fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑
er of hospitalizations that was relevant, not the rate. My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate.
I haven't seen this - "My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate." I've seen you use rate data, but I haven't seen you show that it is the rate that is important.
Why else do you think most health departments - including the one you linked to recently - talk about those rates? Try reading and thinking about your own source, particularly Table 1. Although it's possible that their numbers for vaccine effectiveness - 90% to 95% for hospitalizations - are from the manufacturers and are based on initial effectiveness and under ideal conditions.
But consider
Wikipedia:
Vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness is the percentage reduction of disease cases in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group. For example, a vaccine efficacy or effectiveness of 80% indicates an 80% decrease in the number of disease cases among a group of vaccinated people compared to a group in which nobody was vaccinated. ....
Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several important and critical outcomes of interest such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations due to the disease, deaths due to the disease, ....
Those rates - the "attack rates" - are used to calculate actual effectiveness that clearly have a great deal of utility. You have some futher evidence and arguments that might disabuse epidemiologists - not to mention all of the actuarys in all of the insurance bureaus - all across the world of that clearly wrong-head principle and value? :roll:
But for instance, the CDC results for New York State calculates effectiveness - presumably for reducing hospitalizations - as about 92% to 95%:
Assuming the average rates shown for the vaccinated and unvaccinated (0.17 & 2.03), and assuming equal populations of, say, 1 million each and a sample interval of 30 days, that means 10 x 30 (days) x 0.17 = 50 hospitalizations for the vaccinated versus 10 x 30 x 2.03 = 600 hospitalizations for the unvaccinated.
So, in comparing those two equal populations, the vaccine has reduced hospitalizations 550/600 or 92%; that is its degree of effectiveness.
That is the utility and value of those numbers and that statistical process - it allows us to calculate relative probabilities.
About which, as I mentioned, Shermer argues that most people haven't got a clue. Which you seem strangely reluctant to accept - wonder why ... :think: :roll:
fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑So, of those going to the hospital or the morgue because of Covid, probably 80% of them are the unvaccinated and 20% the vaccinated. Feeling lucky? :roll:
No, again either your understanding of math isn't up to the task, or you are trying some sort of clumsy bait and switch. I've already posted the data from this report on the numbers of people being hospitalised and dying of covid. It's mostly vaccinated people. You taking rate data and then using wrong maths to turn it into wrong hospitalisation and death data doesn't change that.
Ok, I'll stand corrected there; mea culpa, shoot me at dawn.
I too was confusing or conflating the
rate with the
actual populations which are dependent on the number of "trials".
More of which later.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑But, given those quite recent statistics which you helpfully provided ..., who do you think is causing the most strain on the medical system there in the UK? And is likely to be doing so for some time, given that overall uptake rate is only 63%.
Most of the emergency covid patients and deaths are amongst the vaccinated. The articles you keep quoting claiming otherwise are lying using the same techniques you are using. Covid isn't a disease of the unvaccinated, and hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients. Those claims are lies.
Sure; there may be
more of the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. But so what?
That there maybe now more of the vaccinated in
some hospitals than the unvaccinated, particularly in areas where the vaccination rates are more than 70% or so, does not at all change the rate at which the vaccinated and vaccinated fill up the hospitals.
And even your UK statistics show, consistent with those different rates, that the unvaccinated are
disproportionate percentages of those in the hospitals and the morgues with Covid:
Excluding the partially vaccinated, I calculate that there were about 4000 of the unvaccinated that went into UK hospitals for Covid over a 4 week period (?) while there were some 5300 of the vaccinated who did so.
So, as a rough estimate, 40% of those "overwhelming" the hospitals are the unvaccinated versus 60% of the vaccinated. Wonder what you think those in each of those groups might have done to not have contributed to that state ... :think: :roll:
Talking about whether "Covid [is or] isn't a disease of the unvaccinated" is something of a red herring. Who is contributing most to that state of affairs and why is the issue.