Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

I really do not have the time nor inclination to go chasing you around on semantics.

Simple question. Has the household setting study shown or not that at 38% unvaccinated infections were 50% higher than for those vaccinated at 25% ?

Not sure if 100% true but for the upcoming hotel dinner dances for the Xmas season will include no dancing

Only in Ireland

Not sure if 100% true but for the upcoming hotel dinner dances for the Christmas season will include dancing! Woohoo!

Only in Ireland apparently.

He went back into his shell...

Yes because the inconvenience of going to your pharmacy to get jabbed for free far outweighs the inconvenience of booking a night in a hotel up north and traveling etc etc

Tyranny?! 😆

I think the public and hospitality industry have moved on now anyway from trying to persuade them. Life is too short.

If that is what you believe then I`m not who you should be on too. It`s The Guardian, Bloomberg and Prof. Ajit Laljani as those are the percentage from his study which the other two reported.

You appear to be on a mission to prove that it makes no difference if those who become infected are vaccinated or unvaccinated to the severity of infection. Something that study failed to do but which is the real crux of the problem. We can see for here and for other countries that the unvaccinated make up of those requiring hospitalisation and ICU are disproportionately made up of those unvaccinated.

Prof Laljani`s study did not cover that but he is not unaware of it either. He has stated that should fully vaccinated individuals become infected they remain protected against severe disease and death. He also said the emphasis should be on encouragement to avail of the vaccine as the unvaccinated should not rely on the immunity of the fully vaccinated to protect them.

Need to get over their fear of needles.

I don't "believe" it, that's the way it is. If you choose to believe articles and posts by non-scientists then that's up to you. I'm posting it for the benefit of everyone here, not just you.

Here are three lines all from the same paper, how all of these can be true at the same time, given the interpretation in your sources:

The above line is in the abstract, and it's where everybody stops reading

"Not significantly higher" in this case doesn't mean "not greatly higher", it means there's no statistical evidence that SAR is higher. Even if the number happens to be bigger in this sample, there is no evidence that it's bigger in the population.

This last line says that secondary attack rate is higher for vaccinated people (25%) vs unvaccinated people (23%)

How does the same paper say 1) SAR is higher for unvaccinated people, and 2) SAR is lower for unvaccinated people?

if you choose to believe your sources, that's up to you, but none of these sources have read the work even superficially.

Might as well put in the full text, I've bolded the significant line:

Their findings (feel free to add the bits around but I'm trying to include all relevant text):

Which is pretty much where Ireland is, getting vaccinations to everyone including teenagers, getting the younger groups vaccinated, getting boosters out and continuing other measures to try and limit transmission.

It's almost as if NPHET is reading these papers and taking action accordingly (as much as I'd be on the side that we should have lifted most restrictions already).

Sure, I can read that paper and squint and say that vaccines are ineffective at reducing transmission, but it's a big stretch, same as if I try and point at real world data and say that vaccines are 100% effective, they're not, but they're by far the most effective weapon (and cheapest) we have against the virus right now beyond full lockdown of everyone for weeks and months on end.

Yeah please do

The part you bold about vaccines being 34% effective (which is already far lower than people would assume) must be caveated that this is based on figures that are not statistically significant according to the authors. So it might be 34% effective, or it might be 0%, or it might be -34%, it's impossible to say here. The CI goes from –15% to 60%, but again, based on non statistically significant findings.

I wish this were the case but based on the above I still believe that the only effective measure for this winter will be lockdowns, essentially. Vaccination will continue to be an effective means of reducing danger for at-risk people however.

So what are you suggesting now, that Professor Ajit Lalvani hasn`t read a study that he is credited as the author off ?

Lets be honest here. You are attempting to show that it is irrelevant where infections are concerned if a person is vaccinated or not, while attempting to avoid that large elephant in the room, the severity of the infection and the numbers that will require hospitalisation and ICU treatment.

The number of infections is not the problem, it`s the numbers that will require treatment, and we see here and elsewhere that the numbers of those unvaccinated needing treatment are greatly disproportionate to their percentage of the population when compared to those vaccinated.

While Prof Lalvani`s study did not address, which in essence is the real problem the pressure on health services, when it comes to those vaccinated and those not he did point out that should fully vaccinated individuals become infected they remain protected against severe illness and death. He also encouraged the uptake of the vaccines and that the unvaccinated could not be relying on the immunity of the fully vaccinated for protection.

You can read that anyway you wish. Even ignore it, but I do not see any evidence that the author of a study you are attempting to use to show that vaccines are ineffective agrees with you. The polar opposite in fact.

No I'm not squinting, I'm reading what they say. This isn't my malformed reading of the data, it's the central finding of the work.

I take all your points, specifically, that the study is about transmission only. As you say, it doesn't address hospitalisation or anything else, it's just about transmission. As such, I'm only commenting with regard to transmission. The claim was made earlier that the unvaccinated are transmitting more than the vaccinated, but the study does not show this. The authors themselves in the paper say it doesn't show this. Severity and hospitalisation is a different, important, discussion.

You clearly don't understand what inclusivity means, everyone has the same opportunity, what you do with that opportunity is up to you, the fact that you're making choices that put you into a position you don't like is solely down to you, you have to own that.