Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to Virus |
Jump to newest |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. " Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations. What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants. Cal | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations. What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants. Cal" We're does it say new variant less servere | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" From public health England... Via the BBC. "A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%" So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent. Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed. Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed. Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday... " Let’s just hope we see the top of this wave before we reach 6500 hospitalisations per day else we will go back into lockdown. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations. What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants. Cal We're does it say new variant less servere" I presume it's shown by the change in symptoms. The new top 3 symptoms are headache, runny nose, sore throat. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. " No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. " For god’s sake don’t look up the efficacy of the flu vaccine, that’s when you realise we’re all doomed, doomed . | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. " No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" From public health England... Via the BBC. "A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%" So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent. Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed. Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed. Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday... " I'm going to be honest. You've worked that out incorrectly. The data is correct but your method of calculation isn't. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused." OK... Well PHE numbers do not say that but let's assume for one moment that you are correct. How do you measure something that doesn't actually happen? Ie how does one measure a percentage of people who would have been hospitalised? And then having measured something that doesn't happen.. How does it make any sense to derive a percentage from that? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused. OK... Well PHE numbers do not say that but let's assume for one moment that you are correct. How do you measure something that doesn't actually happen? Ie how does one measure a percentage of people who would have been hospitalised? And then having measured something that doesn't happen.. How does it make any sense to derive a percentage from that? " You are saying that 6% of 56k would definitely end up in hospital. That wouldn’t be the case as not everyone who is infected has required hospital treatment. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. " No! That is 92/96 percent of those who would otherwise have been hospitalised. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high. Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations. What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants. Cal We're does it say new variant less servere" Currently, the newer variants have been shown to be more infectious, but less severe. Cal | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated. The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations. I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated … What’s the maths on this?" 68% of the adult population are double vaccinated.. 32% are single vaccinated or not at all (unvaccinated adults is around 12%) So 68% are 60% of hospitalisations. 32% are 40% of hospitalisations. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated. The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations. I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated … What’s the maths on this?" Just corrected by Vallance Now the statistic makes sense 60% of hospitalisations are from unvaccinated | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated. The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations. I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated … What’s the maths on this? Just corrected by Vallance Now the statistic makes sense 60% of hospitalisations are from unvaccinated " I’ve just read that as well | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" From public health England... Via the BBC. "A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%" So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent. " No - you've misunderstood the stat completely I'm afraid. The jabs are ~95% effective at preventing hospitalisations. This means that of 100 people who've had both jabs and would have previously ended up in hospital if they'd caught covid before being jabbed, 4-8 of them will still end up there. Of the other 92-96, some won't catch covid at all and some will catch it but with less severe symptoms. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" From public health England... Via the BBC. "A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%" So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent. Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed. Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed. Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday... Just shows how a total lack of understanding of the subject can lead one to such ridiculous conclusions. To start with about 99% of infected people never even feel particularly ill even without a vaccination. Therefore your starting figure is approximately 1% of infected people who would ordinarily need hospitalisation. Then adjust for the benefit of vaccination !!!!! " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |