FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > ONS Definition of Unvaccinated
ONS Definition of Unvaccinated
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So the office for National Statistics uses the following criteria to cover Deaths & Hospitalisation Figures.....
Definition of unvaccinated
COVID-19 vaccination status is determined on the date of death occurrence if a death has occurred, and on the last day of each week if not.
Possible values are:
unvaccinated
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is within 21 days of vaccination
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is 21 days or more after vaccination
vaccinated with both the first and second dose, date of death/last day of week is date of second vaccination or later
This really doesn't help the constant targeting of blame against unvaccinated with no jabs like Sajid Javid likes to do...or that crackpot Dr Hilary who changes his mind left right and centre.
Official Data should be made clearer to the public to have a better understanding, rather than believing everything broadcast on BBC etc.
link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/onsdefinitionofunvaccinated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Again…. Don’t believe everything you hear.
Why aren’t they just telling us the truth… that’s all any of us want to hear. Leaving to assumption and confusion really isn’t helping peoples mental state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So the office for National Statistics uses the
following criteria to cover Deaths &
Hospitalisation Figures.....
Definition of unvaccinated
COVID-19 vaccination status is determined
on the date of death occurrence if a death has occurred,
and on the last day of each week if not.
Possible values are:
unvaccinated
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of
death/last day of week is within 21 days of vaccination
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death
/last day of week is 21 days or more after vaccination
vaccinated with both the first and second dose, date
of death/last day of week is date of second vaccination or later
This really doesn't help the constant targeting of blame
against unvaccinated with no jabs like Sajid Javid likes to
do...or that crackpot Dr Hilary who changes his
mind left right and centre.
Official Data should be made clearer to
the public to have a better understanding,
rather than believing everything broadcast on BBC etc.
link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/
transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi
/onsdefinitionofunvaccinated
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Again…. Don’t believe everything you hear.
Why aren’t they just telling us the truth… that’s all any of us want to hear. Leaving to assumption and confusion really isn’t helping peoples mental state."
exactly.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm not sure what the point is?
Is it there is a "middle" set of ppl who aren't classed as unvaccinated nor vaccinated ?
(I wonder how many sit in this pot now)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Again…. Don’t believe everything you hear.
Why aren’t they just telling us the truth… that’s all any of us want to hear. Leaving to assumption and confusion really isn’t helping peoples mental state.
exactly. "
Okay I think it is time to come clean and tell you the truth! We started this little covid thing as a prank, a bit of fun for the start of the new decade. It has got out of hand somewhat but the world decided that it was far too funny watching you guys watching us pretending to be ill, die
or go for the vaccine, bloody hilarious and well done everyone for keeping it going.
A pivotal point came when we all had a meeting, well not all because you guys were not invited obviously. At the meeting we decided to change the name of the variant to see how that would go down and we wasn't disappointed, you loved it and threw the toys out at the pram, but we tip our hats to you for the hilarious renaming of our variants.
I don't want to give everything away, just in case we want to play you again, but look out for easter eggs! Hint, one of our secret world covid meetings was shown live on TV, Boris and xmas party ring a bell.
Right, now that is out in the open, you can carry on with whatever it was you were doing before the prank began. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure what the point is?
Is it there is a "middle" set of ppl who aren't classed as unvaccinated nor vaccinated ?
(I wonder how many sit in this pot now)
"
No, there is two levels of vaccinated.
The 'middle one' is only people who have had one jab so won't be many at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure what the point is?
Is it there is a "middle" set of ppl who aren't classed as unvaccinated nor vaccinated ?
(I wonder how many sit in this pot now)
No, there is two levels of vaccinated.
The 'middle one' is only people who have had one jab so won't be many at all. "
I understand the levels. I just don't understand the outrage of the original post. What should the BBC be doing differently ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Lancs |
I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion."
but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again…. Don’t believe everything you hear.
Why aren’t they just telling us the truth… that’s all any of us want to hear. Leaving to assumption and confusion really isn’t helping peoples mental state."
A fully clear definition is there - it's not an avoidance of telling the truth. The ONS data is very accessible and they do their job, collating, interpreting and publishing all kinds of data, for the benefit of the country.
It doesn't mean that others won't abuse it, or get it wrong. Too many will, very sadly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Lancs |
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused. "
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused.
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issue"
but what to do about it?
I'm also not sure who has been tricked by what in this example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Lancs |
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused.
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issuebut what to do about it?
I'm also not sure who has been tricked by what in this example. "
It's like the 'died of coronavirus' or 'died with coronavirus' thing that continues to confuse many people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fuck the ONS! The government now owns your body. Get jabbed and get with the program. You should NOT have the right to refuse. The government has the best interests of everyone at heart. It's for your own good and the good of the unblemished reputation of the pharmaceutical industry. They've never issued medical treatment that has harmed ANYONE in the history of the world EVER so ...get your jabs and give up your autonomy. Do it today and we'll be out of this situation by valentine's Day......2030....ish |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused.
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issuebut what to do about it?
I'm also not sure who has been tricked by what in this example.
It's like the 'died of coronavirus' or 'died with coronavirus' thing that continues to confuse many people"
I agree yet can't see any way through this that is both useful and easily collated. Or see what the media can really do to help here other than constantly caveat everything! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Lancs |
"Fuck the ONS! The government now owns your body. Get jabbed and get with the program. You should NOT have the right to refuse. The government has the best interests of everyone at heart. It's for your own good and the good of the unblemished reputation of the pharmaceutical industry. They've never issued medical treatment that has harmed ANYONE in the history of the world EVER so ...get your jabs and give up your autonomy. Do it today and we'll be out of this situation by valentine's Day......2030....ish"
Well said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused.
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issuebut what to do about it?
I'm also not sure who has been tricked by what in this example.
It's like the 'died of coronavirus' or 'died with coronavirus' thing that continues to confuse many people"
Same has died of cancer or with cancer. First number very very small 2nd huge. But I don't think you can argue cancer has killed the majority of those people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see the issue here.
The government could add up a number of categories to claim that coronavirus victims aren't 'fully' vaccinated.
This would aid them in spreading misunderstanding and fear.
I don't know if they are doing this...but complexity generally aids confusion.but the simple solution would be to say "fully vaxxer is some own who receive their 2nd shot more than X days ago". And then everyone would be up in arms that definition leaves unvaxxed too broad.
For similar arguments on how simple gets shot down, see "covid deaths".
But I agree complexity can add confusion. But I'd say complexity is needed, we can't manage based on lowest common denominator.
The trouble is people no longer trust those who can work with complexity, and so instead seek to do their own "research". But by only looking at what they can understand, they are massively over simplifying the data. Or getting confused.
Complexity is needed ..but it allows the unsophisticated to be tricked. By either side.
That is the issuebut what to do about it?
I'm also not sure who has been tricked by what in this example.
It's like the 'died of coronavirus' or 'died with coronavirus' thing that continues to confuse many people
Same has died of cancer or with cancer. First number very very small 2nd huge. But I don't think you can argue cancer has killed the majority of those people."
That should be hasn't obviously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
