advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XXI

Status
Not open for further replies.
43 738 new cases reported today, 223 deaths and 828 further admissions.

Have you found any data reporting how many of those cases/deaths/admissions are for unvaccinated people?

(I'm not just being lazy, I've looked and can't find anything...just wondering if you - or anyone else - had).
 
Have you found any data reporting how many of those cases/deaths/admissions are for unvaccinated people?

(I'm not just being lazy, I've looked and can't find anything...just wondering if you - or anyone else - had).

I haven't looked for a while but it's not reported regularly. The last figures that I saw were from July.
 
Have you found any data reporting how many of those cases/deaths/admissions are for unvaccinated people?

(I'm not just being lazy, I've looked and can't find anything...just wondering if you - or anyone else - had).

It's now published weekly and buried in the vaccine surveillance report, which is possibly why were not getting aggregate reports any longer. This is the latest and the data are on pages 14 and 15.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report
 
Why is England driving the rise in UK Covid cases?

"As people drifted back to more normal routines, and students returned to schools and colleges with very few protective measures in place, the virus spread more swiftly – notably among unvaccinated secondary school pupils, who currently have the highest rates of infection in the country. The UK epidemic is now largely driven by infections in this age group"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/19/why-england-driving-rise-uk-covid-cases

It’s crazy isn’t it? We still have a virus (well actually a nastier variant of it) that caused us to lock down the country for months on end and yet here we are fully back to normal with not even the most basic of preventative measures in place. Why the hell we didn’t vaccinate secondary school students over summer is beyond me…. anyway we didn’t and now schools are the breeding ground many of us knew they would be. The government (and others) arguing to the contrary was just completely bereft of logic!!
 
On the differences between UK and European numbers it’s interesting that non-UK media seem to have less trouble addressing structural factors, especially work and sick pay:

"Another factor too seldom discussed is access to sick pay. There is a large disparity between low rates in the UK and more generous levels on the Continent. That has forced many Brits infected by Covid to continue working, spreading the virus to others."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ring-in-britain-again-more-than-in-europe-why

For most Brit journos it’s all schools and masks.
 
It's now published weekly and buried in the vaccine surveillance report, which is possibly why were not getting aggregate reports any longer. This is the latest and the data are on pages 14 and 15.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report

I'd love it if one of you could help me out with the aspect of that data referred to here:

"In individuals aged greater than 40, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns."

When they use "per 100,000" to get the vaccinated/unvaccinated rate, I presume they are using "per 100,000 vaccinated"/"per 100,000 unvaccinated" respectively, so I'd imagine the gross numerical effect potentially arising from the skewed proportions in the total population would be mitigated. In what ways would the differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people create the effect?
 
@jon l

"When they use "per 100,000" to get the vaccinated/unvaccinated rate, I presume they are using "per 100,000 vaccinated"/"per 100,000 unvaccinated" respectively, so I'd imagine the gross numerical effect potentially arising from the skewed proportions in the total population would be mitigated."

Yes, you presume correctly. In absolute numbers, in the 50+ age group, approx 80% of hospitalizations and 82% of deaths are for vaccinated people.

The below text from the report seems very relevant, both now and for what has gone before, particularly the last sentence:

"These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.

In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19."
 
Last edited:
@jon l

"When they use "per 100,000" to get the vaccinated/unvaccinated rate, I presume they are using "per 100,000 vaccinated"/"per 100,000 unvaccinated" respectively, so I'd imagine the gross numerical effect potentially arising from the skewed proportions in the total population would be mitigated."

Yes, you presume correctly. In absolute numbers, approx 80% of hospitalizations and 82% of deaths are for vaccinated people.

The below text from the report seems very relevant, both now and for what has gone before, particularly the last sentence:

"These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.

In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19."

It's the cases data on page 13 of latest report that still puzzles me, not the hospitalisation and death data. The cases per 100,000 are higher for vaccinated above 40 and lower below. There's a ** under that table which doesn't seem to have a reference anywhere as follows:

** Interpretation of the case rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated population is particularly susceptible to changes in denominators and should be interpreted with extra caution.

What changes in denominators? Do they mean that the total number of unvaxed in the upper ranges (and the total number of unvaxed in the lower) are sufficiently small than when they are normalised to 100,000 one can no longer meaningfully compare to the other group?
 
** Interpretation of the case rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated population is particularly susceptible to changes in denominators and should be interpreted with extra caution.

Translated to: "Regard it as BS"....?
 
It's the cases data on page 13 of latest report that still puzzles me, not the hospitalisation and death data. The cases per 100,000 are higher for vaccinated above 40 and lower below. There's a ** under that table which doesn't seem to have a reference anywhere as follows:

** Interpretation of the case rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated population is particularly susceptible to changes in denominators and should be interpreted with extra caution.

What changes in denominators? Do they mean that the total number of unvaxed in the upper ranges (and the total number of unvaxed in the lower) are sufficiently small than when they are normalised to 100,000 one can no longer meaningfully compare to the other group?

See if this answers your (interesting) question

Vaccines do not raise your risk of catching Covid - Full Fact
 
This looks like it’s accelerating to me. The question is, how long will government be able to hold out against public health restrictions while a further NHS crisis approaches. The test of populist populist rhetoric like ‘irreversible freedom’ is coming whether Johnson and co like it or not.

biGBach.jpg
 
It’s crazy isn’t it? We still have a virus (well actually a nastier variant of it) that caused us to lock down the country for months on end and yet here we are fully back to normal with not even the most basic of preventative measures in place. Why the hell we didn’t vaccinate secondary school students over summer is beyond me…. anyway we didn’t and now schools are the breeding ground many of us knew they would be. The government (and others) arguing to the contrary was just completely bereft of logic!!

This is a challenge from the NHS Confederation after the Government had ruled out doing anything at all earlier yesterday - apparently the Cabinet hasn't even discussed it. Hopefully half term will be a bit of a dampener.

They're out this morning rejecting the idea

"In response to the NHS Confederation comments, UK Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng says the government does not "feel that it's the time for Plan B right now".

Kwarteng tells BBC Breakfast that the UK's return to normal life has been "very hard won"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58978351?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=616fc56a17cef931bb3d1e3a&Not the time for Covid 'Plan B' - business secretary&2021-10-20T07:36:05.913Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:53a8dbe0-ea69-4be2-8692-3f8096a81077&pinned_post_asset_id=616fc56a17cef931bb3d1e3a&pinned_post_type=share

In response

The chief executive of the NHS Confederation, Matthew Taylor, has been on Radio 4’s Today programme.

On the reintroduction of social distancing rules, he says: "What we're facing here is a perfect storm. Winter is always very tight for the NHS for a number of reasons, you add in then the number of Covid patients in hospital and that number seems now to be rising.

"Mask wearing in crowded places, avoiding unnecessary indoor gatherings, I think working from home if you can.

"I don't underestimate that these are inconveniences but we have to make a choice if we can see what is almost inevitable down the line."

Taylor says pressures mean hospitals are now “right at the edge”.

"I talk to health leaders every day, and I have literally not spoken to any leader who doesn't say that their service is under intense pressure now. This is the middle of October. Things are only going to get worse," he says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-...6fc14e17cef931bb3d1e31&pinned_post_type=share
 
Is it correct to say that Covid cases/deaths only reduced (as dramatically as the went up) in Israel because they recently rushed in a large scale Pfizer booster programme ?
And that the UK is not following that booster example due to what ? Shortage of vaccines ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top