Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Options
1787981838486

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Are you therefore saying that you don't believe that people under 50 should get vaccinated to help protect people over 50? Do you believe that most people under 50 are getting it because they fear for their health, rather than in the hope that life gets back to normal?

    I didn't post that data to make that point, but I do believe it makes more sense to vaccinate at-risk people only, in particular if the current vaccines don't prevent infection to an adequate degree. I believe that this is what will happen, essentially, via boosters. Only at-risk people will be given boosters.

    Again, I'm not making that meme mistake. I keep telling you....proportion! 😅



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are you saying that a percentage is not a proportion? 🤔



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    But the maths demonstrates that the ICU will still be overwhelmed if we only vaccinated at risk groups. So how would you deal with that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I'm not going to clarify what proportion means.

    I'm not drawing any conclusion. I posted the data in reply to someone making light of the death of unvaccinated people, to show that a higher proportion of fully vaccinated people who present with symptoms+Delta, are dying, compared to the proportion of unvaccinated people who present with symptoms+Delta.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I really think you should clarify what you mean by proportion and explain why a percentage is not a proportion.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I don't know why you're asking about percentages, so I can't clarify this for you.

    If you're trying to prove that I'm using the wrong denominator, I'm not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 31,085 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Why does it matter what the relative CFR for the vaccinated is?

    Despite your refusal to draw a conclusion, the clear implication of what you're choosing to highlight on what is essentially an antivax thread is that vaccines don't reduce death from Delta in the under 50s. That is clearly nonsense.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You made a post about the total cases. I linked you a fact check article that, now that I've properly read it, is exactly the same thing.

    If by proportion you mean those under 50 then no, because my post was in reply to your post about total cases.

    So, I would like you to explain what you mean by proportion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I've said MANY times on this thread my position. And that is that vaccines are proven to reduce symptoms, in variants examined so far in trial.

    The trials did not determine that they reduce infection, and did not determine that they reduce deaths, for any variant. I and you both do not know the extent to which they've reduced death in under 50s.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I will never read a garbage "fact check" article. I can interpret the figures myself and so can you. Just tell me the mistake you believe I'm making.

    Again, if you think I have the wrong denominator I don't (e.g. I'm not dividing deaths in a subgroup, by total cases in all groups)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,710 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    This is just pure anti-vax nonsense now, not even thinly veiled.

    The moderators seem to have left the forums to die at this point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,710 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You're repeating lies that vaccines don't prevent deaths and don't prevent infection and transmission, both are demonstrably false statements to make, but it is pretty much expected from you at this point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I didn't say that. I said the trials do not demonstrate it (fact). As such we now need to rely on longitudinal data and real-world data to determine its efficacy in this regard, such as the UK data above.



  • Registered Users Posts: 44 JEC


    Surely if you remain absolutely confident in your position, you would welcome the opportunity to debate? Why are you seeking censorship of a position different to your own?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You would never read a fact check article, but you will instead read and reply to the the comments of a complete stranger? Interesting tactic.

    I will do as you wish.

    First of all, you are comparing deaths to cases. You should be comparing deaths to population. What proportion of vaccinated people under 50 have died from the delta variant? What proportion of unvaccinated people under 50 have died from the delta variant? (Look, I used your favourite word!)

    Secondly, you are using data from a briefing paper and trying to come to conclusions from it. This PDF is not a study, just a collection of data.

    The age cohorts are not controlled groups. Again, I asked you already, what proportion of people under 50 are expected to die if Covid didn't exist? How many of the people who died had life-threatening issues and therefore what are the pre-existing condition numbers? How have you taken into account that vaccines were first prioritised for vulnerable people? etc. etc.

    You are looking at 13 deaths from >25000 cases and trying to come to a conclusion from that. How have you done that? What is your confidence interval? What are your bounds? You made such a big deal about lower bounds last time, but this time you seem perfectly ok with plucking numbers from a table without any interest in the bounds, dividing those numbers and then saying, "ta da!" Why do you feel you can do that here but you made such a big deal of not doing that before?

    You can't come to any conclusions on anything based on a table of data. You need a look at the data, take into account the limits of that data as above, perform a statistical analysis, come to a conclusion and state the likelihood that that conclusion is correct. You need to do, for example, as is done here. You most certainly do not do what you have done.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I could ask the same to you, and you know why.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,710 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Because it's not a position if one side is just willfully ignoring data that doesn't support their position, or constantly misinterprets data matching what is happening on numerous anti-vax/conspiracy websites.

    I'm fine to debunk the conspiracy theories here seeing as the forum has abandoned its guidelines.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    The things you're asking for are sensible, but some are impossible to determine from the data above, and some are impossible to determine in the population. Hopefully more analysis is done by researchers in this regard.

    You can't come to any conclusions on anything based on a table of data

    Again, I'm not reaching any conclusions. I just said that a higher proportion of fully vaccinated people who present with symptomatic infection by Delta, are dying in the UK, compared to the proportion of unvaccinated people who present with symptomatic infection by Delta.

    The reason I said this is because somebody made light of the death of an unvaccinated person and implied that the deaths of unvaccinated people will continue. I'm pointing out that we're all, vaccinated and unvaccinated, in the same boat. We shouldn't be cocky about matters like this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,710 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    But you're happy to admit that per capita, a lot more unvaccinated people are dying as a proportion of deaths? As the data makes abundantly clear. And that my meaning of proportion in this sentence is also abundantly clear and not hiding behind doublespeak.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    But by saying "we're all in the same boat", you are coming to conclusions. If you don't think that's coming to a conclusion, then I guess a 20 year old and an 80 year old are also "in the same boat" in terms of getting Alzheimer's.

    And your statement of "a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people due to the delta variant" is false. The correct statement is "a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s who have Covid are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people who have Covid due to the delta variant" which is a completely different statement. And even that statement, as I pointed out, is very flawed and cannot be said with any form of confidence until a proper analysis is done on the data. This data may simply show that you are e.g. anywhere from 12% to 618% more likely to die from Covid if you're vaccinated compared to unvaccinated, i.e. the data may indicate nothing. We don't know yet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Yeah it's likely that more unvaccinated people are dying in this sense. The vaccine certainly reduces the likelihood of symptoms arising upon infection, and people with comorbidities are at risk in this sense

    And your statement of "a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people due to the delta variant" is false.

    Maybe I said that but I can't see it...?

    The correct statement is "a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s who have Covid are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people who have Covid due to the delta variant"

    Here's what I said:

    I just said that a higher proportion of fully vaccinated people who present with symptomatic infection by Delta, are dying in the UK, compared to the proportion of unvaccinated people who present with symptomatic infection by Delta.

    "Symptomatic infection by Delta" is COVID-19



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This is what you originally said. Are you in agreement that what you originally said is not a fact?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭charlie_says


    Why? The calculations are pretty easy.

    A RRR number might be more useful in a longer, more comprehensive and larger phase 3 trial.

    Anyway, I completely see why some people are hesitant to join in this extensive and somewhat illogical vaccine rollout. I'm going to wait to see what happens this winter and reassess then.

    The Novavax vaccine looks like one I might be willing to take on the future, perhaps.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I could have been more precise, although "due to the delta variant" I think sufficiently implies symptomatic infection and COVID-19. I don't know if anybody dies from a respiratory illness without respiratory symptoms? But fair enough, I should have gone into more detail.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Your post reads as if you are saying that a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people because the delta variant now exists, which is not a correct statement.

    Anyway, it's insignificant. What's important is that I would ask as others have asked as to why the numbers you calculated are in any way significant? Let's even assume that we did some crazy study where we could conclude with 100% confidence that the numbers you stated are correct. What do those numbers signify? Why should they be highlighted?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Your post reads as if you are saying that a higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people because the delta variant now exists, which is not a correct statement.

    Ok well my other posts are more clear I think that I'm speaking about those who become symptomatic such that they need to get tested

    They're significant because they raise a number of questions that will need to be answered, e.g., most obvious, why are a higher proportion of symptomatic fully vaccinated under 50s dying? What does this imply if we had 100% vaccination coverage for under 50s? What is the risk profile of those people? Did they have the same risk of dying unvaccinated due to comorbidities? Why is the proportion of deaths for over 50s almost double for those who receive 2 vaccines, vs 21 days after 1 vaccine, just due to time/exposure, or waning immunity? And on and on. These numbers will feed into public health policies in the UK and elsewhere.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,710 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    This statement makes no sense at all, please explain it, there is no case where trial size would make a difference to why someone would use the ARR.

    "A RRR number might be more useful in a longer, more comprehensive and larger phase 3 trial."



  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭tobeme2020


    Haven't got it and don't intend too either. I have been safe all this time while out mingling with people even during lockdown. I ain't even had a sniffle in all this time. Know no one who has died from it or became very ill. I have known people to test poistive but nothing wrong with them.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    why are a higher proportion of symptomatic fully vaccinated under 50s dying?

    That would indeed be a good question to ask.

    What does this imply if we had 100% vaccination coverage for under 50s?

    It wouldn't imply anything, deaths per capita would.

    What is the risk profile of those people?

    Doesn't depend on this number, depends on deaths per capita.

    Did they have the same risk of dying unvaccinated due to comorbidities?

    Doesn't depend on this number, depends on deaths per capita.

    Why is the proportion of deaths for over 50s almost double for those who receive 2 vaccines, vs 21 days after 1 vaccine, just due to time/exposure, or waning immunity?

    Likely has something to do with the answer to the first question.

    The only question that would matter is the first question. And that is of course a hypothetical question as we have no indication that the proportions you stated are correct or even likely to be correct.

    And most importantly, even if a higher proportion of symptomatic fully vaccinated under 50s are dying, that statement alone should in no way influence whether someone gets a vaccination or not because it in no way indicates whether you are more or less likely to die if vaccinated.



Advertisement