness and another for side effects.
For effectiveness, they looked at Israeli data with ~1 M people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. Conclusion: You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection. This is in a similar ballpark to other studies, and the number will be higher for non-mRNA vaccines with a lower efficacy.
For safety, they looked at Dutch data with a variety of vaccines. Per 100,000 vaccinations the Dutch report 16 with serious side effects and 4 fatalities. The study itself points out the Dutch have a higher incidence of side effects compared to other EU (700 per 100,000 compared to EU average of 127).
I would argue that preventing deaths is the wrong measure of success for Covid vaccines. The main benefit is reducing the severity of illness if you get infected. They did not analyse whether vaccinations results in a lower incidence of hospitalisation, which certainly seems to be the case in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've actually read the publication. It's in a peer reviewed journal but not one that is highly regarded.
I would question the study design, as they are using one set of data for vaccine effectiveness and another for side effects.
For effectiveness, they looked at Israeli data with ~1 M people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. Conclusion: You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection. This is in a similar ballpark to other studies, and the number will be higher for non-mRNA vaccines with a lower efficacy.
For safety, they looked at Dutch data with a variety of vaccines. Per 100,000 vaccinations the Dutch report 16 with serious side effects and 4 fatalities. The study itself points out the Dutch have a higher incidence of side effects compared to other EU (700 per 100,000 compared to EU average of 127).
I would argue that preventing deaths is the wrong measure of success for Covid vaccines. The main benefit is reducing the severity of illness if you get infected. They did not analyse whether vaccinations results in a lower incidence of hospitalisation, which certainly seems to be the case in the UK."
Comparing effectiveness from one country and harm from another is wildly dishonest.
It's a bit like saying that McDonald's is a health food by comparing the health markers of elite athletes who eat it and elderly, morbidly obese people who don't. I mean yeah that'll show that the people who eat McDonald's have better health, but... really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've actually read the publication. It's in a peer reviewed journal but not one that is highly regarded.
I would question the study design, as they are using one set of data for vaccine effectiveness and another for side effects.
For effectiveness, they looked at Israeli data with ~1 M people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. Conclusion: You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection. This is in a similar ballpark to other studies, and the number will be higher for non-mRNA vaccines with a lower efficacy.
For safety, they looked at Dutch data with a variety of vaccines. Per 100,000 vaccinations the Dutch report 16 with serious side effects and 4 fatalities. The study itself points out the Dutch have a higher incidence of side effects compared to other EU (700 per 100,000 compared to EU average of 127).
I would argue that preventing deaths is the wrong measure of success for Covid vaccines. The main benefit is reducing the severity of illness if you get infected. They did not analyse whether vaccinations results in a lower incidence of hospitalisation, which certainly seems to be the case in the UK."
I’m confused. You say “You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection.” but the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection??? Or am I missing something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
'I’m confused. You say “You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection.” but the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection??? Or am I missing something?'
A vaccine gives your body immunity against a particular virus. The level of immunity will vary depending on the vaccine, the virus and the individual. Before smallpox was eradicated, everybody was vaccinated and this was sufficient for lifelong protection. With Covid, you can be infected after being vaccinated but hopefully your body is primed to mount an effective immune response and prevent a serious illness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they don't die of Covid hasn't the vaccination saved them too ?
No, they're saying, take 100k people (it's just a convenient measure point, a proportion of the population).
If you leave them and they catch Covid, three will die.
If you vaccinate them those three will be saved. But two others will die.
As I say, pretty sure it's bollocks, but that's the claim."
Isn't it just playing with numbers? We can't ignore peer reviewed papers when that has been the yardstick in these fora for 18 months.
Everyday 1600 people die. Population of England 55m...runs to 3 people in 100000 everyday. Nothing to do with vaccine or virus.
As for what the vaccine is or is not doing..a lot of this could be emperors new clothes. Somebody doesn't die... Must be the vaccine thta "saved" them. Somebody dies and has had the Vaccine.. Must be the vaccine that "killed" them. The only things we can be sure of are... They have covid or don't have covid. The rest is supposition. You can't measure if someone is alive and stake a claim its because of anything. Could be because they had a ham sandwich. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify. "
Sounds a logical explanation. But what vaccine? Or are they all the same now? For the purposes of this thread at least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'I’m confused. You say “You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection.” but the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection??? Or am I missing something?'
A vaccine gives your body immunity against a particular virus. The level of immunity will vary depending on the vaccine, the virus and the individual. Before smallpox was eradicated, everybody was vaccinated and this was sufficient for lifelong protection. With Covid, you can be infected after being vaccinated but hopefully your body is primed to mount an effective immune response and prevent a serious illness. "
Bullshit!!! People who’ve been vaccinated against COViD have still been infected with COViD!!! It’s a tool to help your body fight the virus but it definitely doesn’t make you immune from it!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they don't die of Covid hasn't the vaccination saved them too ?
No, they're saying, take 100k people (it's just a convenient measure point, a proportion of the population).
If you leave them and they catch Covid, three will die.
If you vaccinate them those three will be saved. But two others will die.
As I say, pretty sure it's bollocks, but that's the claim.
Isn't it just playing with numbers? We can't ignore peer reviewed papers when that has been the yardstick in these fora for 18 months.
Everyday 1600 people die. Population of England 55m...runs to 3 people in 100000 everyday. Nothing to do with vaccine or virus.
As for what the vaccine is or is not doing..a lot of this could be emperors new clothes. Somebody doesn't die... Must be the vaccine thta "saved" them. Somebody dies and has had the Vaccine.. Must be the vaccine that "killed" them. The only things we can be sure of are... They have covid or don't have covid. The rest is supposition. You can't measure if someone is alive and stake a claim its because of anything. Could be because they had a ham sandwich."
This is the wisest comment I’ve read in these virus threads. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they don't die of Covid hasn't the vaccination saved them too ?
No, they're saying, take 100k people (it's just a convenient measure point, a proportion of the population).
If you leave them and they catch Covid, three will die.
If you vaccinate them those three will be saved. But two others will die.
As I say, pretty sure it's bollocks, but that's the claim.
Isn't it just playing with numbers? We can't ignore peer reviewed papers when that has been the yardstick in these fora for 18 months.
Everyday 1600 people die. Population of England 55m...runs to 3 people in 100000 everyday. Nothing to do with vaccine or virus.
As for what the vaccine is or is not doing..a lot of this could be emperors new clothes. Somebody doesn't die... Must be the vaccine thta "saved" them. Somebody dies and has had the Vaccine.. Must be the vaccine that "killed" them. The only things we can be sure of are... They have covid or don't have covid. The rest is supposition. You can't measure if someone is alive and stake a claim its because of anything. Could be because they had a ham sandwich."
Peer review is necessary but not sufficient. The quality of the data also matters. This is likely a predatory journal (ie one that will publish anything), from a first author with questionable credentials, that uses numbers and data sets that are not honest and skew as bad as possible, with claims that, if true, we'd see clear evidence of in our lives/on the news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've actually read the publication. It's in a peer reviewed journal but not one that is highly regarded.
I would question the study design, as they are using one set of data for vaccine effectiveness and another for side effects.
For effectiveness, they looked at Israeli data with ~1 M people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. Conclusion: You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection. This is in a similar ballpark to other studies, and the number will be higher for non-mRNA vaccines with a lower efficacy.
For safety, they looked at Dutch data with a variety of vaccines. Per 100,000 vaccinations the Dutch report 16 with serious side effects and 4 fatalities. The study itself points out the Dutch have a higher incidence of side effects compared to other EU (700 per 100,000 compared to EU average of 127).
I would argue that preventing deaths is the wrong measure of success for Covid vaccines. The main benefit is reducing the severity of illness if you get infected. They did not analyse whether vaccinations results in a lower incidence of hospitalisation, which certainly seems to be the case in the UK.
I’m confused. You say “You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection.” but the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection??? Or am I missing something?"
Of course it prevents infection. That the whole point.
It doesn't prevent EVERY infection but has been shown to prevent many (maybe even most) infections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"'I’m confused. You say “You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection.” but the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection??? Or am I missing something?'
A vaccine gives your body immunity against a particular virus. The level of immunity will vary depending on the vaccine, the virus and the individual. Before smallpox was eradicated, everybody was vaccinated and this was sufficient for lifelong protection. With Covid, you can be infected after being vaccinated but hopefully your body is primed to mount an effective immune response and prevent a serious illness.
Bullshit!!! People who’ve been vaccinated against COViD have still been infected with COViD!!! It’s a tool to help your body fight the virus but it definitely doesn’t make you immune from it!!!"
