Coronavirus Outbreak

[mike]

Well the bottom line is you don’t die.

AstraZeneca are 92% effective against hospitalisation due to the Delta variant and showed **no deaths** among those vaccinated.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

@mike , I still remember you asking me if i'm being vaxxed or not, do you still want to know?

That’s entirely up to you.

But before i give my answer, could you tell me what your guess is?

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Entirely your choice.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Well the bottom line is you don’t die.

AstraZeneca are 92% effective against hospitalisation due to the Delta variant and showed **no deaths** among those vaccinated.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

@mike , I still remember you asking me if i'm being vaxxed or not, do you still want to know?

I'm eagerly anticipating....

The suspense is almost palpable.

 

[innsaneink]

Should we start a poll?

Has FT been jabbed?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Should we start a poll?

Has FT been jabbed?

That’s getting very personal.

 

[FinestTigers]

Well the bottom line is you don’t die.

AstraZeneca are 92% effective against hospitalisation due to the Delta variant and showed **no deaths** among those vaccinated.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

@mike , I still remember you asking me if i'm being vaxxed or not, do you still want to know?

That’s entirely up to you.

But before i give my answer, could you tell me what your guess is?

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Entirely your choice.

Alright, don't take this as an answer because i'll give you my answer after my 2nd Astra jab this coming Tues. ?

 

[innsaneink]


 

[earl]

People should be hanging on this information with absolute baited breath. It's amazing. We've gotten information on the Virus origins.

It's so cutting edge it's like the previously CDC study that was released prior to actually being released. I don't know but I think they deliberately leak this information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/24/covid-origins-biden-intelligence-review/

The funny thing is we don't have enough information to draw any conclusions. It's pretty poor. We may never know. China won't release information. 2 Intelligence agencies out of 3 lean towards the hypothesis that the virus originated via animals to human transmission. One intelligence agency leans towards the hypothesis it was a lab accident.

I should add the proof appears to be so poor that no agency can conclude anything.

Pretty Pretty poor.

 

[earl]

Well the bottom line is you don’t die.

AstraZeneca are 92% effective against hospitalisation due to the Delta variant and showed **no deaths** among those vaccinated.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

@mike , I still remember you asking me if i'm being vaxxed or not, do you still want to know?

That’s entirely up to you.

But before i give my answer, could you tell me what your guess is?

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Entirely your choice.

Alright, don't take this as an answer because i'll give you my answer after my 2nd Astra jab this coming Tues. ?

Well done. Kicking goals.

 

[Tiger5150]

@old_man_tiger - I placed this video up here previously trying to explain efficacy. This is the best explanation that I can provide.

I am so glad you reposted this Vox video. It was taken down previously because it is completely unscientific rubbish, but by putting it up again, it give me a chance to actually explain this to you and stop you from spreading lies and misinformation about it. You do NOT understand the message out of this video.

I'm not trying to be a Wally but immunity is even more complex.

Its actually not, you simply dont understand it.

First of all, this video is correct and ***YOU ARE CORRECT*** that the efficacy rates achieved by all of the vaccine manufacturers in their clinical trials are less meaningful than real life data in the wild and they can not be compared relative to each other because the clinical trials were carried out at different times, in different circumstances against different variants. I agree and you are correct ***on this***.

What you either don't understand or intentionally ignore for your own reasons is that there are hundreds of scientific trials carried out since that DO compare the vaccines relative to each other under the exact same circumstances, at the same period of time against the same variants, in the wild, not a clinical trial and these studies have proven conclusive results that all back each other up. The most widely accepted study that forms the basis if the UK Government policy (and I assume ours) is the New England Journal of Medicine which I have posted about a hundred times now.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

It actually says it in your precious Vox video at 4:09 "If you want to do a head to head comparison you need to do it in the same trial, in the same part of the world, at the same time"......Like the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

Conclusively proves Pfizer effectiveness at not catching COVID is 88%, AZ 67%. Public Health Englands results exactly the same.

Let this be the end of this.



>The effectiveness (against infection) of the vaccine for instance drops over time but you do get long term immunity.

This is ***a complete lie*** that you repeat over and over and over again. I have linked numerous studies proving that this is NOT the case and yet you keep lie about this. I dont know why. It doesnt even say this in your precious Vox video. Nowhere does it say that the effectiveness (against infection) drops over time.

In fact at 3:36 it explains that "the virus itself is different".

***STOP LYING ABOUT THIS***



Plus the most important factor is protection against hospitalization.

Im glad you say so. Lets look into that.

Repeatedly I have posted the Public Health England analysis that proves with real life data that PFizer provides 96% effectiveness against hospitalisation and AZ provides 92%, This is actual scientific data.

Additionally, there are clearly people in hospital all over the world, including Australia who are double vaccinated. Surely you and I would both agree on this?

So the scientific data says 96-92% effective depending on vaccine, real world experience says there are fully vaxxed people in hospital.....what does your oh so informative Vox video say at 6:06???? According to your vox video, all three vaccines available in the US have 100% EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST HOSPITALISATION. This is absolute categorical manure.

