Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

The vaccine

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2620
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: The vaccine

#441228

Postby Hallucigenia » September 10th, 2021, 11:53 am

The antijabbers have been getting all excited about this table from the latest PHE report, which appears to show lower case rates among the non-vaccinated based on population numbers in the NHS database, but it disappears when you use ONS 2020 population stats, and if you use metrics that avoid population data altogether such as case hospitalisation/fatality rates, courtesy of @JamesWard73 :
Image
Image
Image
Image

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: The vaccine

#441235

Postby servodude » September 10th, 2021, 12:16 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:The antijabbers have been getting all excited about this table from the latest PHE report


It's not surprising though is it?

All the way though this thing ones if the most egregious aspects is that a lot of people's understanding of maths stretches possibly (conveniently) as far as percentages (almost)
- "a base rate fallacy you say? That's just your opinion"
I blame the parents :roll:

-sd

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2620
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: The vaccine

#441256

Postby Hallucigenia » September 10th, 2021, 1:31 pm

To be fair, this is more PHE's fault - data transparency is all very well, but this is terrible communication, it's just a gift to the anti-jabbers.

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: The vaccine

#441275

Postby Julian » September 10th, 2021, 2:41 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:The antijabbers have been getting all excited about this table from the latest PHE report, which appears to show lower case rates among the non-vaccinated based on population numbers in the NHS database, but it disappears when you use ONS 2020 population stats, and if you use metrics that avoid population data altogether such as case hospitalisation/fatality rates, ...

Thanks for that. I stumbled across that PHE report yesterday and noticed exactly that seemingly anomalous case rate data in table 4. I'd been meaning to post about it.

With due credit to James Ward whose twitter thread you already linked to (but here's the link again anyway - https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/ ... 2389184516), as well as his re-analysis using ONS 2020 data he also seems to do a pretty good job of listing various potential distorting and confounding factors to also consider...

a) The impact of prior infection (which may be higher in the unvaccinated group)
b) Correlation between vaccination and willingness to be tested
c) Behavioural impacts e.g. vaccination makes people less cautious, or higher-risk occupations more likely to get vaccinated
d) The treatment of “unlinked” cases (which may be more likely to be unvaccinated)
e) The calculation of how many people are unvaccinated, which depends on having an accurate estimate of how many people there are in each age group.


I confess that I'm not sure what he's referring to with (d). Could someone enlighten me please.

- Julian

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: The vaccine

#441277

Postby servodude » September 10th, 2021, 2:44 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:To be fair, this is more PHE's fault - data transparency is all very well, but this is terrible communication, it's just a gift to the anti-jabbers.


Indeed, but there's only so many ways you can present data before it gets silly.

I blame the guy looking for a sensationalist headline that fits their agenda (and their parents who failed to instill a respect for the sanctity of numbers)

This data appears to require couching in caveats and explanatory notes, because munters are waiting to pounce with doolally nonsense.

Somehow COVID seems to bring out the kind of reasoning in folk that would have us terrified of seatbelts because 98% (I've made that number up ;) ) of people killed in car crashes were wearing one.


-sd

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: The vaccine

#441279

Postby servodude » September 10th, 2021, 2:51 pm

Julian wrote:I confess that I'm not sure what he's referring to with (d). Could someone enlighten me please.

- Julian


Hi Julian

It's explained in a footnote in the image at the start of the twitter feed you provided the url for
- it's for cases where the NHS number wasn't provided/available

Hope you're keeping well (I believe you were getting your eyes looked at)

-sd

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2620
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: The vaccine

#441286

Postby Hallucigenia » September 10th, 2021, 3:35 pm

Julian wrote:d) The treatment of “unlinked” cases (which may be more likely to be unvaccinated)


I confess that I'm not sure what he's referring to with (d). Could someone enlighten me please.[/quote]

Unlinked are not on the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS), the official NHS database, and you'd imagine that if you're not on the system, you've more likely to be out of contact with the NHS and less likely to have been jabbed, whether through simple bureaucracy or an active wish to avoid being jabbed.

Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: The vaccine

#441477

Postby Julian » September 11th, 2021, 3:03 pm

Thanks for the clarifications sd & Hallucigenia. I get it now.

servodude wrote:
Julian wrote:I confess that I'm not sure what he's referring to with (d). Could someone enlighten me please.

- Julian


Hi Julian

It's explained in a footnote in the image at the start of the twitter feed you provided the url for
- it's for cases where the NHS number wasn't provided/available

Hope you're keeping well (I believe you were getting your eyes looked at)

-sd


Hi sd,

Yes; doing well thanks. I hope you are too.

