News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread III - L6ckdown

[ferball]

also keep in mind it's a factor of 2.6 co-morbidtities, so almost 3 of those conditions simultaneously - less than 20% of the population make up 94% of the CVOID deaths, that's the point.

yes, it is psycho to shrug your shoulders and let those people die, it's also not what i was talking about. it was in relation to someone overstating COVID on healthy young people - ie. people 18-40 with no co-morbidities.

The issue with covid isn't just deaths, its long term debilitation as well.

This isn't the flu. We've been living with the flu for a long time. And even it goes ballistic and hoes into us every now and then.

Its a novel^ virus and we've been studying it's specific effects on us for about 18 months. Its understandable that there is a degree of caution around it.


^ ie completely new to our immune system and our systems in general.

 

[7577969923]

The issue with covid isn't just deaths, its long term debilitation as well.

This isn't the flu. We've been living with the flu for a long time. And even it goes ballistic and hoes into us every now and then.

Its a novel^ virus and we've been studying it's specific effects on us for about 18 months. Its understandable that there is a degree of caution around it.


^ ie completely new to our immune system and our systems in general.

This reminds me of an interesting little bit of information I read yesterday. People that had the Spanish Flu as young children during the outbreak from 1918 to 20 developed immunity that lasted them a lifetime. So much so that they were protected from outbreaks of H1N1 that were at least 50 years after the first epidemic. There may be similar outcomes from Covid but very few small children have been infected. I believe the theory is the younger you are exposed the more lasting the immunity.

 

[Tas]

ffrom the article:

Some people may simply shrug when this issue is pointed out to them

Yep.

To some degree the vaccines change the probability someone who takes them will wind up dead from COVID.

Do they tho? Or is this an artifact of statistics and measuring. IE Taking a vaccine does not increase the chances of actually dying from COVID does it? He is talking about an external measurement that has nothing to do with what is actually happening on the ground in that situation isn't he?

That is right, taking the vaccine doesn't increase your chance of dying, as far as I could tell it was the way the efficacy statistic are calculated/measured. He makes the opposite point that if you filter out the data of people who do not get covid, the manner in which the efficacy values are calculated would give the impression you are 5.7x more likely to die from covid if you catch covid and are vaccinated vs catching covid and are unvaccinated. That of course isn't the reality, there is a benefit to being vaccinated, even if you get covid, but the effect isn't as significant as people have been claiming and it is probably causing people to take avoidable risks because of bad messaging in terms of what the benefits are.

Essentially, the main line of defense of the vaccine is it does a good job eliminating the virus if you are exposed to it before it sets in and stars multiplying rapidly. People should still be cautious, if we look at Iceland for example, around 60% of the people getting covid are fully vaccinated. They stopped wearing masks, social distancing, etc, returned their economy to normal and we now know the vaccine acts more like the flu vaccine in that it's effect diminishes over time. People who have been vaccinated for longer than 6 months now will require a booster shot.

Reading the comments is very interesting too.

This is a comment the author makes in response to questions about IFRs:


16-44 and 45-64 show now evidence of additional protection. Those 65+ show some, but nowhere near 98%

But when you combine all the age groups - the IFR increases.

This is purely a mathematical effect. And if you don't notice it exists ahead of time, you could make incorrect conclusions in the future.

I do not claim that the infection death rate being higher is a problem - I claim not understanding it fully (by spreading misinformation) can lead to misreading the numbers in the future. Mistakenly concluding the virus is getting more lethal when it isn't (because you never noticed the higher infection death rate in the original data)

I also argue the false information can lead people to take more risk getting infected than the otherwise would.

Yeah, I think the spreading of false information wasn't malicious, it probably takes a mathematician/statistician to understand the nuance of the math, but the perception about the vaccines and returning life to normal is dangerously misleading and is probably causing people to take unnecessary risks they probably wouldn't have if they were made aware and it will result in making the vaccine look harmful, because unvaccinated people are taking fewer risks of exposure than vaccinated people currently are.

 

[DEVO]

In a town that is so full of sh*t that could be a problem!

Most of the s**t comes from interstate, only five turds are from Canberra.

