PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   All borders to reopen. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632861-all-borders-reopen.html)

common cents 15th Aug 2021 07:10


Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11095273)
Here's the abstract for the paper the you've taken that graphic from.

BNT162b2 is BioNTech Pfizer.

The authors of that study (BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting, Dagan et al) found vaccine effectiveness at the important efficacy endpoints of preventing hospitalisation and severe illness 7 or more days after the second dose were 87% for hospitalization, and 92% for severe disease. The estimated effectiveness in preventing death after the first dose was 72%.

No argument from me. I acknowledge that the vaccines have an effect. I am vaccinated. The percentages are Relative Risk Reductions. All I attempted to demonstrate was firstly the real world nature of the problem ie: IFR and secondly the absolute benefit of vaccination.
The data is perfect for an extrapolation of the true nature of the problem as it yields an IFR figure of 0.38%. The effect of vaccine is to reduce the IFR down to 0.14%.
Yes vaccines work.
But in my view we need to stop this infatuation with case numbers as all we are seeing there is the top of the pyramid. The extrapolations I’ve made from real data potentially show the whole pyramid. Respectfully, the damage we are causing with lockdowns is not commensurate with the real problem.

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 07:21


43mm, we are all over this COVID shit. All of us. I hope you are right and that when we hit 80% they open the floodgates and let us go about our business. In fact if they do, and you are correct, I will be the first to shout you 3 beers. I am a man of my word. But seeing is believing, and our incompetent, belligerent, gutless Governments are yet to handle any crisis effectively and in a concise and praiseworthy manner.
I'll hold you to those beers and will buy a few more rounds after, but do work on those retorts. Beers are definitely more enjoyable with some banter, just nothing Covid related please, once this shite is over I think anyone that mentions covid should just be shot.

Oh and if anyone tries to launch another wave of whatever by summer, I'm creating a time machine and cleaning up some messes with extreme force.

Paragraph377 15th Aug 2021 07:23


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11095290)
I'll hold you to those beers and will buy a few more rounds after, but do work on those retorts. Beers are definitely more enjoyable with some banter, just nothing Covid related please, once this shite is over I think anyone that mentions covid should just be shot.

Finally something we both agree on 👍

MickG0105 15th Aug 2021 07:34


Originally Posted by common cents (Post 11095286)
No argument from me. I acknowledge that the vaccines have an effect. I am vaccinated. The percentages are Relative Risk Reductions. All I attempted to demonstrate was firstly the real world nature of the problem ie: IFR and secondly the absolute benefit of vaccination.
The data is perfect for an extrapolation of the true nature of the problem as it yields an IFR figure of 0.38%. The effect of vaccine is to reduce the IFR down to 0.14%.
Yes vaccines work.
But in my view we need to stop this infatuation with case numbers as all we are seeing there is the top of the pyramid. The extrapolations I’ve made from real data potentially show the whole pyramid. Respectfully, the damage we are causing with lockdowns is not commensurate with the real problem.

By my geometry, cases would be the bottom of the pyramid but yes, I don't disagree with the premise. The focus should be on hospitalisations and ICU admissions.

Of course that gross fatality rate is for a sample aged 16 - over 80, what the study doesn't show is deaths broken out by age group. You would expect to see a markedly different set of numbers for the 70+ cohort.

If you want to get a real world understanding of the impact of the vaccines, look at the ICU admissions (severe illness). Based on that study the difference between a vaccinated population and an unvaccinated one in Israel (population ~ 9 million) is about 1,800 ICU admissions (you'd need about 4,000 ICU nurses to service that).

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 07:43


Of course that gross fatality rate is for a sample aged 16 - over 80, what the study doesn't show is deaths broken out by age group. You would expect to see a markedly different set of numbers for the 70+ cohort.
Even just splitting into 50+ and under is enough to see a huge different set of data.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_20.pdf

That document has a good data set in Table 5. But you must only compare within an age group, or you get weird outcomes.

common cents 15th Aug 2021 07:44

“Of course that gross fatality rate is for a sample aged 16 - over 80, what the study doesn't show is deaths broken out by age group. You would expect to see a markedly different set of numbers for the 70+ cohort.”