My eye saga is still ongoing (thanks for remembering!) and, on the topic of Covid, I actually had my plans slightly disrupted by a surprise from the NHS.

When I finally had my initial consultation I was put on what I was warned was a 4 month waiting list for surgery. In light of all the media reports about the catastrophic effect of Covid-19 on NHS waiting lists I took that to mean at least 4 months but I wasn't too bothered because a separate private consultant at Moorfields Eye Hospital (booked by me because of extensive delays in getting my initial NHS consultation) had determined that, on the basis of a scan, my issue looked as if it was resolving although it would be some months before I saw any improvement in my vision. On that basis my plan was to wait until I got the usual month or so notice of my NHS operation date and then potentially cancel my operation if indeed my vision was improving. Well, the NHS derailed that plan by, much to my surprise given the pandemic, giving me a date for the operation about 2.5 months after I had been put onto the waiting list. I had really banked on having more time to see if I was noticing any improvements in my vision so perversely the earlier-than-expected date for the operation was actually unwelcome.

I've ended up going to plan B which is to get a second private scan and consultation at Moorfields where again I was told that there is continued improvement (tissue regrowth) on the scan so I called up the NHS, explained the situation (via an administrator because yet again my consultant was off work due to the pingdemic(*)) and am now rescheduled for another NHS scan before making the decision whether to take me off the NHS waiting list completely and discharge me.

I feel that I'm doing the right thing by the NHS because my initial operating theatre slot hasn't been wasted, I discussed that with the administrator and it was easily re-allocated, and I suspect I will end up avoiding surgery because I am now seeing at least some visual improvements. When I first presented using only my bad eye I was totally unable to use a computer even with the Microsoft magnifier visual aid set to its maximum 1600% magnification. I can now read the screen, albeit with slight difficulty, at 600% magnification so I'm getting increasingly confident that I am seeing real vision improvements as opposed to falling victim to wishful thinking. If things turn out as I hope then it will most definitely have dodged a rather nasty bullet.

I hope my experience of 1 department can be extrapolated and that, despite the doom & gloom stories about catastrophic waiting lists, there are at least some departments in some areas of the country that are still processing elective surgery within really quite reasonable timescales. My surgery probably did count as elective because I was told that either having the operation or living with the reduced vision were both "reasonable options" but I believe the success rate of the operation that I was scheduled to have is somewhat time-dependent so perhaps that got me the date for the operation slightly more quickly than if, for instance, it had been a cataract operation.

- Julian

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: The vaccine

#441760

Postby servodude » September 13th, 2021, 4:15 am

That's all sounding really positive Julian; I hope your good fortune continues

Julian wrote:I hope my experience of 1 department can be extrapolated and that, despite the doom & gloom stories about catastrophic waiting lists, there are at least some departments in some areas of the country that are still processing elective surgery within really quite reasonable timescales.


One thing that struck me very early on in this thing was how many large organisations suddenly found they were more agile than they had believed
- that has been one of the few positives things to take away from this
- and is testament to what humans are capable of when you light a ruddy great fire under their pink marshmallows

Stay well
- sd

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: The vaccine

#441965

Postby Itsallaguess » September 13th, 2021, 6:56 pm

From the Telegraph -

Just 59 Covid deaths this year among people who were healthy and double-jabbed -

Only 59 fully vaccinated people without serious health conditions died from Covid-19 out of more than 50,000 deaths in England this year, new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

In the first study of deaths by vaccination status, the ONS found that around 99 per cent of Covid-19 deaths between January 2 and July 2 2021 were in people who had not had two doses.

Overall 640 (1.2 per cent) of deaths were in those who had received both vaccine doses, but the ONS said many of those could have been infections picked up before the second dose.

Just 256 deaths (0.5 per cent) were considered true “breakthrough” infections where the second dose had long enough to work, but still did not offer protection.

However, the average age of those “breakthrough” infections was 84 and the majority (76 per cent) were classed as “extremely clinically vulnerable”. Just 59 did not have serious medical conditions.

Julie Stanborough, deputy director of health and life events at the ONS, said: “The risk of a death involving Covid-19 is much lower among people who are fully vaccinated than those who are unvaccinated or have only received one dose.

“This shows the effectiveness of the vaccines in giving a high degree of protection against severe illness and death.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/13/just-59-double-jabbed-people-50000-died-covid-year-says-ons/

Link here to the underlying ONS data (13th September) - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... d2july2021

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

ADrunkenMarcus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1586
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Has thanked: 673 times
Been thanked: 479 times

Re: The vaccine

#442003

Postby ADrunkenMarcus » September 13th, 2021, 9:33 pm

Encouraging for me, given I fit this category!

