@tiger5150 said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411221) said:@nelson said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411194) said:@tiger5150 said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411159) said:@the_third said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411110) said:@tiger5150 said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411098) said:@the_third said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411084) said:@the_third said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411072) said:@tiger5150 said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411065) said:@the_third said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411046) said:@swag_tiger said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411025) said:@cochise said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411023) said:@swag_tiger said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1411019) said:With Covid the death probably once on a ventilator is higher then 50/50.
I was quoted 50% tonight but they are not stats I'm 100% confident on.
That was the old strain. The new strain is more stubben
dont think that's right.
Pretty sure its more contagious, but less deadly.
What do you base that on? Any data references?
yeah but its late and I have had a rough day. will post it in the morning if that's ok. It is out there. believe it was a UK study (published) that says that.
the challenge is either way it overwhelms health care systems. will tag you when I find it
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/from-uk-to-indonesia-how-delta-variant-is-dominating-global-covid-surge/articleshow/84241052.cms
https://www.ft.com/content/5a24d39a-a702-40d2-876d-b12a524dc9a5
why is it easier to Google than use outlook? I blame apple
Thanks for posting. I dont believe (but would welcome you correcting me) that those articles show what you have said, that the Delta is more contagious but less deadly. In fact the FT articles explains why it doesnt, that because they have such high vaccination rates and no opportunity for a control group, you cant run a randomised trial and therefore cant show whether the Delta is less deadly or whether the vaccine prevents hospitalisation and deaths.
In fact that FT makes a few confusing statements that I think are either misleading or wrong. For one, it states that the vaccines are between 92-96% effective for preventing hospitalisation. The original variant, with no vaccine had a hospitalisation rate of about 10%. Does that mean that tap water or sunlight is 90% effective at preventing hospitalisation?
fair first par mate. second is not right - that's my point. there is a lancet article on it somewhere. Your tap water comment is concerning.
What is concerning about my tap water comment?
Also, why is my second par wrong? The article says that the vaccines are 92-96% effective for preventing hospitalisations, but without vaccine 90% dont get hospitalised?
The hazard rates for hospitalisation are reportedly between 0.11 and 0.72 for the deltja variant, depending on the vaccine (on a ~15,000 preliminary, pre-print study in the UK). If accurate, that is a good to extremely good improvement.
But I thought (based only on my memory) that in Australia the hospitalization rate was around 10%?
Also as stated in that previous article it’s not possible to run a randomized trial due to the lack of control so is it the vaccine or a characteristic of the variant? I would be interested in reading that study to see if they address this
This is one of the studies done in Scotland on the Delta variant:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
This is the UK preprint:
https://media.tghn.org/articles/Effectiveness_of_COVID-19_vaccines_against_hospital_admission_with_the_Delta_B._G6gnnqJ.pdf