Agreed. Conversely the numbers for younger people would go in the opposite direction. Thereby bringing into question the need to vaccinate and expose this cohort to added risks.
The idea of protecting the elderly and clinically vulnerable is something we should have embraced from the beginning.
The absolutism that we are attempting now is without merit.



machtuk 15th Aug 2021 08:12

I'm just checking in here to say " hey I'm still here you bastards" (Steve McQueen, Papillon) ................ unvaxed.....sorry:ok:

MickG0105 15th Aug 2021 08:13


Originally Posted by common cents (Post 11095298)
“Of course that gross fatality rate is for a sample aged 16 - over 80, what the study doesn't show is deaths broken out by age group. You would expect to see a markedly different set of numbers for the 70+ cohort.”

Agreed. Conversely the numbers for younger people would go in the opposite direction. Thereby bringing into question the need to vaccinate and expose this cohort to added risks.
The idea of protecting the elderly and clinically vulnerable is something we should have embraced from the beginning.
The absolutism that we are attempting now is without merit.

Your focus when it comes to any disease is generally on the most vulnerable group. Nobody really gives two hoots about whooping cough or RSV in adults, and nobody uses the whole population to determine the critical case fatality rate for those diseases.

And you vaccinate outside of the most vulnerable cohort for a couple of reasons.

One, to try to manage the incidence rate. That is of interest to you in order to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable, vaccinated or not.

Two, because it is never a great idea to have large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations co-existing when a disease is pandemic. Doing so creates a reservoir for the development of mutations.

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 08:26

The issue I have with that study, if you are using to prove covid is somewhat deadly or not.

Out of the 1.2million odd participants, only 10,500 were confirmed as contracting covid.

The outcomes are measured in Cumulative Index, which is the number of occurances relative to the total population. Not incidences relative to infected population.

Since no information is supplied as to how at risk or exposed to covid the whole cohort are there is no baseline for infection rate. The infected 6100 UnVax and 4460 Vaxed, does not reflect how susceptible they were to covid, or exposure.

The IFR for this group is close to 0.5% UnVaxed and 0.2% Vaxed.

The mistake you made is Adding up the already "cummulative" figures for you're stats.

This study is purely to prove viability of a vaccination, not to prove anything to do directly with Covid.

common cents 15th Aug 2021 09:10

[QUOTE=MickG0105;11095309]Your focus when it comes to any disease is generally on the most vulnerable group. Nobody really gives two hoots about whooping cough or RSV in adults, and nobody uses the whole population to determine the critical case fatality rate for those diseases.

And you vaccinate outside of the most vulnerable cohort for a couple of reasons.

One, to try to manage the incidence rate. That is of interest to you in order to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable, vaccinated or not.

Two, because it is never a great idea to have large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations co-existing when a disease is pandemic. Doing so creates a reservoir for the development of mutations.[/QUOTE

Valid points in theory. In practice however, consider the exponential rise in the significant numbers of infections in places like Israel Iceland Canada with such high vaccination numbers. I put to you that the reservoir for the development of mutations will exist even after vaccination. The Israelis are currently reporting a Relative Risk Reduction of 39% in transmissions hence their 3rd shot booster initiative.
On your first premise, the viral loads in vaccinated infected individuals are as high as non vaccinated. It is generally accepted by experts that transmission will continue as is evidenced by real world statistics.Therefore any success with an attempt to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable through these particular vaccines is doubtful at best. Don’t misunderstand me for I comprehend the need to mitigate and I accept the moral undertones of your points. What I won’t accept is exercises in futility.
As I have stated previously. We need to gain a clearer picture of the real nature of this problem and the real absolute protections from these vaccines.
The numbers from those graphs don’t lie. 4.9% infection rate reduced to 3.8% after vaccine. 0.38% IFR reduced to 0.14% after vaccine.
These are the real numbers. Yes they show effectiveness. Enough to stop thousands of deaths probably not. Introducing added risks to younger people through the use of vaccines would be appear to offer little to no protection for the vulnerable so why do it. Waiting on high vaccination numbers before ending lockdowns will yield questionable improvements in outcome. Measurable but insignificant when you compare the damage both on a human and economic level that lockdowns are causing.
So vaccinating has now moved away from sensible medical intervention and has become a political trigger to end lockdowns.
Silly don’t you think?


