COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker (News and Updates) (Poll added)

[timelapse]

This above is what confusing the general population.
Playing semantic type discussions on statistics etc and quoting random propaganda in between.The beginning of the sentence may be true, the end of the sentence may be true, so the assumption is that the middle is also true.
Nice attempt though.

[Dohplaydat]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

this post made me laugh.
anyway, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment...

ime, the best way to verify the potential accuracy of small sample testing data is repeatability. That's why there's a peer review process.
But to use your analogy

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

So we are to omit/ignore factors that may incline the data to appear one way or another?
If those 1500 people were chosen from a population of 1.5 million, and the respondents were people of color in a that population that was otherwise made up predominantly of people of caucasian heritage with ethnic biases against people of color and the president in question was black, you think you'd get the same results?

The only way to be sure that you rresults are accurate, especially when using small samples, is to repeat the testing at various random times and various random points, taking all potential biases for and against into account, then combine & process ALL the data gathered from ALL the testing done. At which point, it is no longer a small sample, its a large sample broken into smaller test groups & spread across a wide range

You just wasted our time by typing out some drivel.

The mathematics in my post assumes truly random sampling, you can poll 300000 UNC supporters and then say UNC winning 41 seats or you can randomly pick 100 persons from a seat and make a very good deduction on who's going to win, depending on the margin.

This is where P values come into play and hypothesis testing.

But again, we have a bunch of tuners who want to feel they know better than the experts.

[Dohplaydat]

Sputnik isn't WHO or EMA approved because Russia themselves have not submitted all the necessary data required to do so despite EMA asking repeatedly.

The question we should be asking is why? Is Russia using their vaccine to cause division within Europe? From all accounts the vaccine is safe and effective enough, why delay obtaining approval?

[Mmoney607]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

this post made me laugh.
anyway, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment...

ime, the best way to verify the potential accuracy of small sample testing data is repeatability. That's why there's a peer review process.
But to use your analogy

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

So we are to omit/ignore factors that may incline the data to appear one way or another?
If those 1500 people were chosen from a population of 1.5 million, and the respondents were people of color in a that population that was otherwise made up predominantly of people of caucasian heritage with ethnic biases against people of color and the president in question was black, you think you'd get the same results?

The only way to be sure that you rresults are accurate, especially when using small samples, is to repeat the testing at various random times and various random points, taking all potential biases for and against into account, then combine & process ALL the data gathered from ALL the testing done. At which point, it is no longer a small sample, its a large sample broken into smaller test groups & spread across a wide range

The cdc used that "study" to say that people who were previously infected should get vaccinated. So the cdc themselves not waiting on any peer review to make recommendations based on the "study".

We have real data here, so need to make up hypotheticals. Does it make sense to use larger amounts of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated people to say that unvaccinated are more likely to be infected?

[adnj]

Sputnik isn't WHO or EMA approved because Russia themselves have not submitted all the necessary data required to do so despite EMA asking repeatedly.

The question we should be asking is why? Is Russia using their vaccine to cause division within Europe? From all accounts the vaccine is safe and effective enough, why delay obtaining approval?

The European Union's review of Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine could be delayed until after the summer over “major” data shortcomings and the vaccine maker’s perceived lack of experience with overseas regulators, Reuters reported Tuesday.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) launched a rolling review of Sputnik V, which Russia touts as the world’s first government-approved vaccine, in March, with a decision initially expected in May or June.

The regulator has since received “incomplete” clinical data and “hardly any” manufacturing data from Russia’s Gamaleya Institute, the state-run research center that developed Sputnik V, Reuters reported, citing an unnamed source close to the EMA's approval process.

Gamaleya’s scientists are “not used to working with a regulatory agency like the EMA,” the source close to the EMA was quoted as saying.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/ ... ers-a74503

[Dohplaydat]

Some might say CDC is the peer that reviews these things.

Regards too your question the class imbalance is not skewed heavily, I'd say it's fine but more importantly we need the demographics and health history of those selected in this study, that is where flaws (if present) would exist. Not in the sample size but the actual samples. Normally they correct for these things but I haven't read the full study so I do not know.

Either way, it makes sense for people who had Covid to still get vaccinated. Reinfections are very common especially with new variants abound.

[adnj]

Some might say CDC is the peer that reviews these things.

Regards too your question the class imbalance is not skewed heavily, I'd say it's fine but more importantly we need the demographics and health history of those selected in this study, that is where flaws (if present) would exist. Not in the sample size but the actual samples. Normally they correct for these things but I haven't read the full study so I do not know.

Either way, it makes sense for people who had Covid to still get vaccinated. Reinfections are very common especially with new variants abound.

CDC published studies are typically peer reviewed by outside experts beforehand unless the study is of crucial public health impact.

[hover11]

Not that I trust them but you have to understand using a method like ivermectin that's unapproved any complications occurring due to such will open the state up for liability which I doubt the MOH will would be open to

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

that's why I only consider published peer reviewed data. people got biases that can show in testing & data, and and can if motivated enough manipulate data that they present.

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

WHO doesn't count. They politicking
Besides, people considering all kind of folly like Ivermectin and Cannabis, but not vaccines produced outside of the US or UK?
The level of stupidity and bias is downright insulting now

so, you willing to trust the approval of the WHO, the same WHO that was & still is in bed financially with the original source country of this virus, even when said source country was caught openly lying to the world. The same WHO that has dragged their feet in investigating the original cause of this pandemic from the onset because of the fear that they would lose funding from one of their biggest financial supporters, which coincidentally happens to be China.


gtk

[88sins]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

this post made me laugh.
anyway, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment...

ime, the best way to verify the potential accuracy of small sample testing data is repeatability. That's why there's a peer review process.
But to use your analogy

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

So we are to omit/ignore factors that may incline the data to appear one way or another?
If those 1500 people were chosen from a population of 1.5 million, and the respondents were people of color in a that population that was otherwise made up predominantly of people of caucasian heritage with ethnic biases against people of color and the president in question was black, you think you'd get the same results?

The only way to be sure that you rresults are accurate, especially when using small samples, is to repeat the testing at various random times and various random points, taking all potential biases for and against into account, then combine & process ALL the data gathered from ALL the testing done. At which point, it is no longer a small sample, its a large sample broken into smaller test groups & spread across a wide range

You just wasted our time by typing out some drivel.

The mathematics in my post assumes truly random sampling, you can poll 300000 UNC supporters and then say UNC winning 41 seats or you can randomly pick 100 persons from a seat and make a very good deduction on who's going to win, depending on the margin.

This is where P values come into play and hypothesis testing.

But again, we have a bunch of tuners who want to feel they know better than the experts.

it does not matter how "truly random" you think your "sampling" is. If you are the only one with your tiny sample that can get the results you claim to have gotten, then your data is to be considered accurate why? As compared to what?
It come like you see 3 random black cats while on a trip from arima to sando, 2 eating out chicken & one eating fish and you come to the conclusion "all cats between arima and sando are black and most prefer chicken over fish". in your mind, that might be accurate, after all, you did see what you saw.


but to the rest of us relatively normal mostly sane people, you'd probably be reclassified within the category of blithering idiot

[Mmoney607]

Some might say CDC is the peer that reviews these things.

Regards too your question the class imbalance is not skewed heavily, I'd say it's fine but more importantly we need the demographics and health history of those selected in this study, that is where flaws (if present) would exist. Not in the sample size but the actual samples. Normally they correct for these things but I haven't read the full study so I do not know.

Either way, it makes sense for people who had Covid to still get vaccinated. Reinfections are very common especially with new variants abound.

What's "very common"? You have a source for making that statement?

