Coronavirus

[Albert]

Just now, BIllyD said:

No it was my original point, I didn't really comment on the paper itself as I said I didn't have enough info to do so.

It's really irrelevant though to be honest, we all knew what @maxjamwas pointing out, if there is anything to be disagreed about it should be about the effectiveness of the vaccine against serious illness which was his point.

I answered what their confidence intervals were for it at the start, that is, they didn't calculate any, as it wasn't in the body of the text. 

You say it's irrelevant, but when @maxjam was told it was just a marketing point that they didn't include in the body, they kept doubling down on it as though it was the key finding. 

Just now, BIllyD said:

Although I disagree about using this to open up, I don't disagree with him on this.

As noted, my point about it was just being cautious about throwing around 100% figures when we lack the data to do so. This point would have vanished near instantly, except @maxjam made repeating it as gospel a key pillar of their argument. 

[Gone]

Just now, BIllyD said:

It's easy to compare against us, it shows if you dont get the lockdown measures right you can do more damage than good. However that doesn't mean that they don't work, as per the rationale for comparing them against other similar countries.

It also shows  if you do lockdown you can do more damage than good 

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

I answered what their confidence intervals were for it at the start, that is, they didn't calculate any, as it wasn't in the body of the text. 

You say it's irrelevant, but when @maxjam was told it was just a marketing point that they didn't include in the body, they kept doubling down on it as though it was the key finding. 

As noted, my point about it was just being cautious about throwing around 100% figures when we lack the data to do so. This point would have vanished near instantly, except @maxjam made repeating it as gospel a key pillar of their argument. 

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!

AstraZeneca on their website state that its 100% effective against hospitalization and death, you should probably take it up with them.  Contact details for them handily linked below;

https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-company/contact-us.html#:~:text=If you are in the,8pm ET%2C excluding holidays).

*tell them Pfizers had a 7/602000 failure rate in Israel, the 0.001% matters ?

 

[BIllyD]

20 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

It also shows  if you do lockdown you can do more damage than good 

If you don't get it right then agreed it does, had we done so throughout this pandemic then maybe we would be looking at pro rota figures like the other Nordic countries.

[Gone]

1 minute ago, BIllyD said:

If you don't get it right then agreed it does, had we done so throughout this pandemic then maybe we would be looking at pro rota figures like the other Nordic countries.

Or we wouldn’t of, guess we’ll never know. I just strongly believe we’ve hamstrung ourselves for very little gain. Anyway I’m sure it’ll soon be over and we can go back to debating on the best song, movie, tv show or Derby centre forward of all time.

 

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

Or we wouldn’t of, guess we’ll never know. I just strongly believe we’ve hamstrung ourselves for very little gain. Anyway I’m sure it’ll soon be over and we can go back to debating on the best song, movie, tv show or Derby centre forward of all time.

 

The sooner the better ?

[Albert]

38 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!

AstraZeneca on their website state that its 100% effective against hospitalization and death, you should probably take it up with them.  Contact details for them handily linked below;

https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-company/contact-us.html#:~:text=If you are in the,8pm ET%2C excluding holidays).

*tell them Pfizers had a 7/602000 failure rate in Israel, the 0.001% matters ?

 

As noted Pfizers data suggested 9% of confirmed cases were severe. 

Also, as noted, you'll find they don't actually mention it in the body of the text. 

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted Pfizers data suggested 9% of confirmed cases were severe. 

Also, as noted, you'll find they don't actually mention it in the body of the text. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/israel-covid-vaccination-data-offers-hope-exit-pandemic

Link to study Israeli details isn't in English but The Guardian say;

Israel’s health ministry released its first official results last week, showing that only 317 out of 715,425, or 0.04%, of people became infected a week after becoming fully vaccinated against the disease – the time when increased immunity is expected to kick in. Of the vaccinated people who were infected, 16 had to be treated in hospital, or 0.002% of the total.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Who rattled your cage 

He’s swerving a different argument ?

