Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Julian]

My post was merely for pje16 to show there are already patients who've had the 4th jab.

I didn't need to know why they were in ICU as I was fact-checking the fact the newspaper stated the ICU was full of unvaccinated patients. And that claim turned out to be misleading to say the least.

I'd also expect them to be triple jabbed. More so if they are in for heart operations due to myocarditis... Unfortunately local 17 year old's just been told by the doctors he needs a heart transplant due to vaccine damage.

Is it known yet why the vaccine can cause myocarditis, albeit in rare cases, and is it more in young people or at any age?

Sorry, I don't know the answer to the age-related question.

Re the cause question this is something that I've been wondering about for quite a while now and do some searching every couple of months or so to see if there are any well-supported theories. I tried quite hard to find an answer again last night but came up with virtually nothing. I only found one paper (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161 ... 121.056135) that even touched on possible mechanisms of action (i.e. cause) for the myocarditis side effect. The paper I just linked to has a section specifically entitled "Potential Mechanisms of COVID-19 Vaccine Myocarditis" but it's really technical so I got very little out of it beyond the impression that there are various theories but no clear idea which of those, if any or maybe multiple of them, are actually what's going on.

Over the last many months I have also tried to find out if the cause of the extremely rare blood clots after AstraZeneca (and J&J to a lesser extent) vaccinations had been found. There my research has been more fruitful and I have seen a few theories with entire papers dedicated to them. The AZ/clotting research went through the same phase as the mRNA(*)/myocarditis research seems to be at at the moment, i.e. a number of theories being evaluated in parallel. In July last year however a couple of AZ scientists did co-author a paper on one particular theory (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl8213) which makes me think that AZ might be converging on that as the most likely explanation.

As far as I can tell the situation with mRNA/Myocarditis hasn't got beyond the there-are-lots-of-theories stage yet. If anyone has any info to the contrary I would love to hear about it because maybe I've missed something. It does seem very hard to search for technical details because as soon as you put in any search term that includes both Pfizer and myocarditis, even if you also include various technical phrases to try and tease out results that might be for papers actually discussing mechanisms of action, the first few pages of search results still get swamped with articles and papers simply demonstrating how relatively rare these side effect are.

- Julian

(*) mRNA includes both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines since both of those are based on mRNA technology.

[scotia]

Claiming that this is evidence that

for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific

is extremely misleading. You could perhaps make an argument that with Covid-19 becoming endemic, and the vast majority of the population having been exposed and/or vaccinated, vaccine passports no longer make sense, but implying that unvaccinated people are at less risk than their vaccinated peers doesn't.

You are the one trying mislead away from the simple fact that PHW data clearly shows for all ages 18+ the rate per 100,000 is higher in the vaccinated group. And that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

I have no great belief that "cases" is a meaningful number in terms of vaccine efficiency. I can think of many reasons why unvaccinated persons might not be willing to get tested - whereas responsible vaccinated persons may carry out lateral flow tests frequently. However hospitalisations and deaths are much more reliable. So if we look at the table following the one you published which concerns hospitalisations per 100,000, we get a different set of numbers.
Under 18: vaccinated Zero, unvaccinated 12
18-60: vaccinated 17, unvaccinated 50
60+: vaccinated 60, unvaccinated 173

And if you give these figures a little thought, it seems likely that infected unvaccinated persons are carrying a higher load of the virus than vaccinated persons , and are more likely to spread it to others. That's the science behind vaccine passports.

And why did you not provide the link to the full data? For those interested, it is
https://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/3dc04669c9e1eaa880257062003b246b/a4f536f72da3962b8025875a0031b3c8/$FILE/Survey%20of%20vaccine%20status%20in%20cases%20and%20hospital%20inpatients.pdf

[Bouleversee]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

[scotia]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

[servodude]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

Indeed!

We need to be aware and careful of the risk of selection bias with this sort of stuff (as well as the better understood base rate fallacy)
I have to expect that those who took a denialist approach to COVID might be less likely to test in the first place, and if they did, might take
a more lax view in reporting it? (Given the reports of some of them accusing ICU staff of lying about their diagnosis )
I would expect them Repeatedly fabricate reports for a forum such as this one that COVID was not causing extra sickness and death, that it was all to be ignored, that the data was because Italy were historically bad at managing the flu season, etc.
- they might even disappear with their nonsense for months before coming back with more of it

- sd

[Bouleversee]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

I've only done one test, on Boxing Day before going to my son's, because I had had a fleeting visit from my daughter's family on Christmas Eve and I discovered later that they had had some contact with someone who had tested positive next day. Mine was negative and I duly reported that, as instructed, but discovered that the rest of my family didn't even realise one was supposed to! 3 members of my daughter's family were pretty sure they had Covid in the very early days with classic symptoms but not very ill so never tested or reported it . I am sure they were not alone.

[ElectronicFur]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

It's an irrelevant question as the PHW data only includes laboratory confirmed PCR test results...