Video doesnt stop there with complete rubbish. At 5:30 "If you are vaccinated it is more like just a cold".......really? THIS is the scientific basis of your opinions Earl?

At 6:26 the Vox video authoritatively declares "The question is not which vaccine will best prevent infection.....". ***Why not? Seriously why not?*** Scientific studies prove one is almost 20% better than the other at preventing infection under the same conditions against the same variant (Delta), same place, same time. Why wouldnt that be part of the consideration. Madness not to be.

Efficacy is in my mind not a figure for us as individuals to even think about. It's just a figure at a point in time during trials.

Complete garbage and you need to stop. The efficacy calculated at the point of time of the clinical trials is the efficacy quoted from then. The efficacy determined by scientific trials this year under the same conditions against delta, is the accurate efficacy against delta for NOW under real world conditions.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

Efficacy is everything, it is literally the reason for the vaccines.

If you truly believe efficacy is not a figure to even think about, then I never want to see you quote "you are 8 times less likely to catch COVID if you are vaccinated (derived from Pfizer efficacy figure for NEJM Study). You will also never quote that you are 25 time less likely to not be hospitalized (derived from PFizer efficacy PHE analysis).

Mate you are wrong about all of this and you need to stop.

This Vox video was taken down last time because it is completely unscientific, it contains false information and flat out lies with no suporting information.

It should be taken down again, but Im not going to report it, because I actually think it is more valuable for everyone to see where you are getting your information from and even if YOU wont stop, at least everyone sees what you are doing and can ignore it.


Lastly if anyone can communicate this issue in a clearer fashion I'd love to hear it.

You are welcome.

Earl says he has me on foe so if someone could quote it all for me please so he can learn and stop these lies and misinformation.

 

[jirskyr]

I was called in here by @old_man_tiger but after reading the posts I don't have the energy to go through it all.

I'm also not really interested in breaking down efficacy rates or reading the latest publications - no offence to anyone, but there's just far too much COVID data out there now and I haven't the time to try and digest it all.

The debate, if there ever was one, is over - get your vaccine as quickly as you can, by whatever mechanism you can, and your risk of serious illness and hospitalisation is drastically reduced. There's nothing much more to it for me. The anti-vaxxers have had their run as well, punched a few horses, but the world has moved on and most level-headed folks are doing their part and looking forward to some semblance of a normal life again.

Shout out to @Tiger5150 for an absolutely epic rant a few posts ago, top effort, with fonts and everything.

 

[hobbo1]

@Tiger5150 stop yelling please
@Earl stop lying please

Cheers 🍻

 

[Tiger5150]

Shout out to @Tiger5150 for an absolutely epic rant a few posts ago, top effort, with fonts and everything.

Wise choice @jirskyr for skimming past the rant.

I would however like you to run your eye over my interpretation of the hospital effectiveness calculation in my previous post. I couldnt get my head around it but went and read teh study and I think Ive got it now, but not 100% sure on my interpretation of the Hazard Risk (HR)

https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/14038?page=936

 

[earl]

@Earl stop lying please

This cracks me up.

I'm going to continue my approach of providing factual information from epidemiologists and other experts backed up by masses of data crunch by statisticians.

You could call it lying.

 

[earl]

I neither watched the clip nor read much of the post, so no further comment from me.

I'd prefer it if you didn't quote this guy but I can see why you'd find it funny. I'd probably do the same thing given the opportunity. I've never in my life seen someone get it so wrong and argue so strongly he is correct.

It's bizarro world.

 

[earl]

I'm going to try and explain efficacy. I know statistically 99% of people are not interested in my lies but I'm going to try to explain this. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who has an idea about this. I am not going to respond to dribble from people who don't understand and misuse the concept however I will also point out common errors when it comes to understanding efficacy and I will try and articulate why I believe efficacy is not the right figure to focus on.

Efficacy Definition:-

"Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial."

How is this calculated:-

1. There is a study group. For this purpose we will have 100 people in the group.
2. Half of the study group are given a vaccine. Half of the study group are given a placebo. The placebo is like a sugar pill in that it has no effect.
3. After a period of time we compare the results of developing COVID and it's effects between the 2 groups.
4. The comparison/calculation works as follows:-

English definition:- "Divide the number of total COVID-19 cases in a clinical trial by the number of cases from the control group, who didn’t get the vaccine."
Formula:- 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo)

Some examples:-

All with a control study of 100 people

1. 1 person in the control group develops COVID. 9 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-1/9) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 88.89%.
1. 5 people in the control group develops COVID. 5 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-5/5) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 0%.
1. 2 people in the control group develops COVID. 8 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-2/8) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 75%.

Sources:- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

 

[Tiger5150]

I'm going to try and explain efficacy. I know statistically 99% of people are not interested in my lies but I'm going to try to explain this. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who has an idea about this. I am not going to respond to dribble from people who don't understand and misuse the concept however I will also point out common errors when it comes to understanding efficacy and I will try and articulate why I believe efficacy is not the right figure to focus on.

Efficacy Definition:-

"Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial."