You're the one that needs to do more research. It does give significant immunity, just not 100%. Many people will have been protected against infections that they would have caught had they not been vaccinated.
Immunity is not "all or nothing" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify.
Sounds a logical explanation. But what vaccine? Or are they all the same now? For the purposes of this thread at least. "
There is literally no logic to that post. They are made up numbers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've actually read the publication. It's in a peer reviewed journal but not one that is highly regarded.
I would question the study design, as they are using one set of data for vaccine effectiveness and another for side effects.
For effectiveness, they looked at Israeli data with ~1 M people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. Conclusion: You need to vaccinate 200-700 people to prevent one Covid infection. This is in a similar ballpark to other studies, and the number will be higher for non-mRNA vaccines with a lower efficacy.
For safety, they looked at Dutch data with a variety of vaccines. Per 100,000 vaccinations the Dutch report 16 with serious side effects and 4 fatalities. The study itself points out the Dutch have a higher incidence of side effects compared to other EU (700 per 100,000 compared to EU average of 127).
I would argue that preventing deaths is the wrong measure of success for Covid vaccines. The main benefit is reducing the severity of illness if you get infected. They did not analyse whether vaccinations results in a lower incidence of hospitalisation, which certainly seems to be the case in the UK."
Possibly... But that's the issue, we all have been allowed to think of our own measure of success for the "vaccine" program... I think most of the noisy people seem to measure its success by if they can go on overseas holiday for 2 weeks or the pub not. It would have been more credible had they published what was expected to happen and compare it with what is happening now. As an example 35 to 40 % of people hospitalised have been vaccinated... Now you can make a statement that they are alive and we believe pre vaccine they would be dead... Or you can make a statement that pre vaccine they are in hospital because they have been jabbed (as if you look at the comparison 6 months ago... None in hospital had been vaccinated) .... Nobody can answer either of those observations. We can make numbers say anything we want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify.
Sounds a logical explanation. But what vaccine? Or are they all the same now? For the purposes of this thread at least. "
For the purposes of this thread, these are the numbers they're saying are true.
As they use both Dutch and Israeli data, they'll be relying on Oxford, Pfizer and Moderna (the Netherlands) and Pfizer and Moderna (Israel), but in mixed proportions. The mixing of evidence sets leaves the analysis with fairly little meaning behind it. If they'd stuck to one country it might be easier, although better would be if they relied on a single vaccine, or even vaccine type. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
"New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify.
Sounds a logical explanation. But what vaccine? Or are they all the same now? For the purposes of this thread at least.
For the purposes of this thread, these are the numbers they're saying are true.
As they use both Dutch and Israeli data, they'll be relying on Oxford, Pfizer and Moderna (the Netherlands) and Pfizer and Moderna (Israel), but in mixed proportions. The mixing of evidence sets leaves the analysis with fairly little meaning behind it. If they'd stuck to one country it might be easier, although better would be if they relied on a single vaccine, or even vaccine type."
Agree 100%...but that's one of the other sides of science. What is my agenda? Let's now go and make up some numbers to evidence it. You could as easily take mortality from hiv in Africa and mortality from Scandinavian countries and try and Compare hiv treatments... The beauty of the Internet... We can make up any old bollocks and someone will argue about it and provide it legitimacy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok I'm going to try and wrap my head round this as it's mega confusing. Say 100,000 people catch the virus, yet all 100,000 are vaccinated. 1,000 (maybe less) are likely to get seriously ill and require ventilation. Out of those 1,000 people. Roughly 500-550 would die or have serious health complications. But what the vaccines do is save 300 of those 500-550 from death.
Now I may be wrong in my understanding, but that is how I interpret it. Could any medical professional or scientists on here clarify.
Sounds a logical explanation. But what vaccine? Or are they all the same now? For the purposes of this thread at least.
For the purposes of this thread, these are the numbers they're saying are true.
As they use both Dutch and Israeli data, they'll be relying on Oxford, Pfizer and Moderna (the Netherlands) and Pfizer and Moderna (Israel), but in mixed proportions. The mixing of evidence sets leaves the analysis with fairly little meaning behind it. If they'd stuck to one country it might be easier, although better would be if they relied on a single vaccine, or even vaccine type.
Agree 100%...but that's one of the other sides of science. What is my agenda? Let's now go and make up some numbers to evidence it. You could as easily take mortality from hiv in Africa and mortality from Scandinavian countries and try and Compare hiv treatments... The beauty of the Internet... We can make up any old bollocks and someone will argue about it and provide it legitimacy. "
Yes, but that's what I'm saying. The study is mixing up data sets and trying to claim a truth. About multiple countries and multiple vaccines. It just doesn't work like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - "
Are we taking into account the vast majority of vaccinated are the old and infirm anyway, therefore likely to be closer to the pearly gates in the first place?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source -
Are we taking into account the vast majority of vaccinated are the old and infirm anyway, therefore likely to be closer to the pearly gates in the first place?
"
As I've said above. We can make numbers to suit our argument. We may eventually end up with the vaccinated making up 90 per cent of the deaths and the elderly and or infirm who can't take the vaccine or the antivaxxers being apparently safer than those who've been vaccinated.
One things for sure. If you're going to publish a paper with that data in it... Any decent scientist or report writer would have covered it in caveats if they felt they were accurate or appropriate. The absence of any such thought does ask questions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source -
Are we taking into account the vast majority of vaccinated are the old and infirm anyway, therefore likely to be closer to the pearly gates in the first place?
"
This seems to be one of the go to conspiracies being spun, note not saying anyone here is of that mindset..
The fact remains that two thirds of the annual deaths minus covid are the 'elderly' and despite being vaccinated against covid people will still die in that ratio..
But it's being spread and used to put people of getting vaccinated which is very iffy.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Out of interest,what is the death rate for the vaccine per 100k..the report said four but is it one or 0.001?!"
They'll be different for each vaccine, so you need to define your terms.
(I don't know, but there is not one vaccine so there's not one answer) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source -
Are we taking into account the vast majority of vaccinated are the old and infirm anyway, therefore likely to be closer to the pearly gates in the first place?
This seems to be one of the go to conspiracies being spun, note not saying anyone here is of that mindset..
The fact remains that two thirds of the annual deaths minus covid are the 'elderly' and despite being vaccinated against covid people will still die in that ratio..
But it's being spread and used to put people of getting vaccinated which is very iffy.."
I'm not sure about the sources of conspiracies....i manage thankfully to avoid most of them. But it's very easy to see how this report can be interpreted to say... If you are vaxxed the mortality rate is 3 times higher.(I'm not saying that by the way... I'm saying the link to the govt report says that in its table) Its written in black and white. The fact that the authors draw a line arbitrarily at age 50 is unhelpful. Of the 114 deaths.. 8 were aged under 50 and 6 of those were unvaccinated. 2 being vaccinated. Of the 114 deaths, 106 were aged over 50...now that could mean 51 or 91. And of those 106, 68 were vaccinated and 38 not vaccinated.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source -
Are we taking into account the vast majority of vaccinated are the old and infirm anyway, therefore likely to be closer to the pearly gates in the first place?
This seems to be one of the go to conspiracies being spun, note not saying anyone here is of that mindset..
The fact remains that two thirds of the annual deaths minus covid are the 'elderly' and despite being vaccinated against covid people will still die in that ratio..
But it's being spread and used to put people of getting vaccinated which is very iffy..
I'm not sure about the sources of conspiracies....i manage thankfully to avoid most of them. But it's very easy to see how this report can be interpreted to say... If you are vaxxed the mortality rate is 3 times higher.(I'm not saying that by the way... I'm saying the link to the govt report says that in its table) Its written in black and white. The fact that the authors draw a line arbitrarily at age 50 is unhelpful. Of the 114 deaths.. 8 were aged under 50 and 6 of those were unvaccinated. 2 being vaccinated. Of the 114 deaths, 106 were aged over 50...now that could mean 51 or 91. And of those 106, 68 were vaccinated and 38 not vaccinated.
"
Reports are not all made equal, some are better than others. (and no, not just cos I say so, there's stuff to look for, see my deconstruction of this one above) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf"
It's pretty straightforward, older people are more at risk of covid, they are the people that tend to die with covid, a high proportion of those people are vaccinated, tada! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf"
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated."
Maths! *swoons*  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *jhj69Couple
over a year ago
sale |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated."
And here we have the difference between someone who chooses numbers they don't fully understand to try and prove something they already believe
and
someone who uses statistical analysis to form a hypothesis based on reliable evidence.