 

[7577969923]

That is right, taking the vaccine doesn't increase your chance of dying, as far as I could tell it was the way the efficacy statistic are calculated/measured. He makes the opposite point that if you filter out the data of people who do not get covid, the manner in which the efficacy values are calculated would give the impression you are 5.7x more likely to die from covid if you catch covid and are vaccinated vs catching covid and are unvaccinated. That of course isn't the reality, there is a benefit to being vaccinated, even if you get covid, but the effect isn't as significant as people have been claiming and it is probably causing people to take avoidable risks because of bad messaging in terms of what the benefits are.

Essentially, the main line of defense of the vaccine is it does a good job eliminating the virus if you are exposed to it before it sets in and stars multiplying rapidly. People should still be cautious, if we look at Iceland for example, around 60% of the people getting covid are fully vaccinated. They stopped wearing masks, social distancing, etc, returned their economy to normal and we now know the vaccine acts more like the flu vaccine in that it's effect diminishes over time. People who have been vaccinated for longer than 6 months now will require a booster shot.



Yeah, I think the spreading of false information wasn't malicious, it probably takes a mathematician/statistician to understand the nuance of the math, but the perception about the vaccines and returning life to normal is dangerously misleading and is probably causing people to take unnecessary risks they probably wouldn't have if they were made aware and it will result in making the vaccine look harmful, because unvaccinated people are taking fewer risks of exposure than vaccinated people currently are.

That is correct. All the data is very clear that the level of infections, hospitalisations, and deaths is far lower at the aggregate level in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. The data isn't even close to being comparable.

What I believe he is doing and I'm not sure it is helpful is removing all the people that didn't get infected who otherwise would have if not for the vaccination and then saying that of the balance of vaccinated people who get infected they are more likely to die than unvaccinated people who get infected. This could be true in the sense that only the more vulnerable among the vaccinated population will get infected and would have a higher chance of dying on either side of the equation. Also important to note that the data set he draws on is pre-Delta variant which has seen a higher rate of infections among the vaccinated but no real increase in illness and death.

Unfortunately, it is the type of analysis that the moronic activists like the ones that speak at CPAC grab hold of and just repeat the headline over and over again. "If you take the vaccine you are more likely to die." By the time that the fact-checkers and scientists have explained that is a gross misrepresentation, huge numbers of dolts have used it to confirm their biases. As Mark Twain (may have) said "I lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has pulled its pants on in the morning".

 

[ferball]

This reminds me of an interesting little bit of information I read yesterday. People that had the Spanish Flu as young children during the outbreak from 1918 to 20 developed immunity that lasted them a lifetime. So much so that they were protected from outbreaks of H1N1 that were at least 50 years after the first epidemic. There may be similar outcomes from Covid but very few small children have been infected. I believe the theory is the younger you are exposed the more lasting the immunity.

Did you post that about the Spanish Flu? Cos I also read it yesterday.

Anyway...

Do you remember that graph Tef used to post about the effectiveness of the adaptive immune system?

It was peak at effectiveness until about 10 years of age. This makes sense because we would have evolved in a way we were exposed to most pathogens before we were 10 before we started mass transport and long distance travel. Even before we evolved to be human most likely.

 

[7577969923]

Did you post that about the Spanish Flu? Cos I also read it yesterday.

Anyway...

Do you remember that graph Tef used to post about the effectiveness of the adaptive immune system?

It was peak at effectiveness until about 10 years of age. This makes sense because we would have evolved in a way we were exposed to most pathogens before we were 10 before we started mass transport and long distance travel. Even before we evolved to be human most likely.

It was in an article from Fairfax that I posted that was talking about herd immunity and what it really means.

Can't remember the Tef graph but your outtake makes sense to me.

 

[DesertRoo]

anyone travelling must remember to wear your blue band..
No wonder they’re protesting over there..

 

[danj]

This is brilliant and spot on.

 

[big_e]

anyone travelling must remember to wear your blue band..
No wonder they’re protesting over there..

Last night, my mum showed me the vaccine record she had to have when travelling to the South Pacific in the late 1960s. None of this is new.

 

[Themanbun]

Last night, my mum showed me the vaccine record she had to have when travelling to the South Pacific in the late 1960s. None of this is new.

Even then, the video is misleadingly titled 'vaccine passport'. The rule over there isn't that you've had to have a vaccine, but that you have either had a vaccine, recovered from covid, or have a negative test result.

I mean, I'm cool with vaccine passports and know they've long been a thing in many countries, but this isn't even one of those.

 

[DesertRoo]

Last night, my mum showed me the vaccine record she had to have when travelling to the South Pacific in the late 1960s. None of this is new.

