Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Flying Dutchman said..
However I look at the latest NSW Government statistics and they tell a different story. Somebody who is good at maths can you please tell me based on the chart below;
1. How many more times your chances of ending up in a NSW hospital unvaccinated?
2 How many more times your chances of ending up in NSW ICU unvaccinated?
Given that there is 78.3% vaccinated and therefore 21.7% unvaccinated, your baseline for zero vaccine effectiveness would be that the ratio of people in ICU would be similar (ie. 78.3 to 21.7). However, since it is just about even for ICU admissions despite more people being vaccinated than not, that would mean you are around 78.3/21.7 more likely to end up in ICU if you are unvaccinated. That is, around 3 1/2 times more likely.
Or, for those that like decimal points, 78.3/21.7 x 49.1/50.3 = 3.52 more likely to be in ICU if unvaccinated.
For hospitalisation, it's 78.3/21.7 x 28.8/68.9 = 1.51 times more likely if unvaccinated.
That 93% omicron will be an interesting statistic to keep an eye on, although will self-reporting of RAT results instead of getting a PCR test impact the availability of this data?
It would be great to have the figures for individual age groups.
The forumla is
(unvaccinated population in ICU / total unvaccinated popluation) / (vaccinated in ICU / total vaccinated population)
When I did this, based on an article in a sky news article a week or two ago it came to 35 times more likely. Omicron has changed this now. But yes my inputs were incorrect at the time I was using a vaccinated figure of 95% or something. When this didn't include children.
Fact is - vaccines are statistically proven to be beneficial. Hahahhaha Can't argue with facts.
If you are just looking at chance of being in ICU between vaxed and unvaxed presumably you also need to include the people who are in ICU due to adverse effects from the vaccine somehow.#
Can't seem to find any figures on that though.
9 deaths due to vax at end of November on the TGA website.
www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-12-2021
#the argumentative person inside me wants to point out that if the ICU numbers being used are people in ICU WITH covid, not necessarily FROM covid, then if anyone is in ICU WITH a vax, they should be treated exactly the same way and added into the "in ICU from vax" group 
.
Thus now one could use the same stats in the same way to declare that you are 3,500 times more likely to be in ICU if you are vaxed.
Statistics - 95% made up.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
If you are just looking at chance of being in ICU between vaxed and unvaxed presumably you also need to include the people who are in ICU due to adverse effects from the vaccine somehow.#
Can't seem to find any figures on that though.
9 deaths due to vax at end of November on the TGA website.
www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-12-2021
#the argumentative person inside me wants to point out that if the ICU numbers being used are people in ICU WITH covid, not necessarily FROM covid, then if anyone is in ICU WITH a vax, they should be treated exactly the same way and added into the "in ICU from vax" group .
Thus now one could use the same stats in the same way to declare that you are 3,500 times more likely to be in ICU if you are vaxed.
Statistics - 95% made up.
You have to assume all sorts of things. Like people in ICU who are there due to car accidents etc who just got diagnosed with Covid.
The figures are not there. So just go ahead make yourself feel good, warm and safe. Adjust the figures however you want fark knuckles.
It's a disaster, that's being mismanaged by those in charge. But looking at the limited stats provided the unvaxxed are far more at risk of dying, ending up in hospital or on a vent - it doesn't matter what spin you want to put on it.
It's a no brainer.
If we end up with less antivaxer, comorbility, sick wogs with comprehension issues on earth - the world will be a better place.
(last sentence was just berley for farkheads)
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Carantoc said..
If you are just looking at chance of being in ICU between vaxed and unvaxed presumably you also need to include the people who are in ICU due to adverse effects from the vaccine somehow.#
Can't seem to find any figures on that though.
9 deaths due to vax at end of November on the TGA website.
www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-12-2021
#the argumentative person inside me wants to point out that if the ICU numbers being used are people in ICU WITH covid, not necessarily FROM covid, then if anyone is in ICU WITH a vax, they should be treated exactly the same way and added into the "in ICU from vax" group .
Thus now one could use the same stats in the same way to declare that you are 3,500 times more likely to be in ICU if you are vaxed.
Statistics - 95% made up.
You have to assume all sorts of things. Like people in ICU who are there due to car accidents etc who just got diagnosed with Covid.
The figures are not there. So just go ahead make yourself feel good, warm and safe. Adjust the figures however you want fark knuckles.