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, maxjam said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/israel-covid-vaccination-data-offers-hope-exit-pandemic

Link to study Israeli details isn't in English but The Guardian say;

Israel’s health ministry released its first official results last week, showing that only 317 out of 715,425, or 0.04%, of people became infected a week after becoming fully vaccinated against the disease – the time when increased immunity is expected to kick in. Of the vaccinated people who were infected, 16 had to be treated in hospital, or 0.002% of the total.

Not sure the relevance to the point I made. 

[maxjam]

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

Not sure the relevance to the point I made. 

Really, I thought it was obvious?

You commented on the pfizer data.  The only pfizer data I have ever referred to is the 7/602000 cases that @BillyD bought up in a post previously - as I had no idea of the accuracy of his post I did a quick google search and linked what I found.

EDIT: and for the purposes of accuracy with regards to the pfizer vaccine I concede that my initial 0.001% workings of vaccinated people requiring hospitalization was wrong.  It is indeed 0.002%. 

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

It was lol at your statement about Florida and Cali, have you actually been to either? And please show me the data Sweden Vs us? Not Sweden vs the other Nordics.....big lol again, keep going to fit your narrative......

Here you go buddy...

Hope this helps! 

[Norman]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Yeah, how dare @BIllyD compare countries with similar demographics and climates! It's devastating to your case. 

Also, I have been to both Florida and California. Very different climates and demographics. California is dry and hot, while Florida is wet and hot, which are indeed very different climates. Given that you were one pushing that climate and weather had such a big impact on the disease for the longest time, and going on the character of different places impacted how people responded, it's odd that you'd change your tune now. 

Why have you?

[Norman]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Yep, same as you comparing Oz with the UK

Bingo. Sorry for everyone else who got caught up in the only reason I posted about Florida and California. 

Albert is amazing and constructing and twisting his arguments. But the more he writes, the more it unravels. 

Politically motivated imo. Nothing else, nothing more. 

[Albert]

19 minutes ago, Norman said:

Why have you?

Why have I what? 

16 minutes ago, Norman said:

Bingo. Sorry for everyone else who got caught up in the only reason I posted about Florida and California. 

Albert is amazing and constructing and twisting his arguments. But the more he writes, the more it unravels. 

Politically motivated imo. Nothing else, nothing more. 

What arguments do you think I have been 'twisting' and allowed to unravel exactly? 

Not sure what political spin you feel is here. Covid-19 is virtually apolitical where I'm from, with both sides supporting the measures we've had. 

25 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Really, I thought it was obvious?

You commented on the pfizer data.  The only pfizer data I have ever referred to is the 7/602000 cases that @BillyD bought up in a post previously - as I had no idea of the accuracy of his post I did a quick google search and linked what I found.

EDIT: and for the purposes of accuracy with regards to the pfizer vaccine I concede that my initial 0.001% workings of vaccinated people requiring hospitalization was wrong.  It is indeed 0.002%. 

Again, it seems this whole point has gone over your head. From the data they gave, 9% of cases were severe. This refutes the key point you were trying to make about the vaccine at the very least preventing serious cases, even if there were some. The ratio of severe cases is still not great for those that catch it, hence meaning that assuring that the R number is below 1 is a key priority still. 

[maxjam]

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, it seems this whole point has gone over your head. From the data they gave, 9% of cases were severe. This refutes the key point you were trying to make about the vaccine at the very least preventing serious cases, even if there were some. The ratio of severe cases is still not great for those that catch it, hence meaning that assuring that the R number is below 1 is a key priority still. 

Nope, I think it has gone completely over your head and once again you are attempting to deflect from the facts.

Whilst '9%' of cases may be severe only 0.004% of people are catching it after being fully vaccinated with the pfizer jab.  100% of people could develop a severe case of covid but it would still only be a maximum of 0.004% of those vaccinated.

Facts from Israels Health Ministry;

vaccinated 715,425

caught covid 317

hospitalized 16

If you can get 9% severe cases from that you may need to change the batteries in your calculator.