How is this calculated:-

1. There is a study group. For this purpose we will have 100 people in the group.
2. Half of the study group are given a vaccine. Half of the study group are given a placebo. The placebo is like a sugar pill in that it has no effect.
3. After a period of time we compare the results of developing COVID and it's effects between the 2 groups.
4. The comparison/calculation works as follows:-

English definition:- "Divide the number of total COVID-19 cases in a clinical trial by the number of cases from the control group, who didn’t get the vaccine."
Formula:- 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo)

Some examples:-

All with a control study of 100 people

1. 1 person in the control group develops COVID. 9 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-1/9) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 88.89%.
1. 5 people in the control group develops COVID. 5 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-5/5) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 0%.
1. 2 people in the control group develops COVID. 8 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-2/8) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 75%.

Sources:- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

At least you got the maths right this time.

And your point is? Seriously what is your point?

Everyone understands how they calculate efficacy for contracting Covid, the above is correct and it is exactly what everyone has been using. It is also what they used in the most widely accepted study that is used by UK Public HEalth.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891.

Some important questions for you though Earl. You have just contradicted your own point with the Vox video. Above, you are describing a *clinical trial.* By your own argument and what was argued in the Vox video, clinical trials are less meaningful because they are not in real world conditions. What is meaningful are studies in real world and identical conditions such as the New England Journal of Medicine study.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

 

[Tiger5150]

I'm going to try and explain efficacy. I know statistically 99% of people are not interested in my lies but I'm going to try to explain this. I am happy to be corrected by anyone who has an idea about this. I am not going to respond to dribble from people who don't understand and misuse the concept however I will also point out common errors when it comes to understanding efficacy and I will try and articulate why I believe efficacy is not the right figure to focus on.

Efficacy Definition:-

"Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial."

How is this calculated:-

1. There is a study group. For this purpose we will have 100 people in the group.
2. Half of the study group are given a vaccine. Half of the study group are given a placebo. The placebo is like a sugar pill in that it has no effect.
3. After a period of time we compare the results of developing COVID and it's effects between the 2 groups.
4. The comparison/calculation works as follows:-

English definition:- "Divide the number of total COVID-19 cases in a clinical trial by the number of cases from the control group, who didn’t get the vaccine."
Formula:- 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo)

Some examples:-

All with a control study of 100 people

1. 1 person in the control group develops COVID. 9 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-1/9) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 88.89%.
1. 5 people in the control group develops COVID. 5 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-5/5) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 0%.
1. 2 people in the control group develops COVID. 8 people in the placebo group develop COVID. The formula is as follows:- 100 * (1-2/8) with a vaccine efficacy rate of 75%.

Sources:- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

THat is a reasonable summary of calculation of efficacy in a clinical trial for contracting COVID.

I would seriously be interested in how you think they derive the effectiveness against hospitalisations.

 

[earl]

How people misinterpret efficacy rates

Misuse/Misunderstanding efficacy point 1:- Vaccine efficacy rates are transferable to individual risk profile. People misunderstand the efficacy rate to believe it provides some clear protection rate.

For instance a vaccine efficacy rate of 75% does not mean if you are vaccinated you are 75% less likely to develop COVID. It means in a population and conditions as per the clinical trial with an expected infection rate of say 1% we would expect approximately .25% of vaccinated people to develop COVID. It does not mean that you as an individual are 75% less likely to develop COVID.

Misuse/Misunderstanding efficacy point 2:- Comparing vaccines.

Each clinical trial is conducted at different times and with different conditions. So a efficacy rate of 100% is not comparable to an efficacy rate of 50% because the conditions can be completely different.
For instance if 1 person developed COVID we have a vaccine efficacy rate of 100% -> 100 * (1-0/1) however this study may have been done in a much more conducive environment for the vaccine.
For instance if 30 people developed (12 vaccinated) COVID we have a vaccine efficacy rate of 60% -> 100 * (1-12/30) however this study may have been done when COVID was rampant.
If we switched the trial periods for these two vaccines the results may be completely different. The first vaccine may have had an efficacy rate of 20% if the trial was completed at the same conditions as the second vaccine.

Misuse/Misunderstanding efficacy point 3:- Focus on the efficacy rate rather than effectiveness against hospitalization/death

This is my opinion but it is also the opinion of large amounts of health experts/epidemiologists etc. It's a pretty simple concept. A common cold that gives you a runny nose is not something to get concerned about however dying is something to be concerned about.

Misuse/Misunderstanding efficacy point 4:- Efficacy rates are somehow set in stone. The only time I've seen this misunderstanding is on this forum. So maybe it's not a general misconception.

People appear to believe that an efficacy rate only changes if there is a new strain or something like that. This completely misses the point. An efficacy rate is solely useful in terms of the conditions under which the trial was conducted. The real world effectiveness will basically not be the same as the efficacy rate.

Source:- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

 

[swag_tiger]

1218 cases today.

 

[PJ_]

Well I have all my papers now in order

My Aust Govt Covid Vac cert
My Serv NSW Authorised worker Travel rego
My Companys Authorized worker letter

Hope im not riddled with machine gun fire at checkpoint charlie

"Papers please!"