[redmanjp]

but if they were infected they have some immunity so they can delay it and allow others to get their jabs first

[88sins]

Not that I trust them but you have to understand using a method like ivermectin that's unapproved any complications occurring due to such will open the state up for liability which I doubt the MOH will would be open to

cool

[elec2020]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics


What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

okay

[elec2020]

Some might say CDC is the peer that reviews these things.

Regards too your question the class imbalance is not skewed heavily, I'd say it's fine but more importantly we need the demographics and health history of those selected in this study, that is where flaws (if present) would exist. Not in the sample size but the actual samples. Normally they correct for these things but I haven't read the full study so I do not know.

Either way, it makes sense for people who had Covid to still get vaccinated. Reinfections are very common especially with new variants abound.

What's "very common"? You have a source for making that statement?

Dohplaydat does talk like he is an expert eh. LOL.

[Dohplaydat]

Some might say CDC is the peer that reviews these things.

Regards too your question the class imbalance is not skewed heavily, I'd say it's fine but more importantly we need the demographics and health history of those selected in this study, that is where flaws (if present) would exist. Not in the sample size but the actual samples. Normally they correct for these things but I haven't read the full study so I do not know.

Either way, it makes sense for people who had Covid to still get vaccinated. Reinfections are very common especially with new variants abound.

What's "very common"? You have a source for making that statement?

Common enough that taking the vaccine is recommended

[Dohplaydat]

[spoiler]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

this post made me laugh.
anyway, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment...

ime, the best way to verify the potential accuracy of small sample testing data is repeatability. That's why there's a peer review process.
But to use your analogy

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

So we are to omit/ignore factors that may incline the data to appear one way or another?
If those 1500 people were chosen from a population of 1.5 million, and the respondents were people of color in a that population that was otherwise made up predominantly of people of caucasian heritage with ethnic biases against people of color and the president in question was black, you think you'd get the same results?

The only way to be sure that you rresults are accurate, especially when using small samples, is to repeat the testing at various random times and various random points, taking all potential biases for and against into account, then combine & process ALL the data gathered from ALL the testing done. At which point, it is no longer a small sample, its a large sample broken into smaller test groups & spread across a wide range

You just wasted our time by typing out some drivel.

The mathematics in my post assumes truly random sampling, you can poll 300000 UNC supporters and then say UNC winning 41 seats or you can randomly pick 100 persons from a seat and make a very good deduction on who's going to win, depending on the margin.

This is where P values come into play and hypothesis testing.

But again, we have a bunch of tuners who want to feel they know better than the experts.

it does not matter how "truly random" you think your "sampling" is. If you are the only one with your tiny sample that can get the results you claim to have gotten, then your data is to be considered accurate why? As compared to what?
It come like you see 3 random black cats while on a trip from arima to sando, 2 eating out chicken & one eating fish and you come to the conclusion "all cats between arima and sando are black and most prefer chicken over fish". in your mind, that might be accurate, after all, you did see what you saw.


but to the rest of us relatively normal mostly sane people, you'd probably be reclassified within the category of blithering idiot

[/spoiler]

I don't think you get it and perhaps you never will

[hover11]

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

Yea, however, it's still doing it's job.

But the number of seriously ill patients has risen much more slowly than the number of cases. The latter figure jumped from 132 to more than 1,400 over the last month, a tenfold increase. Over the same period, the number of seriously ill patients rose from 23 to 97, a fourfold increase.

Before vaccinations began, around four percent of patients became seriously ill. But today, with most of the country vaccinated, an estimated 1.5 percent of patients become seriously ill.

What we're seeing though a combination of:
1. Waning protection (Isreal was one of the first the vacinate their elderly and they did it 28 days apart, not the extended 8-12 week approach we're seeing now that is leading to better protection).
2. The effects of a new stain (delta) which our current vaccines have reduced efficacy
3. A very infectious strain that as definitely spread to the elderly and vulnerbale in a population that has mostly abandonded the previous public health recommendations


So basically to win this war we neeed to ramp up vaccinations otherwise we are always at risk for new strains unless the unvaccinated want to go live in an island by themselves.

