16 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

https://news.yahoo.com/low-education-levels-strongly-tied-160100441.html

 

I don't dispute this point as being obviously true but I believe it isn't the main driver of vaccine hesitancy which I believe is overwhelmingly politics. It has been demonstrated that conservatives are much less likely to be vaccinated than liberals. Of course that begs the question whether conservatives are likely to be less educated than liberals but that's off topic here. The reason I suggest that the greater factor is politics is that the US is much less vaccinated than its peer countries. Another correlation is religion as the US is far more religious than its peer nations. It is unlikely that the US is that much less educated.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/

 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/04/23/republican-men-are-vaccine-hesitant-but-theres-little-focus-on-them

 

On the other hand, polls suggest that voters who support former President Donald Trump trust him for medical advice more than they trust public health authorities

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257988

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

My favorite chapter in stat class was: How to lie with statistics. LOL

I've had students who claim it's so easy to create fake statistics, often using an example of data/stats to prove due diligence (DD) items. 

 

Truth is that part of the role of the staff member/team/consultant involved in handling/completing the due diligence to ensure that the dats used is checked and 100% proven to be correct.

 

In one case study the steam team said 'the insurance (massive policy/massive premium) is all correct and real because we saw the receipt from the insurance company.

 

My response 'did you visit the insurance company and ask for a new certified receipt signed by a snr. person? If not then I don't accept that you completed a complete DD on the insurance. Also, maybe you have a receipt but what are coverage dates? Did you check that? Often the answer is NO. It's all data!

Who cares what was the case nearly a year ago? Being vaccinated is of course a good idea for various at risk groups but the title of this thread is misleading because it implies it reflects the current situation. It does not.

 

This shows what has happened since the study from May 2021.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

 

2 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

Who cares what was the case nearly a year ago? Being vaccinated is of course a good idea for various at risk groups but the title of this thread is misleading because it implies it reflects the current situation. It does not.

 

This shows what has happened since the study from May 2021.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

 

The US still has only 64% of the population fully vaccinated.  Not very good.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Let's get this perfectly clear. The stats provided in that sample showed that 99% of those who died were unvaccinated. That percentage will NEVER change. If more people get vaccinated the total numbers of people dying will reduce but whatever the number of people dying, 99% will be unvaccinated.

So if 100% of people in the population are vaccinated, you still expect 99% of those who die to be unvaccinated, eh?

49 minutes ago, marcardar said:

So if 100% of people in the population are vaccinated, you still expect 99% of those who die to be unvaccinated, eh?

The sample size wouldn't be large enough to produce a reliable statistic. As we all know, stats require a reasonable sample size to be accurate. Are you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size? That would require a change in propensity for vaccinated people to die of covid.

32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The sample size wouldn't be large enough to produce a reliable statistic. As we all know, stats require a reasonable sample size to be accurate. Are you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size? That would require a change in propensity for vaccinated people to die of covid.

Well, for this scenario of 100% vaccination coverage, the sample size would be 100% of the population, and you can't get much bigger than that. In the original link, 150 vaccinated people died in May 2021. If 100% of the population was vaccinated, that number would be larger (assuming same infection rates). Let's say at least 200 people. By your logic, there would be at least 20,000 unvaccinated deaths. That's a pretty large number considering 0 unvaccinated people.

 

Quote

Are you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size?

It depends what you mean by "greater proportions" of what. This is the point I think you haven't yet understood. If everyone is vaccinated then all covid deaths will be of the vaccinated. This is nothing to do with sample size. This doesn't mean that vaccinated people are more likely to die. It just means there are less unvaccinated people who can die. I really don't know how else this can be clearer.

46 minutes ago, marcardar said:

Well, for this scenario of 100% vaccination coverage, the sample size would be 100% of the population, and you can't get much bigger than that. In the original link, 150 vaccinated people died in May 2021. If 100% of the population was vaccinated, that number would be larger (assuming same infection rates). Let's say at least 200 people. By your logic, there would be at least 20,000 unvaccinated deaths. That's a pretty large number considering 0 unvaccinated people.

 

It depends what you mean by "greater proportions" of what. This is the point I think you haven't yet understood. If everyone is vaccinated then all covid deaths will be of the vaccinated. This is nothing to do with sample size. This doesn't mean that vaccinated people are more likely to die. It just means there are less unvaccinated people who can die. I really don't know how else this can be clearer.

If there were 20,000 deaths, 200 of them would be vaccinated. If there were 2,000 deaths, 20 would be vaccinated. A sample size can't be a percentage, it must be a number. Statistics has everything to do with sample size.

 

What is confusing you is that because omicron is 5 times more contagious then 5 times more people will get infected and that means the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths will be larger than previously as omicron spreads  and more are infected. However, the percentage of them getting seriously ill or dying will not change, except to likely become smaller due to omicron being a milder disease than delta. Put simply, if vaccinated people are 99 times less likely to die from covid as the data suggests then that likelihood will not change just because more people get vaccinated. People don't become more susceptible to disease because more get vaccinated.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

If there were 20,000 deaths, 200 of them would be vaccinated.

Let's set this out more clearly:

 

May 2021: 14,850 unvaccinated deaths + 150 vaccinated deaths - So 99% were unvaccinated.

 

Suddenly, all the unvaccinated get vaccinated, so we have 100% of the population vaccinated.

 

Now, we've already demonstrated that 150 vaccinated people can die in May 2021, so increasing the number of vaccinated people will increase the number of vaccinated deaths, proportionally (assuming the same infection rates).

 

This is why I said "at least 200" vaccinated deaths. The number of unvaccinated deaths would be zero because there are no unvaccinated people available to die.

 

So, using my logic, we would end up with 200 vaccinated deaths + 0 unvaccinated deaths - so 0% were unvaccinated.

 

Using your circular logic, if there are 200 deaths, then only 2 of those can be vaccinated because the 99% rule is somehow set in stone. However, you have just disproved your own hypothesis, because for that to be true, at least 198 people would need to be unvaccinated, but the scenario only allows for max 0 unvaccinated deaths/people.

 

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

if vaccinated people are 99 times less likely to die from covid

This statement alone demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between % chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid, and % chance that a person dying from covid has been vaccinated.

14 minutes ago, marcardar said:

This statement alone demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between % chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid, and % chance that a person dying from covid has been vaccinated.

Rubbish. The % chance that a person dying from covid is about 1% according to the previously published figures. The percentage chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid is unknown.

 

I don't intend to carry this on because it is now clear that you wish to at least imply that a vaccinations increase the likelihood of a person dying from covid and that's against forum rules because it is incorrect and is misinformation. There's been a spate of it in the past month or so and it's clearly coming from some misinformation site talking point.

22 minutes ago, marcardar said:

Let's set this out more clearly:

 

May 2021: 14,850 unvaccinated deaths + 150 vaccinated deaths - So 99% were unvaccinated.

 

Suddenly, all the unvaccinated get vaccinated, so we have 100% of the population vaccinated.

 

Now, we've already demonstrated that 150 vaccinated people can die in May 2021, so increasing the number of vaccinated people will increase the number of vaccinated deaths, proportionally (assuming the same infection rates).

 

This is why I said "at least 200" vaccinated deaths. The number of unvaccinated deaths would be zero because there are no unvaccinated people available to die.

 

So, using my logic, we would end up with 200 vaccinated deaths + 0 unvaccinated deaths - so 0% were unvaccinated.

 

Using your circular logic, if there are 200 deaths, then only 2 of those can be vaccinated because the 99% rule is somehow set in stone. However, you have just disproved your own hypothesis, because for that to be true, at least 198 people would need to be unvaccinated, but the scenario only allows for max 0 unvaccinated deaths/people.

 

 

This statement alone demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between % chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid, and % chance that a person dying from covid has been vaccinated.

Your absolutely right on this:

 

"Epidemiologists and biostatistics experts have been cautioning that as more and more of a population gets vaccinated, we’ll likely see more deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated. It’s simply math. The vaccines aren’t 100% effective — no vaccine is — so some deaths are expected. And if there are relatively few people still unvaccinated, the raw numbers of deaths are likely to show more deaths among the vaccinated.

“Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated,” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, and Anthony Masters, statistical ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, wrote in late June for a story published in the London-based Guardian."

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-why-its-easy-to-misinterpret-numbers-of-deaths-among-the-vaccinated/

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your absolutely right on this:

 

"Epidemiologists and biostatistics experts have been cautioning that as more and more of a population gets vaccinated, we’ll likely see more deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated. It’s simply math. The vaccines aren’t 100% effective — no vaccine is — so some deaths are expected. And if there are relatively few people still unvaccinated, the raw numbers of deaths are likely to show more deaths among the vaccinated.

“Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated,” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, and Anthony Masters, statistical ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, wrote in late June for a story published in the London-based Guardian."

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-why-its-easy-to-misinterpret-numbers-of-deaths-among-the-vaccinated/

That in no way implies that the proportion of vaccinated people dying from covid will increase, only the raw numbers. It also implies that the numbers of unvaccinated people dying from covid will likewise increase. The proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated will remain the same.

9 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Just a little huh?

The article states this

 

"The analysis was released in May of 2021 and looks at COVID-19 related deaths in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals—only .8% (150) of vaccinated people accounted for the 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May."

 

How is the title misleading?

 

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

That in no way implies that the proportion of vaccinated people dying from covid will increase, only the raw numbers. It also implies that the numbers of unvaccinated people dying from covid will likewise increase. The proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated will remain the same.

I was confirming with the other poster that he was correct, as in the fact check I linked to.

 

“Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated,”

That report was published 6 months ago (when things were quite different), but we're still using the present tense.

Remember that a lot has changed since then.

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I was confirming with the other poster that he was correct, as in the fact check I linked to.

 

“Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated,”

and your reason for pointing out this very obvious fact was ...?

5 minutes ago, 2long said:

That report was published 6 months ago (when things were quite different), but we're still using the present tense.

Remember that a lot has changed since then.

What has not changed is the propensity for a vaccinated person to die from each individual variant of covid.

23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rubbish. The % chance that a person dying from covid is about 1% according to the previously published figures. The percentage chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid is unknown.

Well, that's not true because every vaccine has a known relative risk reduction.

 

23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't intend to carry this on because it is now clear that you wish to at least imply that a vaccinations increase the likelihood of a person dying from covid and that's against forum rules because it is incorrect and is misinformation. There's been a spate of it in the past month or so and it's clearly coming from some misinformation site talking point.

So, when I said:

 

6 hours ago, marcardar said:

The important statistic is not the vac. vs. unvac. proportion of those in critical care (or deaths), but what your chances are when vac. vs. unvac. Bottom line, you're at least 10 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated.

you didn't understand what I meant. Not only was I NOT implying that vaccinated people are more likely to die from covid, but explicitly said that vaccinated people are at least 10 times less likely to die from covid.

 

Also, you haven't explained why the BMJ gave figures (percentage unvaccinated in critical care) decreasing over time. Completely contradicting your 99% set in stone figure.

 

The original link actually makes a similar mistake:

 

Quote

The analysis was released in May of 2021 and looks at COVID-19 related deaths in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals—only .8% (150) of vaccinated people accounted for the 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May.

What they actually mean is: only .8% (150) of 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were vaccinated.

similar to the uk ...dead are mostly unjabbed

9 minutes ago, marcardar said:

 

Also, you haven't explained why the BMJ gave figures (percentage unvaccinated in critical care) decreasing over time. Completely contradicting your 99% set in stone figure.

I never mentioned critical care. The percentage of unvaccinated in critical care is decreasing because the total numbers are increasing as the proportion of vaccinated people as whole. My point has always been that of the people who die, the proportion who are vaccinated will remain constant. Think carefully about this. Because the omicron variant is so much more infectious, more are going to die but the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated will not change.

 

9 minutes ago, marcardar said:

The original link actually makes a similar mistake:

 

What they actually mean is: only .8% (150) of 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were vaccinated.

You are correct, that is what they meant and it is how I read it. It is consistent with the title and clearly implies that only 1% of the deaths were vaccinated.

7 minutes ago, steven100 said:

what does that tell you.

Cause of death is/from/with, or which is it. Maybe the numbers are in the science. Only one way to be certain of the cause of death.

I submit to you.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021

For those interested, 4 deaths in youngsters, 14 or younger.

In America. “More Americans have died of COVID in the past 11 days than have died of murder in any year ever,” attorney David Menschel wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/31/accepting-covid-deaths/

Covid kills more in USA.

 

Now, nearly a year on, with many more people vaccinated, it would be interesting to see the study done again. Would it still be 1% vs. 99%? #

Who knows? But for sure people who are too stubborn to be open minded (either pro or anti vax) will still have their opinion.

Reported inflammatory remark removed.

3 minutes ago, chieftan said:

Cause of death is/from/with, or which is it. Maybe the numbers are in the science. Only one way to be certain of the cause of death.

I submit to you.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021

For those interested, 4 deaths in youngsters, 14 or younger.

In America. “More Americans have died of COVID in the past 11 days than have died of murder in any year ever,” attorney David Menschel wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/31/accepting-covid-deaths/

Covid kills more in USA.

 

sorry ... not interested

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

and your reason for pointing out this very obvious fact was ...?

I was pointing out the factcheck to another poster in agreement with his statement, simple enough for you?

4 minutes ago, 2long said:

Now, nearly a year on, with many more people vaccinated, it would be interesting to see the study done again. Would it still be 1% vs. 99%? #

Who knows? But for sure people who are too stubborn to be open minded (either pro or anti vax) will still have their opinion.

I don't know about the deaths although they are shooting up but in Israel 100% of emergency cases in hospital are unvaccinated.

 

14% of Israeli Adults Are Unvaxxed. They Account for 100% of ECMO Patients

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I never mentioned critical care. The percentage of unvaccinated in critical care is decreasing because the total numbers are increasing as the proportion of vaccinated people as whole. My point has always been that of the people who die, the proportion who are vaccinated will remain constant. Think carefully about this. Because the omicron variant is so much more infectious, more are going to die but the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated will not change.

 

You are correct, that is what they meant and it is how I read it. It is consistent with the title and clearly implies that only 1% of the deaths were vaccinated.

So you're claiming the percentage for critical care will decrease, but not the percentage for deaths. That makes no sense.

 

The Omicron argument doesn't make sense either. Or are you admitting your logic doesn't hold pre-Omicron?

 

Things we do know:

 

May 2020 (when 0% of the population vaccinated): 100% covid deaths are unvaccinated

May 2021: 99% covid deaths unvaccinated

With 100% vaccinated population: 0 deaths unvaccinated. Assuming at least one vaccinated death - 100% covid death vaccinated

 

So you have to accept the value moved from 100% to 99%. You know how numbers move. We can also have 100.0 - 99.9 - 99.8 -.... It would've gone gradually (whisper: as the vaccination rate increased). Do you think it just jumped from 100 to 99? Or did it move gradually and then just sit there in its happy place?

 

What if everyone refused the vaccine? Would the 99% figure look different? But your logic says the 99% is from the vaccine efficacy. But that can't be true, because if no one is vaccinated then it's not possible that 99% of deaths are unvaccinated (has to be 100%).

 

This really is not hard. Of the people who die from covid, the % that are vaccinated depends on the efficacy of the vaccine and the percentage of people vaccinated, at the very least.

2 minutes ago, marcardar said:

So you're claiming the percentage for critical care will decrease, but not the percentage for deaths. That makes no sense.

 

The Omicron argument doesn't make sense either. Or are you admitting your logic doesn't hold pre-Omicron?

 

Things we do know:

 

May 2020 (when 0% of the population vaccinated): 100% covid deaths are unvaccinated

May 2021: 99% covid deaths unvaccinated

With 100% vaccinated population: 0 deaths unvaccinated. Assuming at least one vaccinated death - 100% covid death vaccinated

 

So you have to accept the value moved from 100% to 99%. You know how numbers move. We can also have 100.0 - 99.9 - 99.8 -.... It would've gone gradually (whisper: as the vaccination rate increased). Do you think it just jumped from 100 to 99? Or did it move gradually and then just sit there in its happy place?

 

What if everyone refused the vaccine? Would the 99% figure look different? But your logic says the 99% is from the vaccine efficacy. But that can't be true, because if no one is vaccinated then it's not possible that 99% of deaths are unvaccinated (has to be 100%).

 

This really is not hard. Of the people who die from covid, the % that are vaccinated depends on the efficacy of the vaccine and the percentage of people vaccinated, at the very least.

To follow up, the problem with the statistic is that it was taken at a time when a lot more people were unvaccinated. So naturally the percentage of deaths from the unaccinated was a lot higher since the group was a lot bigger then. Rachelle Walensky noted that a covid case was 14 times more likely to result in the death of unvaccinated person than in a vaccinated one. That's the important figure. As you have pointed out, that 98-99 percent figure was transitory and can't possibly be the same now.

Just now, marcardar said:

So you're claiming the percentage for critical care will decrease, but not the percentage for deaths. That makes no sense.

sorry for culling the rest of your post, this is the part I'm going to respond to first.

 

A larger number in critical care will be vaccinated because the numbers in critical care will rise due to the virus being more infectious. Of those who die, the percentage of vaccinated will remain the same. On the one hand (critical care) I'm discussing total numbers and on the other (deaths) I'm discussing a ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated.

 

The rest of your post is nonsense. Not wishing to disparage you but it isn't referring to the data in the report at all. The very simple fact (again) is that 99% of all the covid deaths will NEVER EVER change unless a vaccine mutation is able cause more serious illness among vaccinated people.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

To follow up, the problem with the statistic is that it was taken at a time when a lot more people were unvaccinated. So naturally the percentage of deaths from the unaccinated was a lot higher since the group was a lot bigger then. Rachelle Walensky noted that a covid case was 14 times more likely to result in the death of unvaccinated person than in a vaccinated one. That's the important figure. As you have pointed out, that 98-99 percent figure was transitory and can't possibly be the same now.

I disagree. If 18,000 die this may, the same proportion, 1 or 2% will be vaccinated. What can't change is the likelihood of a vaccinated person dying from covid vs an unvaccinated person. Don't confuse total numbers with ratios (proportions). Percentages don't care about total numbers.