Steersman wrote: ↑
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?
For the same reason that they moved from talking about deaths to talking about infections. It produces numbers that are more helpful to the message.
Steersman wrote: ↑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.
I don't care about these numbers. They are not what is being discussed. There could yet be a sense in which the vaccines are 100% effective. If the bulk of the cases, hospitalisations and deaths are amongst the vaccinated, it's a sense of effective I simply don't care about.
This is exactly the problem with your approach. You throw out numbers that you aren't quite sure what they mean, but you use them anyway.
Steersman wrote: ↑Those rates - the "attack rates" - are used to calculate actual effectiveness that clearly have a great deal of utility.
For some questions and not for others.
Steersman wrote: ↑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:
When talking about whether hospitals are full of unvaccinated covid patients and covid is now a disease of the unvaccinated, the numbers you quote aren't relevant. When talking about whether there should be vaccine mandates, those numbers aren't relevant.
Steersman wrote: ↑But for instance, the CDC results for New York State calculates effectiveness - presumably for reducing hospitalizations - as about 92% to 95%:
CDC_MMWR_NewYork_CovidHospitalizations_1A.jpg
Again, you are quoting data from 6-8 months ago. Why not use fatality data from the peak of the Spanish flu or the black death to really pump the numbers?
Steersman wrote: ↑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.
Taking mortality data from the peak of the black death in europe, we can tell that graveyards are currently overflowing. You are using data from 6-8 months ago.
Steersman wrote: ↑So, in comparing those two equal populations, the vaccine has reduced hospitalizations 550/600 or 92%; that is its degree of effectiveness.
Was. If at one point that was the effectiveness, it clearly isn't it's effectiveness today.
Steersman wrote: ↑That is the utility and value of those numbers and that statistical process - it allows us to calculate relative probabilities.
What the relative probabilities
were. Also, the claim is about absolute numbers not relative probabilities.
Steersman wrote: ↑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:
Seems like a terribly unfortunate choice that they are using numbers to articulate the effectiveness that you claim most people don't have a clue how to interpret. You twice screwed up the math in putting those relative probabilities into concrete terms.
Steersman wrote: ↑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.
Right, so do you agree now that the data being used to claim covid is a disease of the unvaccinated and hospitals are being overwhelmed by covid patients, almost all of whom are unvaccinated, doesn't actually show that?
Steersman wrote: ↑I too was confusing or conflating the
rate with the
actual populations which are dependent on the number of "trials".
Easily done, which is why it's so odd that rate data, and often old rate data, is being used to claim hospitals are being overwhelmed.
Steersman wrote: ↑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?
Then covid isn't "now a disease of the unvaccinated" and there isn't any widespread issue of hospitals being overwhelmed by covid patients, almost all of whom are unvaccinated. These are lies that are being pushed to demonize the unvaccinated for keeping the pandemic going, blame them for the negative side effects of government covid policy and apply social pressure on them to get vaccinated.
Steersman wrote: ↑That there maybe now more of the vaccinated in
some hospitals than the unvaccinated
Given that it's regional and national data that we have been looking at.... it's presumably going to be
most not
some. In as much as these claims have any factual basis, the media and politicians are doing what they have done through the entire crisis and taken outlier cases at one extreme of the distribution and tried to equivocate them into exemplifying the state of the whole system. You don't lock down an entire country because one hospital is overcrowded.
Steersman wrote: ↑, 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.
Albino midgits may be filling up hospitals at a grossly disproportionate rate, but since the absolute numbers are low, it doesn't matter. With rate data you can make it seem like a crisis, even when the absolute number of patients is low. With 6-8 month old rate data, you can make it seem like the vaccine is still effective.
Steersman wrote: ↑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:
Maybe, but that is a different claim to the one about covid being a disease of the unvaccinated, or hospitals being overwhelmed by covid patients, most of whom are unvaccinated. That claim is a lie.
Steersman wrote: ↑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.
Right, so the unvaccinated are a bit over represented, but nothing wild. I said that earlier. Are the NHS really going to be overwhelmed by another couple of hundred not very sick patients a week? Thinking about it, the table you are quoting seems to be people who tested positive, not people who are in hospital because of covid... so split the difference and call it an extra hundred not very sick patients a week across the whole of the NHS.
Steersman wrote: ↑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:
Contributed to what state? Hospitals not being overwhelmed? In as much as they are crowded, I'd say it was mainly the old, the overweight and the chronically ill. Maybe rather than camps for the unvaxed, we could have camps for the unfit and force them to go on the One Punch Man exercise programme? Healthy unvaxed people aren't ending up in hospital in even the feeble numbers we are talking about here. For some reason there is some mad push to make the lives of the healthy unvaxed impossible in parts of the US, Canada and Australia and force them to take a vaccine that doesn't reduce the spread, and if they are healthy, isn't going to do much to keep them out of hospital with covid since there chance of ending up there is already tiny.
Perhaps the society of the future will take the view that if your lifestyle means you are a standard deviation off the mean burden to the system of your fellows, then it will be the business of the state to induce you to change. That seems to be the argument behind forcing people to take the vax due to increased burden on healthcare. Why would that argument be limited to just the vax? I don't like the precedent.
Steersman wrote: ↑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.
No, the issue is that the media and politicians you keep quoting keep lying. Also, if hospitals are not in fact being overwhelmed, looking at rate data to determine who is to blame for them being overwhelmed is a red herring. You also exclude staffing shortages due to the covid policy if you jump straight to rate data. Step 1 is establishing that hospitals are in fact overflowing with covid patients.