[aaron17]

Rel fight in here...

[timelapse]

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

Yea, however, it's still doing it's job.

But the number of seriously ill patients has risen much more slowly than the number of cases. The latter figure jumped from 132 to more than 1,400 over the last month, a tenfold increase. Over the same period, the number of seriously ill patients rose from 23 to 97, a fourfold increase.

Before vaccinations began, around four percent of patients became seriously ill. But today, with most of the country vaccinated, an estimated 1.5 percent of patients become seriously ill.

What we're seeing though a combination of:
1. Waning protection (Isreal was one of the first the vacinate their elderly and they did it 28 days apart, not the extended 8-12 week approach we're seeing now that is leading to better protection).
2. The effects of a new stain (delta) which our current vaccines have reduced efficacy
3. A very infectious strain that as definitely spread to the elderly and vulnerbale in a population that has mostly abandonded the previous public health recommendations


So basically to win this war we neeed to ramp up vaccinations otherwise we are always at risk for new strains unless the unvaccinated want to go live in an island by themselves.

So don't take a vaccine then?

[hover11]

No where did I state such.....I'm just saying that ppl are misguided thinking that because you vaccinated and you are not dying that the virus cannot mutate....once it can inhibit and spread to others it will find a way to overcome the vaccine once it spreads to a number of vaccinated individuals......the choice to take the vaccine is yours and yours alone but that's the facts

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

Yea, however, it's still doing it's job.

But the number of seriously ill patients has risen much more slowly than the number of cases. The latter figure jumped from 132 to more than 1,400 over the last month, a tenfold increase. Over the same period, the number of seriously ill patients rose from 23 to 97, a fourfold increase.

Before vaccinations began, around four percent of patients became seriously ill. But today, with most of the country vaccinated, an estimated 1.5 percent of patients become seriously ill.

What we're seeing though a combination of:
1. Waning protection (Isreal was one of the first the vacinate their elderly and they did it 28 days apart, not the extended 8-12 week approach we're seeing now that is leading to better protection).
2. The effects of a new stain (delta) which our current vaccines have reduced efficacy
3. A very infectious strain that as definitely spread to the elderly and vulnerbale in a population that has mostly abandonded the previous public health recommendations


So basically to win this war we neeed to ramp up vaccinations otherwise we are always at risk for new strains unless the unvaccinated want to go live in an island by themselves.

So don't take a vaccine then?

[Dohplaydat]

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

Vaccines can reduce the chances of variants significantly.

Let's look at the worse case sitatution with breakthrough cases and say 50% of vaccianted people are capable of being infected. Whereas, 80% (assuming some natural herd immunity) of unvaccinated persons can be infected.

Unvaccinated persons are infected for a longer time and at higher viral loads.

So let's assume it's twice as long with twice the viral load (underestimate). That's already 4 times greater risk.

Now let's break it down on a population level.

50% of persons get the vaccine - Only 50% of this 50% is capable of infection so 25%
50% remain unvaccinated - 80% of this 50% so 40%

That 40% is 4 times more likely to result in variants based on the prior assumptioms. So (40 * 4 ) / 25 = so unvaccianted persons at least 6 times more likely to result in variants if our vaccination rate is at 50%.

Now, at that 50:50 ratio we have a total variant risk score of (40 * 4) + 25 = 185.

This doesn't even consider the herd immunity herds attained when vaccination rates reach 70% +


It's ignorant to say vaccines is the same unvaccinated when it comes to these things. Risks are significantly reduced. Do you not understand?

[timelapse]

No where did I state such.....I'm just saying that ppl are misguided thinking that because you vaccinated and you are not dying that the virus cannot mutate....once it can inhibit and spread to others it will find a way to overcome the vaccine once it spreads to a number of vaccinated individuals......the choice to take the vaccine is yours and yours alone but that's the facts

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

Yea, however, it's still doing it's job.

But the number of seriously ill patients has risen much more slowly than the number of cases. The latter figure jumped from 132 to more than 1,400 over the last month, a tenfold increase. Over the same period, the number of seriously ill patients rose from 23 to 97, a fourfold increase.

Before vaccinations began, around four percent of patients became seriously ill. But today, with most of the country vaccinated, an estimated 1.5 percent of patients become seriously ill.

What we're seeing though a combination of:
1. Waning protection (Isreal was one of the first the vacinate their elderly and they did it 28 days apart, not the extended 8-12 week approach we're seeing now that is leading to better protection).
2. The effects of a new stain (delta) which our current vaccines have reduced efficacy
3. A very infectious strain that as definitely spread to the elderly and vulnerbale in a population that has mostly abandonded the previous public health recommendations


So basically to win this war we neeed to ramp up vaccinations otherwise we are always at risk for new strains unless the unvaccinated want to go live in an island by themselves.

So don't take a vaccine then?

Trying to understand what your point is.
If it does mutate, modify a vaccine or create a new one.Rome wasn't built in a day.

[hover11]

Yea but you cannot get herd immunity that doesn't apply here when based on MFO survey we hsve 400k anti vaxxers and 200k in the middle ....let's be real that is unattainable...question to you ... you do know vaccinated persons can get covid more than once just because they have a faster recovery time doesn't mean they are transmitting a weaker version of the virus they can pass it to their children, talking about trinidad , who can't take vaccines at this time and that right there can spark mutations

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

Vaccines can reduce the chances of variants significantly.

Let's look at the worse case sitatution with breakthrough cases and say 50% of vaccianted people are capable of being infected. Whereas, 80% (assuming some natural herd immunity) of unvaccinated persons can be infected.

Unvaccinated persons are infected for a longer time and at higher viral loads.

So let's assume it's twice as long with twice the viral load (underestimate). That's already 4 times greater risk.

Now let's break it down on a population level.

50% of persons get the vaccine - Only 50% of this 50% is capable of infection so 25%
50% remain unvaccinated - 80% of this 50% so 40%

That 40% is 4 times more likely to result in variants based on the prior assumptioms. So (40 * 4 ) / 25 = so unvaccianted persons at least 6 times more likely to result in variants if our vaccination rate is at 50%.

Now, at that 50:50 ratio we have a total variant risk score of (40 * 4) + 25 = 185.

This doesn't even consider the herd immunity herds attained when vaccination rates reach 70% +


It's ignorant to say vaccines is the same unvaccinated when it comes to these things. Risks are significantly reduced. Do you not understand?

[Dohplaydat]

No where did I state such.....I'm just saying that ppl are misguided thinking that because you vaccinated and you are not dying that the virus cannot mutate....once it can inhibit and spread to others it will find a way to overcome the vaccine once it spreads to a number of vaccinated individuals......the choice to take the vaccine is yours and yours alone but that's the facts

Viruses don't think or try to over come a vaccine. That's not viruses work. Variants arise when the virus replicates in a host. There are thousands of variants occuring but most aren't successful. Successful variants take over the virus population because they're usually more transmitable.

Being vaccinated does not increase the risk of a vaccine beating variants. The opposite is true, being vaccianted creates far less available hosts for the virus resulting in far less opportunities for variants to arise. Being unvaccinated creates far more hosts and thus allows variants to arise at a faster rate.

It's inevitable that a variant will arise that will beat more most vaccines. However, the quicker we vaccinate the more time we buy before this happens and if we do it quick enough we could eliminate it altogether.

Again it's a probability we're reducing. Think of the occurance of variance being modeled by a exponential distribution, where vaccinations reduce the rate.


Is there something about probability you guys do not understand? Because it seems everything is black or white for you.

[adnj]

Yea but you cannot get herd immunity that doesn't apply here when based on MFO survey we hsve 400k anti vaxxers and 200k in the middle ....let's be real that is unattainable...question to you ... you do know vaccinated persons can get covid more than once just because they have a faster recovery time doesn't mean they are transmitting a weaker version of the virus they can pass it to their children, talking about trinidad , who can't take vaccines at this time and that right there can spark mutations

We need to stop saying the vaccine working just because ppl not dying , a variant can be created in any host...vaccinated or unvaccinated because the entire point is that the virus is surviving in the host and can copy a mutated version of itself. The unvaccinated are only a danger to themselves as no vaccine means they might experience the symptoms more severely. It should be noted that in England approximately 40% of the people currently being hospitalized from the delta variant are fully vaccinated

Vaccines can reduce the chances of variants significantly.

Let's look at the worse case sitatution with breakthrough cases and say 50% of vaccianted people are capable of being infected. Whereas, 80% (assuming some natural herd immunity) of unvaccinated persons can be infected.

Unvaccinated persons are infected for a longer time and at higher viral loads.

So let's assume it's twice as long with twice the viral load (underestimate). That's already 4 times greater risk.

Now let's break it down on a population level.

50% of persons get the vaccine - Only 50% of this 50% is capable of infection so 25%
50% remain unvaccinated - 80% of this 50% so 40%

That 40% is 4 times more likely to result in variants based on the prior assumptioms. So (40 * 4 ) / 25 = so unvaccianted persons at least 6 times more likely to result in variants if our vaccination rate is at 50%.

Now, at that 50:50 ratio we have a total variant risk score of (40 * 4) + 25 = 185.

This doesn't even consider the herd immunity herds attained when vaccination rates reach 70% +


It's ignorant to say vaccines is the same unvaccinated when it comes to these things. Risks are significantly reduced. Do you not understand?

Coronavirus transmission among vaccinated people could raise the risk of an even more dangerous variant

The best way to stop coronavirus deaths and severe illness is to roll out vaccines quickly. However, the researchers concluded that the chance a vaccine-resistant strain will emerge is highest in a scenario that combines three conditions: First, a large portion of a population is vaccinated, but not everyone. Second, there's a lot of virus circulating. And third, no measures are in place to curb potential viral transmission from vaccinated people. Sound familiar?

[Researchers] found if a chunk of people are vaccinated but many unvaccinated people remain, a variant that can either evade or partially evade vaccine-induced immune defenses has a competitive advantage over other versions of the virus. So over time, those less fit strains — which can't infect  vaccinated hosts — die out, leaving vaccine-resistant ones to dominate the viral landscape. Then if viral transmission goes unchecked — lots of people partying maskless, say — those newly dominant variants can easily spread and further evolve.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEA ... id=US%3Aen

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Iittle over 24hr AZ update for me:

Two words: MASH UP

fever, cold sweat, serious body pains, loss taste for lunch today. Panadol and lucozade helped in between. Might hit the sacks early tonight!

[goalpost]

That's 1st dose?

[shake d livin wake d dead]

That's 1st dose?

Yes sir!

[nick639v2]

Iittle over 24hr AZ update for me:

Two words: MASH UP

fever, cold sweat, serious body pains, loss taste for lunch today. Panadol and lucozade helped in between. Might hit the sacks early tonight!

Same. Got mine around 3pm yesterday, was fine until I slept last night. Woke up this morning body aches, fever, headache, u name it I had it... Had to cut work short and be home by 1pm. No appetite until like 6pm this even and I overdo it with food, now I feeling worse lol..

Panadol extra strength seems to be helping, but as soon as it wears off. Pressure!!!

[goalpost]

A lot of ppl experienced real issues with the 1st dose but the 2nd was a better experience.

Me, I got both doses and not even a headache.

Get well soon guys