Unfortunately, we have way too many people in the country who have an understanding of statistical analysis that is at best, rudimentary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated."
Just numbers.. You can make them say anything. You make an assumption that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious.
If govt published reportage is accurate, then it should be presented in better quality output that make misrepresentation more difficult. Far too much of it is clumsy or vague or ambiguous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
Just numbers.. You can make them say anything. You make an assumption that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious.
If govt published reportage is accurate, then it should be presented in better quality output that make misrepresentation more difficult. Far too much of it is clumsy or vague or ambiguous. "
Statistics can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean all analyses are worthless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
Just numbers.. You can make them say anything. You make an assumption that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious.
If govt published reportage is accurate, then it should be presented in better quality output that make misrepresentation more difficult. Far too much of it is clumsy or vague or ambiguous. "
How can I have assumed the vaccine is 100% effective if there are over 27k cases in the vaccinated?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *jhj69Couple
over a year ago
sale |
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf
You are just looking at cases and not the number of people vaccinated or unvaccinated. 84.1% (44.3 million people) of the adult population have had one jab and 61.6% (32.5 million people) have had both jabs. That leaves 15.9% (8.4 million people) of the adult population that haven’t had any jabs. According to those figure above, vaccinated people account for 27,192 cases - taking the double jabbed population into account (this gives a more conservative value), this means 0.08% of the fully vaccinated population have contracted the delta variant. However 53,822 of the unvaccinated population have contracted the delta variant - this equates to 0.64% of the unvaccinated population. So unvaccinated people are 8 times more likely to contract the delta variant. Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
Just numbers.. You can make them say anything. You make an assumption that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious.
If govt published reportage is accurate, then it should be presented in better quality output that make misrepresentation more difficult. Far too much of it is clumsy or vague or ambiguous.
How can I have assumed the vaccine is 100% effective if there are over 27k cases in the vaccinated? "
I know I know!! Because maths is hard? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
The concept that the figures you quote are accurate is completely disproved by the current stats within the U.K.
Firstly deaths from vaccination are nowhere near 2 in 100k, that figure not in a localised test but in the open reality of the pandemic is shown to be wildly inaccurate.
Then you can look at the figures for infection, hospitalisation and deaths from covid-19. Again to put a figure that 3 in 100k who would die is again not realistic. As of today we are seeing that infection rates run at about 1/3rd of the number created, that then impacts hospitalisation which actually runs at 10% of what we have seen for current infection levels meaning the human resilience is in general much improved. Then we look at deaths, these are again less than 40% of the level we would expect for the numbers currently in hospital. This is also displayed by the very different split we now see between people just being monitored compared to a year ago when a much higher level of patients required assistance with their breathing or indeed a medical intervention to take control of it via ventilation.
As with the old adage "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" you can set whatever parameters to stats to create a sensational headline but actually we all have the ability to look at the general situation and draw a very accurate conclusion.
Overlay the infection, hospital and death graphs for the UKs three peaks and they paint a very positive story in all respects for the vaccination process. The story they tell us pretty indisputable in truth.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’ve just been sent this in a private message from someone who is scared to post in the virus section cause of the abuse they received.
I’ve not fact checked it but I’m sure our resident fabperts will be able to debunk it for me
New data for Delta variant from UK.
Deaths of vaxxed = 70/27192 = 0.26% mortality
Deaths of unvaxxed = 44/53822 = 0.08% mortality
Meaning vaxxers have 3.25 higher chance of dying from Delta.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf"
I really wish people would apply some common sense.
Wave 3, look at the age groups of those who have died, look at the % of them who are vaccinated. It’s well in excess of 80%.
So do the simple maths... apply a generous anti vaccination bias of 80 and 20 ratio to those two mortality figures and you will see the massive difference in chance of death for that extremely vulnerable age group between vaccinated or not. It’s very clear, if you are jabbed... your survival chances are massively increased.
But also... have the common sense to look at the figures regarding admissions....
If you have a 50% mortality rate based on a small number of people that is a massive improvement on say a 20% mortality of an admissions figure that is 100 times greater than the former.
These figures can be twisted as much as people like but... go back to the general, overall figures and the answer on effectiveness is as clear as day.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw
"Please tell me this is bollocks"?
Why? You want it to be bollocks? Too painful to realise that it wasn't the return of the bubonic plague, and that BoJo the Clown and his band of merry men got a sizeable proportion of the country scared shitless and hiding under the rock for more than a year as if it was?
Just stumbled today on a good quote "you can buy a scientist as easily as you can buy a politician". So much was for "it wasn't us, it was scientific advice".
Back to "3 alive 2 dead" - to determine to which extent it is bollocks or not would probably take few pages filled with specialised jargon and far far more detailed data that you can fit in a catchy news headline. Much easier to keep spawning 3 words slogans, innit?.
"
... Or you can read the rest of the thread to find out why it's bollocks.
Nice quote. Does it have any relationship to reality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
"Please tell me this is bollocks"?
Why? You want it to be bollocks? Too painful to realise that it wasn't the return of the bubonic plague, and that BoJo the Clown and his band of merry men got a sizeable proportion of the country scared shitless and hiding under the rock for more than a year as if it was?
Just stumbled today on a good quote "you can buy a scientist as easily as you can buy a politician". So much for "it wasn't us, it was scientific advice".
Back to "3 alive 2 dead" - to determine to which extent it is bollocks or not would probably take few pages filled with specialised jargon and far far more detailed data that you can fit in a catchy news headline. Much easier to keep spawning 3 words slogans, innit?.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw
"Please tell me this is bollocks"?
Why? You want it to be bollocks? Too painful to realise that it wasn't the return of the bubonic plague, and that BoJo the Clown and his band of merry men got a sizeable proportion of the country scared shitless and hiding under the rock for more than a year as if it was?
Just stumbled today on a good quote "you can buy a scientist as easily as you can buy a politician". So much was for "it wasn't us, it was scientific advice".
Back to "3 alive 2 dead" - to determine to which extent it is bollocks or not would probably take few pages filled with specialised jargon and far far more detailed data that you can fit in a catchy news headline. Much easier to keep spawning 3 words slogans, innit?.
... Or you can read the rest of the thread to find out why it's bollocks.
Nice quote. Does it have any relationship to reality?"
"you can read the rest of the thread to find out why it's bollocks"
Fuck me, I didn't realise that this thread was overrun by experts in medical statistics. And in cost-benefit analysis ...
Is this some new kind of kinky sex? Debating about how to mindfuck a whole country for months?
Count me out, going back to usual kinks ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm fascinated by the concept of 'Peer review'.
Surely peers are likely to think the same way?
Wouldn't It be better if reviews were carried out by critics or, even, enemies, who are more likely to be incisive?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *jhj69Couple
over a year ago
sale |
"I'm fascinated by the concept of 'Peer review'.
Surely peers are likely to think the same way?
Wouldn't It be better if reviews were carried out by critics or, even, enemies, who are more likely to be incisive?
"
Peer review is carried out by people with equal academic standing who often fundamentally disagree with each other. Robust peer reviews are carried out Independently of each other. It’s globally recognised as the best way of identifying research rigour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"I'm fascinated by the concept of 'Peer review'.
Surely peers are likely to think the same way?
Wouldn't It be better if reviews were carried out by critics or, even, enemies, who are more likely to be incisive?
"
Any scientific publication that wants to stake a claim to credibility MUST have an 'peer review' of anything that gets published.
'Peers' are experts from the same domain, they are supposed to be capable to spot any holes or inconsistencies in other people's work.
If you imagine that 'peers' doing a 'peer review' are the article author's buddies, there are not. There is more than one, and they go mercilessly through the article trying to pick holes. Depending on a subject matter, the "reviewers" would repeat themselves the experiments to check if they get the same results. Not exactly the same standards as the so-called "mainstream media", where you can keep repeating any BS, as long it's the approved strain of BS (remember the famous '45 minutes'?)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arklong88 OP Man
over a year ago
Brighton/north Wales |
Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends"
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die."
The difference between those numbers would be even larger, in all honesty, as the majority of the unvaccinated currently belong to the younger, less vulnerable population. The vaccinated number of deaths wouldn’t change but the unvaccinated number would be seriously higher as the older, more vulnerable population would not have the protection they have now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die.
The difference between those numbers would be even larger, in all honesty, as the majority of the unvaccinated currently belong to the younger, less vulnerable population. The vaccinated number of deaths wouldn’t change but the unvaccinated number would be seriously higher as the older, more vulnerable population would not have the protection they have now."
Yes. As we see with the UK death rate as it stands.
But obviously a demonstration that, what looks like a tiny number, adds up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die.
The difference between those numbers would be even larger, in all honesty, as the majority of the unvaccinated currently belong to the younger, less vulnerable population. The vaccinated number of deaths wouldn’t change but the unvaccinated number would be seriously higher as the older, more vulnerable population would not have the protection they have now.
Yes. As we see with the UK death rate as it stands.
But obviously a demonstration that, what looks like a tiny number, adds up"
Indeed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It strikes me that despite restrictions and vaccines having protected so many people and being just days away from the majority of the restrictions in England being relaxed, there are still many who will demonstrate and be unwilling to support the substantial gains that these measures have brought to us. Even if they've not fully brought in and committed to them as much as others have, we have all still won a lot. This especially, when you look at other countries who we were perilously similar to last year. Brazil and India, although facing it differently, have like the UK been the possible origins of the more dangerous variants that have made the fight tougher for the world, causing greater numbers of lives lost, substantial health problems and harms to society overall.
Fragmented health systems, leaders who acted ignorantly, with incompetence or wilfully to prevent stronger protection, have worked against the people. We have been fortunate to have our NHS and its staff, perform so well and our citizens largely doing the right things, for the greater good.
There's still much to learn and further research can help to refine approaches. Though our restrictions and vaccination strategies still seem robust measures that the wiser have been committed to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die."
Sorry but those numbers make no sense.
For the last year 100% of the UK was unvacinnated and 80 - 90k died.
Since vacinnations have rolled out the number who have died have significantly smaller.
Its hard to draw a line as the distribution of the vacinne has been progressive.
But you can see the gradient flatten around the end of Feb 2021.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Doing a similar calculation on deaths, the % of the double jabbed population to die from the delta variant is 0.00024% and this compares to 0.00053% of the unvaccinated population. So twice as likely to die if unvaccinated.
What's 0.0029 deaths between friends
Think about it in big picture.
If 66 million people (roughly UK population) contract this and all are vaccinated, 15 840 will die, if these numbers are right.
If 66 million are not vaccinated, 34 980 will die.
Sorry but those numbers make no sense.
For the last year 100% of the UK was unvacinnated and 80 - 90k died.
Since vacinnations have rolled out the number who have died have significantly smaller.
Its hard to draw a line as the distribution of the vacinne has been progressive.
But you can see the gradient flatten around the end of Feb 2021.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
"
They make no sense given where we've been.
If that's the true figure *now*, then that's the toll for a big number. It's just a demonstration that a tiny percentage is still a lot of people. I know there's a lot more to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
Even if that were true (and it's impossible to say how many other factors they accounted for), that doesn't suddenly make it sensible to not get the vaccine.
We both had Covid as recently as last week and it was Ally's second time having Covid. Unfortunately we caught it literally days before we were able to book our first vaccine, otherwise it may not have been as bad as it was. We're both (supposedly) young and healthy and yet we were both very very ill and have now been left with a load of post-covid symptoms - some of which may not go away for many years yet, based on research we have done.
Just because you don't literally die from Covid doesn't mean it can't have a significant-to-huge impact on your life.
Get the vaccine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw
Even if that were true (and it's impossible to say how many other factors they accounted for), that doesn't suddenly make it sensible to not get the vaccine.
We both had Covid as recently as last week and it was Ally's second time having Covid. Unfortunately we caught it literally days before we were able to book our first vaccine, otherwise it may not have been as bad as it was. We're both (supposedly) young and healthy and yet we were both very very ill and have now been left with a load of post-covid symptoms - some of which may not go away for many years yet, based on research we have done.
Just because you don't literally die from Covid doesn't mean it can't have a significant-to-huge impact on your life.
Get the vaccine."
I hope your symptoms resolve |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hope your symptoms resolve"
Thanks. We're sure they will. Hopefully it'll be no more than a few months!
Even before it happened to us we were sick of people spreading the false narrative that you get Covid and you either live or you die and there's no middle ground. So many have gone on to develop other conditions and syndromes post-Covid. The most common of course being Long-Covid syndrome, which some people have suffered with for over a year now.
Just recently the longest suffering Covid patient in the UK opted to shut off his ventilator because he was tired of living in pain after 14 months of having long-Covid. He was only 48 or 49, not old by any means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope your symptoms resolve
Thanks. We're sure they will. Hopefully it'll be no more than a few months!
