All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

"According to National Office of Clinical Audit (NOCA) data as of 14 th June 2022, where vaccination status was known (N=19), 21% of COVID-19 cases in ICU were unvaccinated and 79% were fully vaccinated. Of those COVID-19 cases in ICU who were fully vaccinated, 80% were recorded as having received a booster/additional dose"

and

According to the latest HSE data on cases hospitalised for COVID-19 (N=300), as of 14th June 2022, 46% had received booster vaccination, 19% had completed their primary vaccination course and 35% had not completed their primary vaccination course

Is that not a bit of a weird way of describing these two cohorts. It reads like if you're in ICU you are considered fully vaccinated irrespective of booster status- boosted are a subset of fully vaccinated. Whereas if you're just hospitalised, you are accounted for separately - completed primary vaccination course or received booster vaccination.

What's the point of that or am I missing something?

That last piece where they're referring to people in ICU, there's 10 people in ICU, so when they say 21% are unvaccinated they're talking about 2 people.

Not necessarily. No breakdown of vaccination status is given for those 10.

All we know is of the 19 total in ICU with Covid, 4 were unvaccinated. And 15 were fully vaccinated.

Of the 10 in ICU because of Covid, the % unvaccinated could be anything from 0 to 40%.

My approach is wrong, in your opinion.

I suspect your tactic of not actually addressing and attempting to contradict the point being made in a post, and hand waving deflection instead would earn in you a warning in other forums.

According to the charter it should do here too, but does not seem to be much modding going on:

"DH2: criticizes to the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument"

This falls below what is supposed to be deemed an acceptable approach.

"DH2: criticizes to the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument"

You could bait posters on the conspiracy theory forum into providing explanations to you that you subjectively reject and be pedantic about, as part of a greater pattern of doing that for countless posts..

Out of interest, what do you think you and your tag team do on this forum, if not this?

The reason I have had a lot of repetitive posts here recently is one particular poster did not realise that after actually reading the EMA reports I quoted, if he'd said "Yes I agree with the report, the data on severity was insufficient" it would have totally contradicted my argument that people were trying to spin the data on severity as something better than it was.

Instead he got the bit between his teeth arguing that the data was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials, as he was determined to prove me, and thus the regulators wrong. You can't blame me for engaging with him given that every post he made culminating in his quick back of the envelope calculation just further proved my argument about spinning the data on severity.

On Covid measures being permanent, no I don't really have a conspiracy theory related to that other than I think a lot of boundaries were pushed in introducing the measures, and in future similiar measures will be introduced without much thought for public health reasons. But that's not really a conspiracy, that's the way of the world.

The discussion caught my eye as it turned to the vaccination status figures in hospital/ICU, which I do genuinely find interesting.

I don't share the view that these figures suggest you're at a greater risk of hospital/ICU solely because of your vaccination status. I think the bigger risk factor is age and underlying health.

I really doubt that the hospitals are being clogged up with young healthy unvaccinated people.

What I'd really like to know is a) how many people in ICU because of Covid have never received a single dose and b) of that cohort how many are under 50 and c) of that cohort how many have no aggravating existing health conditions

I'd be willing to bet that number is tiny.

But I acknowledge, this is just an opinion based on the high % of elderly and the high % of underlying health problems in ICU. I have no firm data to back that up because age/health/vaccination status combined is not published.