[Julian]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

It's an irrelevant question as the PHW data only includes laboratory confirmed PCR test results...

I'm not sure how this works in Wales, or even England frankly, but are the comments of likelihood of doing at-home antigen tests really entirely irrelevant? Wasn't the guidance (or even regulation) in at least some UK countries e.g. England that if someone got a positive at-home lateral flow test result then not only should they register it on the NHS web site but that they should also follow it up with a PCR test?

I think that guidance/regulation/whatever might have changed in the last week or two in England and I'm not sure what the situation is in Wales but if it's anything like my impression of the English situation then the comments about likelihood of vaccinated vs unvaccinated doing at-home testing is still valid because, at least until recently, any at-home positive test result would have triggered a follow-up PCR test for any responsible tester who was acting according to the guidance whereas people not bothering to test at home before social events might never know they were positive and certainly wouldn't be randomly requesting a PCR test.

- Julian

[Bouleversee]

i wonder what proportion of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people report test results, whether positive or negative. I don't think any of such statistics are totally reliable.

Good Question! I suspect that even well meaning persons who test themselves before social contact with an elderly relative will probably not feel the need to set up an NHS account and report a negative result online.

It's an irrelevant question as the PHW data only includes laboratory confirmed PCR test results...

I was talking in general terms rather than re the Welsh report.

[tjh290633]

I'm not sure how this works in Wales, or even England frankly, but are the comments of likelihood of doing at-home antigen tests really entirely irrelevant? Wasn't the guidance (or even regulation) in at least some UK countries e.g. England that if someone got a positive at-home lateral flow test result then not only should they register it on the NHS web site but that they should also follow it up with a PCR test?

They also ask you to report all tests, positive or negative.

How many negative tests get reported? Short of sending round the testing police, how would you ensure this. Schoolchildren have been compelled to test, and this no doubt accounts for much of the reported increases, because their parents would have to test if a child shows positive.

TJH

[murraypaul]

Claiming that this is evidence that

for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific

is extremely misleading. You could perhaps make an argument that with Covid-19 becoming endemic, and the vast majority of the population having been exposed and/or vaccinated, vaccine passports no longer make sense, but implying that unvaccinated people are at less risk than their vaccinated peers doesn't.

You are the one trying mislead away from the simple fact that PHW data clearly shows for all ages 18+ the rate per 100,000 is higher in the vaccinated group.

No it doesn't.
It shows that if you group all 18-60 years old together the rates look like that.
It does not, in any way, say that the rates for people of the same age would look like that.

[Hallucigenia]

Interesting article on finding omicron-ish sequences in sewage that don't seem to be showing up in regular screening of humans - possibly geographically discreet populations of animals, perhaps rats?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/heal ... -york.html

[Bouleversee]

This is also very interesting, if alarming and ringing a lot of bells.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... e-long-run

[ElectronicFur]

Scotland is now showing the same trend with the latest data from Public Health Scotland also showing a higher case rate for all categories of the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Again, it that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

[swill453]

Again, it that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

Only if you assume the only purpose of [any measure] was to lower the age-standardised case rate per 100,000.

Scott.

[dealtn]

Again, it that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

No it doesn't. There isn't enough granularity, and "completely" is a high bar.

There might be people with unvaccinated status that are unable for medical reasons to have the vaccine, that are living super careful lives, with close to zero exposure. There might similarly be many with the same status living a "couldn't give a f..." one.

The age ranges aren't tight enough if anything is being skewed. For instance lots of schoolchildren will have no doses, but are active in high infectivity environments, but the same might be true, due to exposure to their children, of double vaccinated parents.

Might I "suggest" you are making claims based on incomplete data and analysis, interesting though the results are. Calling it "completely pointless and unscientific" isn't a claim I would be making.

[scotia]

Scotland is now showing the same trend with the latest data from Public Health Scotland also showing a higher case rate for all categories of the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Again, it that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

Oh No - not again!
I thought I cleared this up with the Welsh statistics where you deliberately displayed the reported cases, but failed to show the admissions - where the unvaccinated rate is much higher than in the vaccinated. This simply shows that those who are unvaccinated are also unwilling to report infections (cases) - but, of course, when these become severe, they require a much higher rate of admissions (about 3 times) compared to the vaccinated. They are exactly the people that are more likely to spread the virus - they are more likely to be infected, and less likely to report it. As this very obvious science shows, vaccine passports make sense. Exactly the opposite of your suggestion.
Next time, when you decide to display only the cases, just give a link to the article that also shows the admissions - and if present, also the deaths.

My previous refutation of the Welsh "data" is at https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=22218&start=9460#p478127
And I'll repeat my previous comment - Please supply a link to your data source, so that we may look at all of the published data, and not just the selective and misleading cut-outs which you display.

[Julian]

Scotland is now showing the same trend with the latest data from Public Health Scotland also showing a higher case rate for all categories of the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Again, it that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

Not necessarily. Well, OK in fairness you could use this as part of your case that "vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific" but if you want to draw that as your conclusion you need to consider at least two factors potentially in opposition to that conclusion. One has already been pointed out to you, the other I don't think has.