Lead Balloon 15th Aug 2021 09:13


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11095312)
The issue I have with that study, if you are using to prove covid is somewhat deadly or not.

Out of the 1.2million odd participants, only 10,500 were confirmed as contracting covid.

The outcomes are measured in Cumulative Index, which is the number of occurances relative to the total population. Not incidences relative to infected population.

Since no information is supplied as to how at risk or exposed to covid the whole cohort are there is no baseline for infection rate. The infected 6100 UnVax and 4460 Vaxed, does not reflect how susceptible they were to covid, or exposure.

The IFR for this group is close to 0.5% UnVaxed and 0.2% Vaxed.

The mistake you made is Adding up the already "cummulative" figures for you're stats.

This study is purely to prove viability of a vaccination, not to prove anything to do directly with Covid.

Oopps. The work experience kid has been left to run the 43Inches login this evening.

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 09:37


The numbers from those graphs don’t lie. 4.9% infection rate reduced to 3.8% after vaccine. 0.38% IFR reduced to 0.14% after vaccine.
Where do you get these numbers from?

In your original post you mentioned figures of;


Infections in Unvaccinated 29365 Fatalities 112 .....IFR 0.38%
Infections in vaccinated 22943 Fatalities 32 ...........IFR 0.14%
Put in another way recovery rate in Unvaccinated was 99.62% and in Vaccinated was 99.86%
These IFR are similar to Stanford University modelling. The difference is the above data is Real World.
In the study notes it says only 10,561 were infected in total. From what I can see you added up the already cumulative numbers. If you add the 6100 and 4460 you get the 10,560 as mentioned.

This makes all your other numbers way out.

Since all subjects received testing you could safely assume the IFR a calculation of 32/6100, 0.52% for the unvaxed and 9/4460, 0.2% for vaxed.

The infection rate for the entire cohort was 10.500/1,200,000, 0.8%. Which proves nothing as the cohort does not come from the same locations rather all over Israel. There is no evidence of how many were exposed to covid and how many were affected by other factors such as self isolation procedures etc.

All that is proven is that for number of infections the vaccinated did far better than unvaccinated in surviving.

BTW, do you know what the "At Risk" numbers are about?

Lead Balloon 15th Aug 2021 09:46

Looks like one of the adults is back in charge of the 43Inches login...

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 09:57


Looks like one of the adults is back in charge of the 43Inches login...
More trying to use phone while watching TV vs at PC desk.

Lead Balloon 15th Aug 2021 10:03

This is a national emergency, 43Inches! Tantamount to a war (but don't use that language in the presence of Mick, who wants to pretend the nationhood power of the Commonwealth, along with the other far-reaching powers of the Commonwealth, does not give Scotty from Marketing the power to control and run the response to C-19).

Surely you shouldn't be diverting your attention to trivia like watching TV.

43Inches 15th Aug 2021 10:20

YAS SAH!

Back to my station.

I really don't know, or even dread to think what SloMo would do if he took the power upon himself, there would be power but also, responsibility. No more sitting back and blaming Dan for his woes. I picture his current thought process kinda like Bilbo and the ring.

And Mr Potato heads cranium might actually explode with glee at the thought of that power.

MickG0105 15th Aug 2021 10:27


Originally Posted by common cents (Post 11095332)

Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11095309)
Your focus when it comes to any disease is generally on the most vulnerable group. Nobody really gives two hoots about whooping cough or RSV in adults, and nobody uses the whole population to determine the critical case fatality rate for those diseases.