It's a disaster, that's being mismanaged by those in charge. But looking at the limited stats provided the unvaxxed are far more at risk of dying, ending up in hospital or on a vent - it doesn't matter what spin you want to put on it.
It's a no brainer.
If we end up with less antivaxer, comorbility, sick wogs with comprehension issues on earth - the world will be a better place.
(last sentence was just berley for farkheads)
Well just going by 'vaxxed' and 'unvaxxed' with no context on other contributing factors (comorbidities, 'with or without') etc and hence is assuming a lot and is basically meaningless.
But you do like to misrepresent numbers to suit your argument though, just like you do when talking up crypto.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
But you do like to misrepresent numbers to suit your argument though, just like you do when talking up crypto.
I didn't missrepresent numbers, I'm just using what's available. Who doesn't use available stats to suit their own agenda?
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..kiterboy said..
But you do like to misrepresent numbers to suit your argument though, just like you do when talking up crypto.
I didn't missrepresent numbers, I'm just using what's available. Who doesn't use available stats to suit their own agenda?
Sensible people don't take numbers on face value, especially numbers with so little contributing information to give context.
Then there's people like you who refuse to question the numbers and use them to push your argument.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..Mr Milk said..
93% of adults
Which is not general population right?
So the Dr was being inaccurate?
According to wiki - "In epidemiology, the general population refers to all individuals without reference to any specific characteristic"
Yes and no. It doesn't make sense to include groups that don't seem to be much affected by a disease in an analysis.
I could get an immediate 50% reduction in the rate of cervical cancer by including men in my denominator
Look here boys if your unvaccinated non Australia and caught Covid previously and want to play tennis that is fine according to the Government of Australia!
What's the definition of "vaccinated" in Oz now? Two doses? Two plus booster?
How many of those people in the hospital turned up for something else and then tested positive?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
How many of those people in the hospital turned up for something else and then tested positive?
Can't tell you. The reason provided is that it would be too much work for an already stretched hospital to record the reason for admission...and Sars Cov 2 status. And coincidentally the term nosocomial infection has gone by the wayside.
Looks like the vaccines worked pretty well against Delta.
6 months ago NSW was up to 1000 cases a day one month after that limo driver visited bondi junction.
WA is one month post a Delta outbreak started and they're still a few cases shy of 1000 a day.
Select to expand quotetarquin1 said..
There is going to be a big strike in France by teachers today. Macron is pushing the vaccine pass through. It was a health pass and a negative test was OK. If it goes through you will have to be vaccinated to go to a restaurant,cafe,theatre and so on. You also will need it to travel on long distance trains and flights. They said they would never do this.
Yes all the numbers can be played by who is spitting them out to sound better or worse for their cause.
Heads of hospitals being interviewed on TV are saying unvaccinated count for 60-80% of COVID patients in France.
and than welcome to WA....How much more? 110%?France can do this. We in WA cant.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Can't tell you. The reason provided is that it would be too much work for an already stretched hospital to record the reason for admission...and Sars Cov 2 status. And coincidentally the term nosocomial infection has gone by the wayside.
Nosocomial. Yes, synchronicity is at work again.
Was listening to an interview with an ER doctor at UCSF who brought this up with her employer, and then the hospital did something about it. End result was an estimated 60% of "hospitalized" cases were people who had presented at the ER for something else, been tested on admission and found as asymptotic positive. I don't remember what the raw numbers were...
Number Needed to Treat was also something that suddenly I've heard over and again recently.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Looks like the vaccines worked pretty well against Delta.
6 months ago NSW was up to 1000 cases a day one month after that limo driver visited bondi junction.
WA is one month post a Delta outbreak started and they're still a few cases shy of 1000 a day.
There are some other factors there though. We also put more controls in and we have a lower population density.
You'll recall we had a delta case in community before vaccinations as well which didn't spread either.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Or, for those that like decimal points, 78.3/21.7 x 49.1/50.3 = 3.52 more likely to be in ICU if unvaccinated.
For hospitalisation, it's 78.3/21.7 x 28.8/68.9 = 1.51 times more likely if unvaccinated.
These pricks trying to fudge the numbers.
They have an unvaccinated number of 318,119.
21.7% unvaccinated NSW population is around 1,770,000.
If you read through this article there's quite a few mathematical errors in it.
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/why-figure-showing-half-of-icu-patients-are-vaccinated-proves-jabs-are-working/news-story/ac184b71aebc3a6acdf63f2d819156f6#share-tools
Yes all the numbers can be manipulated to make them look good or bad depending on you criteria.
Australia did well to miss the Delta variant I think. There were more lockdowns but it wasn't great in Europe or other places. Lots of deaths and businesses that closed due to COVID.
As most of the top doctors and hospital staff in France and other countries have said arguing about numbers isn't going to stop COVID.
One of the comments from the doctors in Paris in the early days was dont wait for the govt too tell you what to. It will be too late.
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..D3 said..
Looks like the vaccines worked pretty well against Delta.
6 months ago NSW was up to 1000 cases a day one month after that limo driver visited bondi junction.
WA is one month post a Delta outbreak started and they're still a few cases shy of 1000 a day.
There are some other factors there though. We also put more controls in and we have a lower population density.
You'll recall we had a delta case in community before vaccinations as well which didn't spread either.
Yeah, but that first one resulted in lockdowns etc. to contain it.
The current one only triggered masks and venue limits for a very short period didn't it? No lockdown or travel restrictions
Yes, true. But hard to know whether same outcome if we hadn't had a lockdown.
not disagreeing with impact of vaccines but there are some different factors at play between syd and per.
Adelaide is a better comparison i would think in terms of size/ pop density - but I haven't really followed their cases/outbreaks vs vaccination.
i think your point would stand up but its hard
to really see it in WA when there's no cases anyway
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..Harrow said..
Or, for those that like decimal points, 78.3/21.7 x 49.1/50.3 = 3.52 more likely to be in ICU if unvaccinated.
For hospitalisation, it's 78.3/21.7 x 28.8/68.9 = 1.51 times more likely if unvaccinated.
These pricks trying to fudge the numbers.
They have an unvaccinated number of 318,119.
21.7% unvaccinated NSW population is around 1,770,000.
If you read through this article there's quite a few mathematical errors in it.
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/why-figure-showing-half-of-icu-patients-are-vaccinated-proves-jabs-are-working/news-story/ac184b71aebc3a6acdf63f2d819156f6#share-tools
You were asking for help from someone to do the sums before and now you are pointing out 'quite a few mathematical errors in it'?
Studied maths recently or is it just aligning with your viewpoint to say that there are quite a few errors?
I think as others have said, there are so many ways you can view the data that you will have difficulty proving any particular thing with certainty. Not that they are errors, its just about impossible to separate the different categories unless you specifically nail down a particular group.
As they mention in that article, the people working in ICU don't sit around deciding if a case is there because of Covid or just happen to have Covid as well as injuries from a car crash, so the data is not good enough to start with. For all we know all the unvaccinated people with Covid in ICU could be there because of unrelated injuries. The data is just not good enough.
...but I think we can see a trend where unvaccinated are more represented in ICU cases
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said...
I think as others have said, there are so many ways you can view the data that you will have difficulty proving any particular thing with certainty. Not that they are errors, its just about impossible to separate the different categories unless you specifically nail down a particular group.
As they mention in that article, the people working in ICU don't sit around deciding if a case is there because of Covid or just happen to have Covid as well as injuries from a car crash, so the data is not good enough to start with. For all we know all the unvaccinated people with Covid in ICU could be there because of unrelated injuries. The data is just not good enough.
...but I think we can see a trend where unvaccinated are more represented in ICU cases
So you were on the right track with all of that, then decided to totally contradict yourself with that last line.
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..
Yes, true. But hard to know whether same outcome if we hadn't had a lockdown.
not disagreeing with impact of vaccines but there are some different factors at play between syd and per.
Adelaide is a better comparison i would think in terms of size/ pop density - but I haven't really followed their cases/outbreaks vs vaccination.
i think your point would stand up but its hard
to really see it in WA when there's no cases anyway
Yes there are some significant differences in population between Syd and Perth and the difference between Winter and Summer could have a significant affect. (But not sure on that seeing as how numbers are going sky high at the peak summer)
However, in Sydney that limo driver was detected pretty early and isolated after being infectious in the community for a very short period.
In Perth the backpacker was infectious at a night club and while sharing accommodation with loads of other people.