First, as pointed out, there might well be confounding factors that make that case rate data unreliable e.g. the possibility that the vaccinated cohort are more likely to be testing more often so more cases per head of population might be being detected. Note that saying that this is PCR data only so that possible extra at-home testing is irrelevant doesn't cut it. At-home lateral flow testing can be a feeder into PCR testing since people getting a lateral flow positive might well request a PCR test, in fact that was a requirement in England until 11th January (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/peop ... y-pcr-test); I'm not sure what the situation was or still is elsewhere in the UK.

The second point however is that you are simply considering case rates as numbers without considering the possibility that there might be a material difference between an infected unvaccinated vs an infected vaccinated person when it comes to their average potency as a transmission vector. In making claims about the "unscientific" nature of vaccine passports you need to at least look at the science out there. There's only so much time I'm willing to spend on this but I pretty quickly found one paper, admittedly not yet peer reviewed, that indicates that there is a difference in transmission potential between a vaccinated and unvaccinated infected person...

Methods We assessed nasopharyngeal swabs of COVID-19 patients for quantitative infectious viral titres (IVT) by focus-forming assay and compared to overall virus isolation success and RNA genome copies. We assessed infectious viral titres during the first 5 symptomatic days in a total of 384 patients: unvaccinated individuals infected with pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 (n= 118) or Delta (n= 127) and vaccine breakthrough infections with Delta (n= 121) or Omicron (n=18).

Findings Correlation between RNA copy number and IVT was low for all groups. No correlation between IVTs and age or sex was seen. We observed higher RNA genome copies in pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 compared to Delta, but significantly higher IVTs in Delta infected individuals. In vaccinated vs. unvaccinated Delta infected individuals, RNA genome copies were comparable but vaccinated individuals have significantly lower IVTs, and cleared virus faster. Vaccinated individuals with Omicron infection had comparable IVTs to Delta breakthrough infections.

Interpretation Quantitative IVTs can give detailed insights into virus shedding kinetics. Vaccination was associated with lower infectious titres and faster clearance for Delta, showing that vaccination would also lower transmission risk. Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections did not show elevated IVTs compared to Delta, suggesting that other mechanisms than increase VL contribute to the high infectiousness of Omicron.

[ Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22269010v1 ]

You can't make claims one way or another about whether vaccine passports and mandates are "completely ... unscientific" without going and trying to find out what other science on this matter is out there and whether it has reached consensus, is trending towards consensus, or is still hotly debated with indications both for and against transmission differences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

- Julian

[ElectronicFur]

Hospital admissions are misleading, as the admission is often not for Covid-19 but another illness, and many would have caught it in hospital.

In Wales the latest data as of 30 January shows just 28.5% of those in hospital with Covid-19 are there with Covid-19 as the primary reason, and the data also shows the majority of people in hospital with Covid-19 caught it in there. That's why concentrating on admissions is misleading.

The actual case data clearly shows case rates are higher in the vaccinated, and it is relevant to vaccine passports as it illustrates that those with passports are not less likely to have Covid-19, thus rendering passports useless. But some people seem to do all they can to irrationally dismiss that data...

Interesting also how you pick and choose one study regarding nasopharyngeal swabs, ignoring the others which your search must have shown up, which show the viral load in swabs is similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated. A fact even the CDC acknowledged they had confirmed.

[scotia]

Hospital admissions are misleading, as the admission is often not for Covid-19 but another illness, and many would have caught it in hospital.

In Wales the latest data as of 30 January shows just 28.5% of those in hospital with Covid-19 are there with Covid-19 as the primary reason, and the data also shows the majority of people in hospital with Covid-19 caught it in there. That's why concentrating on admissions is misleading.

The actual case data clearly shows case rates are higher in the vaccinated, and it is relevant to vaccine passports as it illustrates that those with passports are not less likely to have Covid-19, thus rendering passports useless. But some people seem to do all they can to irrationally dismiss that data...

Interesting also how you pick and choose one study regarding nasopharyngeal swabs, ignoring the others which your search must have shown up, which show the viral load in swabs is similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated. A fact even the CDC acknowledged they had confirmed.

It is irrelevant how many hospital admissions are associated with another illness. This fraction should be the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, if there is no population sample bias. So the relevant point (from your Welsh data) is that the ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated admissions remains around 3.
Further, I note that the highest level of vaccinations is among the elderly - where the risk of Covid hospitalisation is highest. As the age decreases, the level of vaccinations falls off among the middle to younger age groups, where the risk of Covid hospitalisation decreases significantly. So the unvaccinated fraction of the population is weighted more heavily among this younger group - and yet their actual hospitalisations are significantly higher than for the vaccinated group (which is more heavily biased with the elderly). So on a reasonable application of a population bias, the figure of 3 to 1 is likely to be a significant underestimate of the potency of the vaccine.