Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

Yeh The not testing of close contacts in school is in primary school. Age 4-12/13 . So no they are not vaccinated ? And then the HSE wonder why the 5-12 age group are the biggest group now testing positive ? Really ?

No, they don’t know. What I’m saying is that at this stage in pandemic, a significant proportion of those unvaccinated have probably already had covid (knowingly or un knowingly), so a lot of them would already have natural immunity.

How many of them have natural immunity I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out.

Vaccinating the remaining adults would definitely help with hospital numbers etc. but it might not make a big a difference as some people make out, considering a lot of these people might already have natural immunity, or have been vaccinated elsewhere in the world.

You better get on to Ronan Glynn because he hasn't a clue why it's happening.

"Table 3 shows a lower crude SAR among unvaccinated household contacts for vaccinated index cases compared to unvaccinated index cases (13% vs. 22%) and a corresponding adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 63% (95%CI 46-75%) against transmission. Among fully vaccinated household contacts, the crude SAR was similar for fully vaccinated index cases compared to unvaccinated index cases (11% vs. 12%), but this was confounded by age of the index – both SAR and proportion of vaccinated index cases are higher in the oldest age groups (Supplementary Table S1). After adjustment, the effectiveness of full vaccination of the index case was 40% (95%CI 20-54%)."

My reading of that is they are saying it is 40% i.e. you are 40% less likely to transmit the virus if you are vaccinated.

Also from the paper:

"Our results indicate that vaccination confers protection against onward transmission from vaccinated index cases, albeit somewhat less for Delta than for Alpha. Vaccine effectiveness against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts is stronger than to vaccinated household contacts, with the latter already largely protected from infection, and especially from severe disease, by their own vaccine-induced immunity, but differences in risk behavior may also play a role."

And the very last line:

"As full vaccination remains highly effective in preventing severe disease, also for Delta, a high vaccination coverage remains the key to control the COVID-19 pandemic." 

Stupid parents exposing their children unnecessarily to illnesses for which there are safe vaccines, illnesses which can cause pneumonia, encephalitis and shingles among other complications, should be injected with these illnesses. But those same parents are probably vaccinated themselves.

If you think that is extreme you go into any one of the children's hospitals during a measles outbreak for example.

No child should be needlessly exposed nowadays when they can be protected. Ignorant parents quote that nonsense about "building up their immunity".

Do you even know how many children used to die of these seeming innocent childhood diseases before immunisation?

So, yeah, 40% would be more like the correct figure from the paper, not 63% as Luke and Irish media have said. However as per your quote, 63% is relative, from unvaccinated index cases to unvaccinated secondary cases in the household, compared to unvacc. index to vacc. secondary.

Their adjustments (i.e. adjusted percentages) do not make sense. They weight cases based on whether the index case (patient zero in the house) was finished vaccination more than 60 days ago. The reason they do this is because they note lower efficacy against transmission after 60 days:

So the adjusted percentages should be ignored here, it's a circular logic. Just look at the crude figures instead:

This isn't "much less" transmission, and in fact it's the same level of transmission from vaccinated index to vaccinated household members, compared to unvaccinated index cases to vaccinated household members.

Luke is wrong and this is why you should read work yourself.

This is their opinion, it isn't a finding.

A paper about transmission from positive cases is about transmission from positive cases? Wow genius, I definitely missed this key point.

the corpo8:03 pm

"Five to 12 year olds are now the age group with the highest Covid incidence rate"

this week’s whipping boy

Unfortunately yes. Really makes me mad, sorry 😁

However Covid is a novel illness until we really know how it affects everybody longterm, and unlike older people, children may not get a bad illness but who knows what the long term issues may be.

It has the worst inflammatory sequelae of any that has been seen, and we are not out of this yet.

People can verify that my interpretation is correct and that Luke/media are wrong in about 30 seconds.

You're not a scientist and haven't read the (or any?) paper, what training do you have to say this? Do you have access to academic literature?

722 cases 341 Covid-19 patients are hospitalised, of which 38 are in ICU on this day 2020. We were in the highest restrictions level 5 since 19th Oct 2020. Nobody vaccanited.

Today 1,631 new cases of Covid-19. 503 patients in hospital with the virus with 101 ICU. light restrictions in place. about 75% fully vacainated.

Still our covid situation is not looking good for the months ahead.

I believe we are seeing that the vaccanations wearing off from protecting you after x amount of months especially with older generation has they got there's first.

A lady told me yesterday about a flight she was on. Before fliying you had to be vaccinated and also tested for covid before you could fly. This flight had 75 people. On return home the had to be tested again. 5 tested positive. They were not allowed to fly. They ones tested positive were all over 65 years old.

You need to go back to the authors of the study and tell them to retract their peer reviewed paper.

You are doing what you always do and focusing in on one or two numbers and then extrapolating lies from them, each time before this was easily picked apart by multiple people on the forum and here you are again doing the same again and pretending to be offended by it.

You are trying and failing to spread dangerous misinformation. I'm sure you will try again in the near future, but as you have ignored the previous times your numbers blew up in your face I'm sure you'll just ignore all the debunking that has happened this time again.

But people will be around to call you on it, and you'll pretend to be offended again before slinking off.

@floorpie in households there may be threshold issues which don't apply in the community.

The study shows that the vaccination status of the exposed is more important than the vaccination status of the index case, in a household environment.

But that is not incompatible with vaccinated index cases shedding less virus over time.

e.g. if you're shedding at home for 2 days or 4 days, your household contacts have the same 100% chance of being exposed, whereas people outside the household who you only meet once have a 50% risk reduction from the 2 day shedding period.

FWIW I find your fixation on absolute risk reduction weird.

Do you disagree with the conclusions of the authors of the paper and luke oneills reading of its results? If you do, you can call for a retraction of the paper as they are reaching a different conclusion to what you are making up (yet again). Your fixation on small parts of data in published papers is bizarre at this point and only makes sense if you are an antivaxxer (i.e. against getting the population vaccinated against a deadly disease).

Are you yourself vaccinated? I may have asked that before but don't remember the answer (or if one was forthcoming).