The initial exposure to community from a single source is comparable (probably higher in Perth). Both cities didn't do much more than ask people to wear masks and get tested in the early stages.
Perth didn't even limit travel.
At the time, Sydney had 30 - 40(not locally acquired) active cases for about a month, then within a month they had 1000 cases
Perth has had 100 locally acquired cases in a month that included the festive season.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..CH3MTR4IL5 said..
Yes, true. But hard to know whether same outcome if we hadn't had a lockdown.
not disagreeing with impact of vaccines but there are some different factors at play between syd and per.
Adelaide is a better comparison i would think in terms of size/ pop density - but I haven't really followed their cases/outbreaks vs vaccination.
i think your point would stand up but its hard
to really see it in WA when there's no cases anyway
Yes there are some significant differences in population between Syd and Perth and the difference between Winter and Summer could have a significant affect. (But not sure on that seeing as how numbers are going sky high at the peak summer)
However, in Sydney that limo driver was detected pretty early and isolated after being infectious in the community for a very short period.
In Perth the backpacker was infectious at a night club and while sharing accommodation with loads of other people.
The initial exposure to community from a single source is comparable (probably higher in Perth). Both cities didn't do much more than ask people to wear masks and get tested in the early stages.
Perth didn't even limit travel.
At the time, Sydney had 30 - 40(not locally acquired) active cases for about a month, then within a month they had 1000 cases
Perth has had 100 locally acquired cases in a month that included the festive season.
Isn't that where the vaccination rates really made a difference?
Now, aren't there a lot of people vaccinated in Perth, so at least non-Omicron cases will be protected against.
I think the Bondi cases in Sydney were at a time when a lot of people there were reluctant to get vaccinated and this probably encouraged a lot of people to get vaccinated.
But I do agree about the population density. Perth is so much more spread out than Sydney is.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Yes and no. It doesn't make sense to include groups that don't seem to be much affected by a disease in an analysis.
Might as well take out the 5-50 year olds without comorbidities then.... they hardly get affected.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..You were asking for help from someone to do the sums before and now you are pointing out 'quite a few mathematical errors in it'?
Studied maths recently or is it just aligning with your viewpoint to say that there are quite a few errors?
I have no shame asking for help sometimes.
Maybe you could double check this stat from the article for me please FormulaNova I need your help.
"This also means 91 out of 319,118 unvaccinated people were in intensive care, making up 0.3 per cent of the unvaccinated population. I know which odds look better to me."
What percentage is 91 out of 319,188?
I was just looking into my crystal ball.
Schools will open in a couple of weeks, (primary) kids will spread Covid, to one another and their teachers, and, one week later, they'll all be closed again and parents will be home looking after sick kids, and get sick themselves.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
I was just looking into my crystal ball.
Schools will open in a couple of weeks, (primary) kids will spread Covid, to one another and their teachers, and, one week later, they'll all be closed again and parents will be home looking after sick kids, and get sick themselves.
Leading to more fear, more vaccine sales, more boosters and increasing autoimmunity . Cycle repeat
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..FormulaNova said..You were asking for help from someone to do the sums before and now you are pointing out 'quite a few mathematical errors in it'?
Studied maths recently or is it just aligning with your viewpoint to say that there are quite a few errors?
I have no shame asking for help sometimes.
Maybe you could double check this stat from the article for me please ForumlaNova?
"This also means 91 out of 319,118 unvaccinated people were in intensive care, making up 0.3 per cent of the unvaccinated population. I know which odds look better to me."
ForumlaNova here. I am not sure what the errors are then. You were asking someone to work it out and then independently say there are errors. What are the errors you have found?
Those stats sound good until you compare them with the percentage of vaccinated population in ICU. As mentioned its 3.5 times less.
For the record, I think you meant to put 0.03% not 0.3 percent. It is 'low', but for vaccinated people it's even lower.
Edit: I can't go and re-read your posts everytime you edit them.
Edit2: Yes, you are right. It makes more sense now in your updated post. Yes, they wrote 0.3% when it should be 0.03%. I thought it was you that was saying 0.3% in your first post.
Other errors?
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
I was just looking into my crystal ball.
Schools will open in a couple of weeks, (primary) kids will spread Covid, to one another and their teachers, and, one week later, they'll all be closed again and parents will be home looking after sick kids, and get sick themselves.
Oh no! Look out for rising cases of the sniffles!