And you vaccinate outside of the most vulnerable cohort for a couple of reasons.

One, to try to manage the incidence rate. That is of interest to you in order to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable, vaccinated or not.

Two, because it is never a great idea to have large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations co-existing when a disease is pandemic. Doing so creates a reservoir for the development of mutations.

Valid points in theory. In practice however, consider the exponential rise in the significant numbers of infections in places like Israel Iceland Canada with such high vaccination numbers. I put to you that the reservoir for the development of mutations will exist even after vaccination. The Israelis are currently reporting a Relative Risk Reduction of 39% in transmissions hence their 3rd shot booster initiative.
On your first premise, the viral loads in vaccinated infected individuals are as high as non vaccinated. It is generally accepted by experts that transmission will continue as is evidenced by real world statistics.Therefore any success with an attempt to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable through these particular vaccines is doubtful at best. Don’t misunderstand me for I comprehend the need to mitigate and I accept the moral undertones of your points. What I won’t accept is exercises in futility.
As I have stated previously. We need to gain a clearer picture of the real nature of this problem and the real absolute protections from these vaccines.
The numbers from those graphs don’t lie. 4.9% infection rate reduced to 3.8% after vaccine. 0.38% IFR reduced to 0.14% after vaccine.
These are the real numbers. Yes they show effectiveness. Enough to stop thousands of deaths probably not. Introducing added risks to younger people through the use of vaccines would be appear to offer little to no protection for the vulnerable so why do it. Waiting on high vaccination numbers before ending lockdowns will yield questionable improvements in outcome. Measurable but insignificant when you compare the damage both on a human and economic level that lockdowns are causing.
So vaccinating has now moved away from sensible medical intervention and has become a political trigger to end lockdowns.
Silly don’t you think?

If you want to gain a clearer picture with real world data then maybe a study from six months ago isn't the best source. If you want up-to-date real world data, the Israelis maintain an excellent COVID-19 dashboard that is updated every 8 hours.

This latest surge in infections that they are seeing, at least 50 percent of the cases are coming from less than 20 percent of the population; the unvaccinated. And of those active cases progressing to serious illness, that is, requiring an ICU admission, over 70 percent of those are unvaccinated.

​​​​​​In terms of actual deaths, the Israeli's have seen the Case Fatality Rate drop from its pre-vaccine peak of 0.09 percent to currently 0.024 percent. For the Israelis that's a difference of 350 deaths a week. Translated to our population, that's the worst part of 1,000 deaths a week.

But you do you. Everyone has clearly differing views.

gerry111 15th Aug 2021 12:34


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11095150)
As long as it’s not an investment property you can go!

These days, they're all purchased as investment properties! Owner occupied ones are simply for dodging capital gains tax..

Cirressna 15th Aug 2021 13:28

Hang up the wings, zero is here to stay.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-...14-p58iqs.html


Australia’s plan to reopen and move beyond lockdowns this year will be in jeopardy unless NSW drives COVID-19 case numbers close to zero as well as hitting a vaccination target of 70 per cent of the adult population.Experts predict Victoria and other states could return to a COVID-normal situation if vaccination targets were reached and case numbers remained low, but NSW would be shut out by the rest of the country.


If Australia did open up at 70 per cent adult vaccination with daily cases in the hundreds, as they were in NSW on Saturday, modelling from the Doherty Institute suggests 385,000 coronavirus cases and almost 1500 deaths could occur in six months.

To avoid thousands of cases a day, states and territories – including Victoria – would be required to continue using border closures and lockdowns even after hitting 80 per cent vaccination.
They had us for a moment there.

SHVC 15th Aug 2021 17:20

The premiers are drunk on power. We will never have our freedoms back like in 2019. Get used to it, if you were able to leave Australia now is a pretty good time to. It will be a mad max world here this time next yr.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:27.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.