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Nope, I think it has gone completely over your head and once again you are attempting to deflect from the facts.

Whilst '9%' of cases may be severe only 0.004% of people are catching it after being fully vaccinated with the pfizer jab.  100% of people could develop a severe case of covid but it would still only be a maximum of 0.004% of those vaccinated.

Yep. But the two points you just skip over each and every time, for obvious reasons, are:

1. Not everyone can develop immunity from vaccination; these people are not involved in such trials. 

2. The implication of the data is that severe cases still occur at a similar rate to the unvaccinated population, the difference is people not actually getting the disease at all. This implies that keeping the R number below 1 should be the aim. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Facts from Israels Health Ministry;

vaccinated 715,425

caught covid 317

hospitalized 16

If you can get 9% severe cases from that you may need to change the batteries in your calculator.

9% was from the numbers as posted by @BIllyD. On these numbers is 5%. 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Yep. But the two points you just skip over each and every time, for obvious reasons, are:

1. Not everyone can develop immunity from vaccination; these people are not involved in such trials. 

2. The implication of the data is that severe cases still occur at a similar rate to the unvaccinated population, the difference is people not actually getting the disease at all. This implies that keeping the R number below 1 should be the aim. 

9% was from the numbers as posted by @BIllyD. On these numbers is 5%. 

Okay lets talk about the two points that are skipped over each and every time for obvious reasons;

1.  Following the AstraZeneca trial of 17k+ people no one was hospitalized or died with covid.

2.  The Israeli Ministry of Health state that they have vaccinated over 700k people with only 0.004% of people going on to then catch covid, 0.002% of people being hospitalized with covid.

Now lets talk about the points you raise;

1.  Was the Israel 700k vaccination a trial, or are they mass vaccinating the population? According to the article linked the vaccination is available to anyone over 35 and 1 in 3 have already recieved their jab. 

2.  Only if you employ the warped maths I used in my previous post, in reality it is orders of magnitude less.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Okay lets talk about the two points that are skipped over each and every time for obvious reasons;

1.  Following the AstraZeneca trial of 17k+ people no one was hospitalized or died with covid.

I have not skipped over this, we have, in fact, discussed it at length. 

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

2.  The Israeli Ministry of Health state that they have vaccinated over 700k people with only 0.004% of people going on to then catch covid, 0.002% of people being hospitalized with covid.

We have also discussed this at length, though the way you represent this would represent 50% of people being hospitalised, which isn't a good figure to see. These points were at no point skipped over, they are actually at the core of what I have discussed with you. 

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Now lets talk about the points you raise;

1.  Was the Israel 700k vaccination a trial, or are they mass vaccinating the population? According to the article linked the vaccination is available to anyone over 35 and 1 in 3 have already recieved their jab. 

You've again avoided point 1. The point is that these people don't get vaccines as they cannot take them, ie the immunocompromised, etc. 

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

2.  Only if you employ the warped maths I used in my previous post, in reality it is orders of magnitude less.

It's not 'warped maths', it's literally the whole point. The source you've provided had 5% of people who caught Covid-19 having severe disease. This percentage is a key one, as you've attempted to argue that once people are vaccinated, reopening should just happen, regardless of the R number during or afterwards. This, however, shows that it remains a key measure, as if it goes back above 1, the vaccine isn't actually preventing severe disease, but rather, preventing people getting it in most cases. Now, this of course means that it's extremely likely that the R number will go well below 1 once the vaccination program is finished, even without restrictions, but that it should still be a focus during that process of reopening. 

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

...are you trying to say that your key tactic is deflection? Given your answer to point 1, that seems accurate. 

[Andicis]

4 hours ago, Albert said:

Well, clearly the issue is that the comparison is devastating to the point they're trying to make. Much like how Florida and California, which are well known to have very different climates and demographics, must actually be very similar. 

Climate and demographics count now? Haven't you been comparing the UK to different climates and demographics the whole time?