Difference is they’ve implemented the programme knowing full well a vaccinated person can both catch and pass on covid.. it literally shares no purpose apart from saying this person won’t get unwell with covid.

 

[Themanbun]

Difference is they’ve implemented the programme knowing full well a vaccinated person can both catch and pass on covid.. it literally shares no purpose apart from saying this person won’t get unwell with covid.

Not a difference at all. You can still get TB even with the TB vaccine but it's a requirement.

 

[DesertRoo]

Not a difference at all. You can still get TB even with the TB vaccine but it's a requirement.

Forgive if I’m wrong but aren’t the TB vaccines given to the young, as it’s deadly in the younger population, as you get older it’s less of an issue?

of course the elderly population have to be protected as well.

 

[Themanbun]

Forgive if I’m wrong but aren’t the TB vaccines given to the young, as it’s deadly in the younger population, as you get older it’s less of an issue?

of course the elderly population have to be protected as well.

No idea. All I know is that Australian immigration department want evidence of it. It's not a super effective vaccine.

 

[Tas]

That is correct. All the data is very clear that the level of infections, hospitalisations, and deaths is far lower at the aggregate level in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. The data isn't even close to being comparable.

What I believe he is doing and I'm not sure it is helpful is removing all the people that didn't get infected who otherwise would have if not for the vaccination and then saying that of the balance of vaccinated people who get infected they are more likely to die than unvaccinated people who get infected. This could be true in the sense that only the more vulnerable among the vaccinated population will get infected and would have a higher chance of dying on either side of the equation. Also important to note that the data set he draws on is pre-Delta variant which has seen a higher rate of infections among the vaccinated but no real increase in illness and death.

Unfortunately, it is the type of analysis that the moronic activists like the ones that speak at CPAC grab hold of and just repeat the headline over and over again. "If you take the vaccine you are more likely to die." By the time that the fact-checkers and scientists have explained that is a gross misrepresentation, huge numbers of dolts have used it to confirm their biases. As Mark Twain (may have) said "I lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has pulled its pants on in the morning".

That is fair enough, but we aren't limiting the use of science when dumb pro-vaccine people also spread a dangerous message either, like "you can go back to normal once vaccinated". If you take a lot of risks even when vaccinated you may end up dying. This is clearly harmful as well.

I don't think we can afford to play god with science and suppress facts just because we are afraid dumb people will misrepresent it, we should just be careful the way we represent the information. ie, he could have been a lot clearer with his 5.7x point, something he went into more detail in the comments, but I don't think it was worded well. The importance is how the data is calculated and what it means, even the Lancet went to this point, the people trained to understand this information are getting it wrong.

I think the message should go out that vaccinated people still need to be careful, they are way less likely to get covid than an unvaccinated person so they can wear higher risks, but they could still be vulnerable and have a bad outcome if they get covid. The message could save lives, might spread the virus less than it is being spread atm.

 

[DEVO]

I’ve just started my first lockdown, how exciting.

 

[DEVO]

Well this is s**t. I’m bored. WTF am I supposed to do for the seven days!

 

[rickety]

Well this is sh*t. I’m bored. WTF am I supposed to do for the seven days!

Have you been into your kitchen yet?

 

[big_e]

Well this is sh*t. I’m bored. WTF am I supposed to do for the seven days!

It's Canberra, how will you notice the difference?

 

[Intothewind]

Well this is sh*t. I’m bored. WTF am I supposed to do for the seven days!

Seven days? Rookie assumption.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DEVO]

It's Canberra, how will you notice the difference?

You still living in the seventies?

 

[7577969923]

Well this is sh*t. I’m bored. WTF am I supposed to do for the seven days!

This is what everyone else has been doing during lockdowns. The good news is you don't even have to drive to Queenbeyen.

Pornography is booming during the covid-19 lockdowns

Social-distancing rules prompt performers to offer private webcam-shows

www.economist.com

 

[DEVO]

This is what everyone else has been doing during lockdowns. The good news is you don't even have to drive to Queenbeyen.

Pornography is booming during the covid-19 lockdowns

Social-distancing rules prompt performers to offer private webcam-shows

www.economist.com

NSW were always a little tight arsed regarding pr0n, so most Queanbeyanites crossed the border to Fyshwick which was the place to go for pr0n and fireworks.

 

[giantroo]

Canberra now has 4 cases.