Even before it happened to us we were sick of people spreading the false narrative that you get Covid and you either live or you die and there's no middle ground. So many have gone on to develop other conditions and syndromes post-Covid. The most common of course being Long-Covid syndrome, which some people have suffered with for over a year now.
Just recently the longest suffering Covid patient in the UK opted to shut off his ventilator because he was tired of living in pain after 14 months of having long-Covid. He was only 48 or 49, not old by any means."
I saw. It broke my heart.
It's a big myth, this live or die thing, and I think the disability toll will come to haunt us. I hope it's not so, for everyone, but the evidence so far seems pretty grim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"I hope your symptoms resolve
Thanks. We're sure they will. Hopefully it'll be no more than a few months!
Even before it happened to us we were sick of people spreading the false narrative that you get Covid and you either live or you die and there's no middle ground. So many have gone on to develop other conditions and syndromes post-Covid. The most common of course being Long-Covid syndrome, which some people have suffered with for over a year now.
Just recently the longest suffering Covid patient in the UK opted to shut off his ventilator because he was tired of living in pain after 14 months of having long-Covid. He was only 48 or 49, not old by any means."
That's really sad  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
Yes it's Bollocks! The methodology was so obviously flawed that it was almost immediately discredited by the scientific community. At least two members of Vaccine’s editorial board, Mount Sinai virologist Florian Krammer and Oxford immunologist Katie Ewer, said they have stepped down to protest the publication of the paper.
And Harald himself admits "we have used and analyzed the data correctly, and not incorrectly. But that the data are less than optimal is clear to everyone"
He appears to be a bit of a quack when it comes to Covid, who has co-authoured a number of debunked Covid 19 papers, arguing against Lockdowns and promoting naturopathic remedies like vitamin D as alternative treatments to Covid 19 for instance.
He has absolutely no immunology or virology background or qualification. He is a Clinical Psychologist specialising in the Neuro-Science of Spirituality and not a Health Psychologist! And whilst I respect the role of naturopathy and complimentary medicine, in terms of general health and wellbeing, it does not have any place in the front row of the fight against a global pandemic! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think you need to be a virologist to interpret the data,a statistician more like"
Yep but being a clinical psychologist does not really qualify.
Either way the impact of the vacinne on prevention of death or serious illness is an easy stat to interpret.
Pre vacinne in the UK 80-90k people dead, even though we had strict restrictions.
Current death rate is +20 a day with far less restrictions (or none at all if you saw the footy celebrations last night).
That equates to 7300 deaths a year and this is only the first generation vacinne covering only +80% of the population.
So I would expect that 7300 to go lower as vacinnes are developed again and more of the population are covered.
Each additional person vacinnated not only increases their protection but they lower the risk of hosting and transmission to those more likely to die.
But even at 7300 deaths a year it would bring covid into the manageable category of illnesses and treatments will also improve over time.
Covid will not be eliminated but the vacinne is making it bearable like other common viruses.
Still deadly but not socially catestrophic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"I did the digging after posting..I wasn't aware that I needed to fact check information from medical journals before posting them on a sex site forum
The virus forum is a bit different, haha.
And people who possess critical thinking skills, and scientists, and both, also like swinging/unconventional sex "
You would expect above average proportion of people open to critical thinking on a site like this one, but letting the little head out of its cage doesn't mean that the big head is also getting out of its own cage. As shown in this forum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw"
I reckon we should vaccinate 3 people , kill 2 others by electric chair or even better by lethal injection and the other 99,997 people should have a massive social with only 1 bed available.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"Journal of vaccines article by Harald Walach has article about cost benefit of covid vaccines..they had the fastest rollout on all ages
Apparently vaccine saves three lives but cost two per 100k..
Please tell me this is bollocks,it is peer reviewed as well btw
I reckon we should vaccinate 3 people , kill 2 others by electric chair or even better by lethal injection and the other 99,997 people should have a massive social with only 1 bed available. "
No need for electric chair nor lethal injection, vaccine will take care of the 2 others.
99,997 people should have a massive social with only 1 bed available
Count me in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *matoMan
over a year ago
Around here |
"Imagine taking any kind of medical advise from a site where everyones profile picture is a penis "
Imaging imagining that Bojo the Clown and the rest of the circus has the interest of the country as priority and are trustworthy!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