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: The vaccine

#442025

Postby vrdiver » September 14th, 2021, 1:09 am

Itsallaguess wrote:In the first study of deaths by vaccination status, the ONS found that around 99 per cent of Covid-19 deaths between January 2 and July 2 2021 were in people who had not had two doses.

Overall 640 (1.2 per cent) of deaths were in those who had received both vaccine doses, but the ONS said many of those could have been infections picked up before the second dose.

Just 256 deaths (0.5 per cent) were considered true “breakthrough” infections where the second dose had long enough to work, but still did not offer protection.

All good, but including the January - March data, before any second jabs had been administered, let alone had time to affect the outcome, might be skewing the statistics to make double jabbing appear more effective than it actually is...

It would be a more useful comparison (IMHO) to show deaths per 100,000 (or whatever gives a sensible number for review) of the properly double jabbed versus the rest. Even better if it were broken down by age and possibly even co-morbidities.

As it is, the news headline looks good, but will be lambasted for "lies, damned lies and statistics". Those determined to disbelieve the scientific evidence in favour of having the vaccine will simply add this report to their conspiracy theory evidence.

VRD

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: The vaccine

#442027

Postby servodude » September 14th, 2021, 1:55 am

vrdiver wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:In the first study of deaths by vaccination status, the ONS found that around 99 per cent of Covid-19 deaths between January 2 and July 2 2021 were in people who had not had two doses.

Overall 640 (1.2 per cent) of deaths were in those who had received both vaccine doses, but the ONS said many of those could have been infections picked up before the second dose.

Just 256 deaths (0.5 per cent) were considered true “breakthrough” infections where the second dose had long enough to work, but still did not offer protection.

All good, but including the January - March data, before any second jabs had been administered, let alone had time to affect the outcome, might be skewing the statistics to make double jabbing appear more effective than it actually is...

It would be a more useful comparison (IMHO) to show deaths per 100,000 (or whatever gives a sensible number for review) of the properly double jabbed versus the rest. Even better if it were broken down by age and possibly even co-morbidities.

As it is, the news headline looks good, but will be lambasted for "lies, damned lies and statistics". Those determined to disbelieve the scientific evidence in favour of having the vaccine will simply add this report to their conspiracy theory evidence.

VRD


It's a minefield trying to report this stuff - let alone come up with a headline that passes muster

It's all to easy to look at large aggregated data and find ways that it fails to represent things; to find ways that an individual can feel as thought the central limit theorem doesn't apply to them... and then add on wilful ignorance, and ideological spin
- I can see how some could present the 256 breakthroughs to be the relevant denominator for the 59 deaths :(

What I think would be a really interesting comparison would be to "cancel out" ​the vaccine
- i.e. what proportion of people would be in the "double jabbed and healthy" set now if they hadn't died in the waves before the vaccine was available

-sd

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: The vaccine

#442081

Postby tjh290633 » September 14th, 2021, 10:52 am

vrdiver wrote:It would be a more useful comparison (IMHO) to show deaths per 100,000 (or whatever gives a sensible number for review) of the properly double jabbed versus the rest. Even better if it were broken down by age and possibly even co-morbidities.

I am reminded of the "Broken down by age and sex" category, in the case of certain musicians and other performers.

But yes, you are correct. It should be possible to get more meaningful results.

TJH

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2620
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: The vaccine

#442662

Postby Hallucigenia » September 16th, 2021, 12:14 am

Pfizer six-month efficacy trial, albeit without full exposure to delta :
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345

Image

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 540
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 722 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: The vaccine

#445161

Postby onthemove » September 24th, 2021, 10:36 pm

Pfizer vs Moderna... differences starting to become apparent...

"The study found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had an effectiveness of 88.8 percent, compared with Moderna’s 96.3 percent. Research published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against hospitalization fell from 91 percent to 77 percent after a four-month period following the second shot. The Moderna vaccine showed no decline over the same period. If the efficacy gap continues to widen, it may have implications for the debate on booster shots. ( ..) “Pfizer is a big hammer,” Dr. Wilson added, but “Moderna is a sledgehammer.” " https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/heal ... cines.html


Mind you, from my experience of the Moderna vaccine side effects, I could very well believe it could be down to the Moderna being given in a higher dose. But hey, if the end result is better...


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests