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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Looking for stats on % of unvaccinated people in ICU with underlying conditions

«13

Answers

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Probably so few they won't mention it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    Right, not sure about that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭bloopy


    It is very difficult to figure out.

    Reports are released on different days and that makes it hard to do a straight compare and contrast.

    There is one report that says that 81.3% of all admissions had one or more underlying conditions. Unfortunately that runs from 27 June to 16 November and it is difficult to know what the more recent stats are.

    I don't know why they don't break it down like the vaccinated admissions are in the Friday reports.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    Yeah that's it. I'm mainly wondering what % weren't viable for a vaccine due to their underlying conditions. It's become a point of argument from an anti vaxxer to explain the reason why unvaccinated are disproportionately represented in ICU



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SwordofLight


    Are you sure Cianos that unvaccinated people are "disproportionately represented in ICU"? Hasn't this been debunked several times for example in Waterford regional when it was reported most in ICU were unvaccinated, a radio interview with the actual hospital director revealed over 75% of them were in fact double vaccinated.

    Whatever the case, I think we all know by now the figures and facts have been severely misrepresented during the course of the pandemic, not just concerning the vaccines but also hospital admissions, justifications for restrictions etc. It's been a serious **** show.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    Swordodlight I'm referring to the official statistics.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭ozmo


    If you cannot find Irish data - try another country in eu. Id say it will be representative of our situation.

    “Roll it back”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    I posted this comment on another thread earlier - don't know if it goes far enough to answer your question @Cianos but hope it helps somewhat.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 239 ✭✭headtheball14


    Just to point out underlying conditions are quite broad. It includes pregnancy, high blood pressure obesity etc.

    There has been a low uptake in vaccines in pregnant women for example as there was initially reluctance to recommend vaccine for them. There was a piece on a young mother in Derry who died recently in one of the papers.

    For why it's so difficult to get this data on ICU and hospital cases, it's easy to link data on cases because the tests are recorded and date etc. Within the hospitals it's messier when did they go to ICU come out go back again. When they were off ward were they ICU or high dependency when did that happen. From dealing with hospitals its not as easy or clearcut as you think and when.you get in to recording clinical data on top it's difficult.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭hopgirl


    In work one of my colleagues was saying oh its the unvaccinated causing the issues and their the ones taken up icu beds in hospital. I was like its very easy for us to blame the unvaccinated but we don't have any information on whether it's by choice or if it is that they can't get take the vaccine. My opinion if I had an underlying condition I would be first to take the vaccine. So I would think people with underlying issues would have if they could. Without a bit of context it's hard to know.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Some different numbers : 97% of New Delhi has antibodies to the vaccine and or Covid.

    In the New Delhi East district it's 99.8%, North East district it's 99.7% Overall 4 out of 11 districts reported 99% or higher. I can't find the vaccinated % but I can assure you it's nowhere near that.

    "Herd immunity" didn't stop the spread. This is "Vaccinated, Recovered or Dead" territory.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The new CSO numbers say, firstly, they’re often younger than the vaccinated people in the beds beside them – their median age is just 52. That’s significantly lower than the median age of vaccinated patients – 61.

    Secondly, they’re comparably otherwise healthy. One in three unvaccinated patients in ICU had no underlying health condition. In contrast, almost everyone vaccinated in ICU, or 97%, had an underlying condition.

    And, thirdly, they’re disproportionately likely to have been born abroad.

    Not sure if you can get raw data here https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/lgdp/csodatapolicies/dataforresearchers/covid-19dataresearchhub/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26 Mr shmar


    I would think it is also very difficult to distinguish between a death "due to covid" for someone who has an underlying condition vs death "due to underlying condition, while having covid". But I have seen this distinction is accounted for in the stats.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    That's not broad, they are all risk factors for becoming seriously unwell with Covid-19, right?

    Pregnant women don't stay pregnant forever. People of that age group have only realistically been able to take up the vaccine since June. Anyone refusing on that basis it will be giving birth in the next few months or refused it before they were pregnant so it's not really the reason.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 239 ✭✭headtheball14


    They are all risk factors of course. My point is that many people think an underlying condition is someone who is seriously unwell already. These are very common conditions with people living perfectly normal lives .

    When the poster spoke of the percentage in ICU with underlying conditions it should be pointed out pregnancy is one of these.

    The age group who would be pregnant weren't eligible to get the vaccine till late summer at the earliest and there was some conflicting advice earlier this year on whether they should or not so there is a higher percentage not vaccinated

    This was the article I referenced earlier o the young mother who sadly passed away https://www.theguardian.com › nov

    Samantha Willis was a beloved young pregnant mother. Did bad vaccine ...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    That's impressive. Really punching above their weight there. I hope the frustrated staff lash them out of it for their stupidity. In this day and age there's no excuse for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    And I pointed out to you on that thread, your post is devoid of any and all merit

    Let's dissect it a little. Suppose we have a population of 1000. 940 support Manchester United and 60 support Chelsea (It makes no difference what total number we start with as the factors will cancel out below so start with 10,000/9,400/600 or 100,000/94,000/6000 etc if you want).

    Lets suppose that all the Man U fans are vaccinated and none of the Chelsea fans are vaccinated. Those are their only otherwise distinguishing characteristics as a population.

    I will use your other assumptions. There are 100 people in ICU. 50 of these are vaccinated (Man U fans). And 50 are unvaccinated (Chelsea Fans). So 50/60 (=83.33%) of Chelsea Fans end up in ICU and 50/940 (= 5.32%) of Man U fans end up in hospital. In other words the Chelsea Fan has a 15.67x the probability of a Man U fan from ending up in hospital.

    Now switch to an alternative scenario where all the Chelsea fans also got vaccinated. So now everyone is vaccinated. Danno's assertion is that in this alternative scenario where everyone got vaccinated, there would be 88 people in ICU because it would only result in 12 Chelsea fans being kept out of ICU. That corresponds to 50/940 (=5.32%) for the Man U fans and 38/60 (=63.33%) for the Chelsea fans. Can he answer me then why the Chelsea fans have a 11.9x probability of ending up in ICU compared to Man U fans after both are equally vaccinated?

    As I said, the percentages depend on the starting population but the ratios (15.67x & 11.9x) will not. If we take 10,000/9,400/600 then we get 0.53% and 6.33% etc which is still a 11.9x ratio

    (In case anyone gets confused, the "Man U" and "Chelsea" labels are only to distinguish between the two groups. "Chelsea" just means the ones who aren't vaccinated in the first scenario. And it distinguishes those who are vaccinated in the alternative second scenario, but who weren't vaccinated in the first scenario - i.e. the set of people for whom something is different)


    Or to see the above figures a different way, his assertion is that, after everyone is equally vaccinated, the Chelsea fans (6% of total population) end up contributing 38/88 = 43% of the ICU cases and the Man U fans (94% of total population) will contribute 50/88 = 57% of ICU cases.

    And just to tell you the solution, what you would actually expect is that the same proportion of Chelsea fans end up in ICU once vaccinated. Which is 3.19. So in reality, your ICU figures go from 100 down to 53 (or 54 if I'm being generous to you)

    Post edited by Donald Trump on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would postulate that being Chelsea fans they are disproportionately represented by hooligans getting involved in riots and therefore more likely to end up in icu.


    Otherwise the post is 100% spot on and applying the same logic we would have 100s more in ice right now and thousands more cases per day.

    The anti vaccine version of this logic is that all the vulnerable unvaccinated happened to catch the virus while the vaccinated vulnerable didn’t which kind of gives you a clue as to the level of logical thinking the average anti vaxxer actually uses



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    65% of Covid patients admitted to ICU last week were unvaccinated

    OK?

    How old were these people and how many had underlying health conditions?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Is what you are doing just throwing out some random request as if it means something? Thinking that people won't be able to answer it. And then they give you the figures you asked for, you'll just come back and ask for them for a time they aren't available. Or are you genuinely asking with no already-fixed-opinion?


    Here are the stats for those admitted to ICU in September and October 2021. In that period, the ratio was about 45:54 vaccinated:unvaccinated. (1% was unspecified)

    33% of the unvaccinated in ICU had no underlying health condition.

    3% of the vaccinated in ICU had no underlying health condition.


    Don't forget, "underlying health conditions" might be something that someone is living with relatively fine on a day-to-day basis. Such as being obese or having diabetes or high blood pressure etc.


    Median age of vaccinated patients in ICU was 61

    Median age of unvaccinated patients in ICU was 52



    You can find out these facts fairly easily online if you actually want to know the answers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    @Donald Trump would you mind posting links to the sources for those stats?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,989 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    It's important to bear in mind that an underlying health condition is any health condition that you have, independently of having Covid. It's not necessarily a condition which will exacerbate your covid, or which will be exacerbated by your covid. It's routinely recorded because it's a condition that you have and the medical staff caring for you need to know you have it, if only to treat it. Recording that you have an underlying condition doesn't imply any judgment at all about whether your underlying condition made or makes you more vulnerable to covid, or whether your underlying condition is or is not likely to be exacerbated by covid.

    A judgment of that kind will be made if you die, for the purposes of recording cause of death on the death certificate. A condition will be recorded on the death cert only if in fact it contributed or may have contributed to your death.

    So, if you're admitted to hospital as a result of traumatic injuries from a car crash, and you have a history of high blood pressure, high blood pressure will be down as an underlying condition. But if you die of your injuries, high blood pressure is unlikely to feature on your death certificate.

    There's a temptation in certain quarters to assume that, if you are admitted to ICU with Covid and an underlying condition, you only got sick enough to be admitted to ICU because of the underlying condition. This is not necessarily the case. Huge numbers of the population of middle age and over have an underlying condition, something for which they have regular treatment. This will be noted if they are hospitalised or admitted to ICU, but in many cases there will be a tenuous connection or no connection at all between the admission and the underlying condition.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake


    Imagine taking an oath as a doctor only to lash somebody out of it cos you don't agree with their choices.

    I presume you hold the same standard for all risky behaviour , like people with Aids or liver cirrhosis . an interesting proposal.

    Anyway donnelly himself said 81% of people in ICU were immunocompromised.

    so you have no idea if these people can take the vaccine.

    Also a large number aren't Irish , who knows if they arrived recently and weren't able to take it.

    there is no excuse for your statement based on a single really broad number.

    While I didn't check the stats myself for accuracy , I saw somebody on social media worked with the numbers (as per Donnelly) that there were 15 people in ICU NOT Vaccinated and NOT immunocompromised. If you want to lose your reason over 15people out of a 5million population (or even 15 from a circa 250k un-vaxxed population) then it says a lot about you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake


    this is true also keep in mind that of last weeks number 70% of covid ICU patient came from another ward.

    its is a vague enough figure in that it doesn't state why they were in that initial ward, covid or something else .

    did they get admitted with something else and catch covid in the hospital? cos that scenario is on the HSE not on the often demonised anti-vaxxers (whoever they are)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,989 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Bit of false dichotomy there, I think. The single most effective thing you personally can do to protect others from Covid is to get yourself vaccinated. If you could get yourself vaccinated (vaccines are available, you don't have medical issues which prevent you being vaccinated, etc) but choose not to then, obviously, you have to accept some ethical responsibility for the risk that you thereby create for others. And I don't think you can absolve yourself of that responsibility by saying that someone else could and should have intervened to protect others from the risk that you posed. Yes, of course the operators of hospitals should be taking steps to guard against the risk of infections being transmitted within the hospital. But that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility for creating the risk of infection in the first place.

    (Not "you" as in foxsake; "you" as in the hypothetical person who chooses not to be vaccinated.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake


    I see the point and I kinda agree but kinda don't

    I don't think it's right to force people to take an injection if they don't want it and if they don't need it. Your body should be yours and not subject to public opinion - that is an ethical consideration as strong as the one you make - and tbf yours is a decent argument I'm not blind to it even if I'm arguing against it.

    Untimely the individual will suffer whatever risk/reward consequence for having covid or a vaccine side effect. nobody is going to carry you or sit in and comfort you.

    But back to your main point I find it hard to stomach the restrictions imposed on society due to Covid ICU cases by the people managing the hospitals IF the hospitals themselves are the major factor in the ICU cases - now I accept this is speculation based on a broad ranging statistic . I just wish we knew.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Even if it were the case that people are catching COVID in hospitals it is not necessarily the case that this represents a "failure" of the hospitals, in the same way that when someone in a household catches it from someone else in a household I wouldn't necessarily call it their "failure".

    For instance, someone may admitted in an emergency before they can be tested, or after a negative test whilst they were still incubating. How exactly is this supposed to be avoided? We've seen from mandatory hotel quarantine failures (not just in Ireland but in Australia and NZ) that even when testing and quarantine is used on healthy people who can be segregated in private rooms, transmission can still happen. Now consider a a hospital setting with wards and waiting rooms full of sick people.

    I'm not giving the HSE a pass on this, but I think it is OK to give hospitals and their staff the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence of poor infection control.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Probably. It was a Prime Time piece. so I'd imagine that they had access to the CSO people and would have ran any figures by them before running with them anyway



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    One thing I find hard to believe is people with conditions, over 50ish, are not getting vaccinated.

    People under 40, completely healthy, not availing of the vaccine, I get that. But over 50 odd. Not a beacon of health. Its not making sense to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake



    but household wouldn't be held to the same standards as a hospital .

    I'm sure there are measures as reducing spread in hospitals but if the infection rises and ICU numbers shoot up from infection with the hospital - I don't see why society should be carrying the can for restrictions and 9 year olds (albeit a suggestion at the min) wear masks in school all day.

    I don't see the link .

    is he right ?

    cos that's a fierce leap from the 21% and 12% from (5/11 and 12/11) number on the cso

    22% of ALL cases are under 14% - could they take the vaccine ? no.

    for kids being that sick when it doesn't affect kids really , do they have other conditions?

    Is our hero Richard with the twitters pulling a fast one - throw out a random stat with no context and watch them devour each other ?

    who knows.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    1) Why are you conflating "underlying conditions" with immunocompromised. They are not the same thing. Your immune system may well be able to fight off the virus all else equal, but the rest of your body might not be up to the task of surviving long enough to allow it to do so!


    2) Why are you ignoring that simple fact that many of the unvaccianted, even with underlying conditions, would not have caught the virus, and even if they had, would not have ended up in ICU, had they chosen to be vaccinated.


    Let's take another analogy (made up figures). Suppose we look at the last 100 cases of people who died in car accidents. We find that say 50% of them were wearing seat belts and 50% were not. Then we see that 80% of them were driving cars and 20% were in the passenger seat. Applying similar logic to yours, you would conclude that because 80% of the people who died were driving cars anyway, that there is no point wearing a seatbelt if you are a driver.


    (To explain the analogy explicitly for anyone confused: "wearing seatbelt" = vaccinated. "not wearing seatbelt" = unvaccinated. "driving car" = underlying condition, "passenger seat" = no underlying condition )



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Some may not be aware of the underlying conditions. Or it could be something like high blood pressure which they ignore.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I'm sure there are measures as reducing spread in hospitals but if the infection rises and ICU numbers shoot up from infection with the hospital - I don't see why society should be carrying the can for restrictions and 9 year olds (albeit a suggestion at the min) wear masks in school all day.

    You seem to be approaching this from a blame perspective.

    Flipping the argument around, assuming that hospitals are applying all reasonable infection control measures, then they are on receiving end of lack of infection control in the community.

    This is an argument I have seen from healthcare professions: "we are doing everything we can but it's incredibly frustrating to see people refusing to take reasonable precautions", e.g. vaccination or wearing masks on public transport.

    Everyone has a moral responsibility to take reasonable measures to help control infection in a pandemic.

    FWIW I'm not in favour of masks in primary school either. Or secodary school, for that matter. Maybe I'm contradicting myself, but why should school kids wear masks when people are drinking and dancing in pubs and nightclubs without them?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    "The single most effective thing you personally can do to protect others from Covid is to get yourself vaccinated."

    How does an individual getting vaccinated protect others from Covid?

    It seems there is little or no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated when looking at infection by, and shedding of, the virus. So I fail to see how anyone getting vaccinated can protect anyone else.

    As I possibly have missed the results of some trial/s on this specifically, maybe you could provide a link to one or more?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    This sh!t again. You can't "shed virus" if you're not infected, and vaccination reduces the probability of being infected.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    What ever happened to asymptomatic spreaders? That term disappeared very quickly!

    People who are vaccinated are known to spread the virus, and if they're more than a few weeks after vaccination they spread it pretty much the same as unvaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake


    i'm not conflating them

    i was speaking on immunocompromised as that was the topic the minister spoke of . Sorry if there was confusion



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Ok. fair enough. Donnelly might have done the conflation himself!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    This cock and bull story - no, the vaccine protects you, not anyone else. Stop trying to socialise personal responsibility. If you don't want to run the risk of getting quite ill from Covid, get a vaccine. If you don't give a hoot about getting ill from Covid then don't or do or whatever pleases you.

    This mad notion that John in Dundalk must get vaccinated because Jane in Dingle might get Covid if John doesn't get vaxed is deluded... and the headbangers on here would insist that John is a granny-killer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    As you were told then on that thread and again reminded of here - I use actual live data to make my point, you using fantasy league stuff doesn't cut it. Your post is devoid of any semblance of reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    If you want to be able to choose not to participate and you refuse to take the vaccine to help society, then society should be allowed to put you to the back of the cure for medical help when you get it.

    Segregate medical facilities. Put aside 6% of ICU beds for those who choose to be unvaccinated. Because it is statistically a self-inflicted condition. There was a tweet on the other page that 35% in ICU are vaccinated. Given that the vaccinated are about 16x the unvaccinated, then reduce the 65% to the equivalent of 3% (which is nearly 50% more than they should get pro-rated). Or only allow one-in-twelve of those an ICU bed and leave the other eleven in the carpark. ICU capacity problem solved

    We shouldn't be taking resources from other services for other patients (cancer etc.) to waste on the scroungers. If we could avoid that, then we wouldn't need the same restrictions in day-to-day life.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭foxsake


    interesting point and I agree - too much blame and scapegoating in this whole thing . appears to be an irish pastime I don't see in other countries.

    I was arguing the toss perhaps robustly that if Dr Tony, Paul Reid and Leo* and the rest are scapegoating people - i would suggest they look closer to home and get their affairs in order. Tbh I don't blame anybody in real life for covid - unhappy with the approach and restrictions for sure but not actively attacking people (well NPHET I guess ...but you know what I mean.

    I see you point on moral responsibility and i've heard the common good argument too - but forced jabbing (even by mild coercion) and totally unproven vaccine passports to help discriminate are not the solutions. you have 94% - that from a science view well over a fully vaccinated population - meaning there is malice in the current approach or just incompetence .

    on vaccines - no matter how super they are , you cross a line when you demand people put them in the body against their will.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You start with junk, then you apply junk logic to it. Are you not embarrassed that you can't understand it still?

    I used your assumptions. Tell me why the "Chelsea Fans" have an 11x probability of ending up in ICU once everyone is vaccinated 🤣


    If everyone is vaccinated, why would 38/88 in ICU come from 6% of the population when there was nothing else to distinguish them from the other 94% which contribute 50/88



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Wrong. People who pay taxes are entitled to the same health services as everyone else. Otherwise, start refunding taxes to the few remaining unvaccinated people in society.

    You have a chip on your shoulder about "scroungers" and the likes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Who ever said they weren't entitled to the same?

    I said they were entitled to the same. They are not entitled to extra. Pro-rated is fair. 6% of the population get 6% of the ICU covid beds put aside for them and 94% of the population get 94% of the ICU covid beds put aside for them


    Make your choice and accept the consequences. You can't get fairer than that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    88% of people in ICU have an underlying condition regardless of vaccination status.

    There is nothing junk about any of the data I've used to make my point. You though using hypothetical soccer supporters...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,825 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Man, I'm embarrassed for you.

    Use a different label if the "soccer" confuses you. Call 6% redheads and 94% brunettes.


    The 6% currently supply 50% to ICU (under your assumptions - not mine. The real number is higher). The 94% supply 50% to ICU.


    Your assertion is that were the 6% to get vaccinated, they would instead supply 43% to ICU. And the other 94% would now supply 57%. Even though they are now equal in terms of covid protection.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement