Coronavirus

Can we get back to facts and fiction and all this pandemic stuff that lies in between?

I'm kina thinkin' we've beat this topic to death already. Should close the thread.
:)

Don’t bitch you think calling ppl stupid will go unanswered
Your both welcome to do it and I’ll be happy to tell you both where to get off

you're next bus stop?
:ROFLMAO:

Ain’t been a bus stop in about a decade

I’m still having a hard time getting my head around the fact that almost everyone I know follows the same regiment I do basically nothing at all
And man that’s a lot off ppl across the decks of a lot of boats and in other retail environments
And we all know isolated ppl that have gotten it but not the wide spread transmission the media would have us all believe

Somethings simply not right

Some people cant get their heads around the fact that there is a BIGGER world beyond the one seen see with their own eyes.

Perhaps its our society that has a problem with LAWS and RULES because no one seems to care to follow them.

Perhaps we have a generation of adults that were raised in strict households, constrained by the rules of their parents, that now feel a sense of rebellion by going against authority.

Perhaps the average intelligence of the population has been dumbed down by Kardashian like influencers.

Some can no longer distinguish between the guys who know their chit and the ones who make up chit as they go along.

Either way it doesn't matter. Google and those who use it are now the experts. Professional, Educational and real world experience are no longer required!

You guys should get off this bandwagon with your facts.

Some people cant get their heads around the fact that there is a BIGGER world beyond the one seen see with their own eyes.

Perhaps its our society that has a problem with LAWS and RULES because no one seems to care to follow them.

Perhaps we have a generation of adults that were raised in strict households, constrained by the rules of their parents, that now feel a sense of rebellion by going against authority.

Perhaps the average intelligence of the population has been dumbed down by Kardashian like influencers.

Some can no longer distinguish between the guys who know their chit and the ones who make up chit as they go along.

Either way it doesn't matter. Google and those who use it are now the experts. Professional, Educational and real world experience are no longer required!

You really are too stupid to breath

you add things into what ppl say and then make shit up out of thin air

we are not discussing Google
Nor are we discussing the world

we are discussing what I’ve experienced 1st hand over a two year period in real world conditions
Over multiple platforms
And how it doesn’t reconcile with what your perceptions are

the difference is
I don’t get my information from Google
As I haven’t lived under a rock for two years
While you have

something simply doesn’t add up

You post OPINIONS. Others have posted FACTS. and on and on we go.

SO

Do we need another 386 pages of insults to prove that?

I'm up for it. Say the word!?

BTW, contrary to local belief, fishing wasn't invented in Brooklyn!?

These aren’t opinions

what I’m telling you is factual

10s of thousands of maskless ppl
I’m a close and at times indoor environment over a 2 year period

100s to thousands of others interacting in a normal retail environment over that same period

what part of this has really been the case for over two years

your simply too stupid to acknowledge it
You really are a moron

Everything but the Jab hurts your heart these days.

What facts did you present?

Like the rest of your posts........GARBAGE!

You are just a blowhard who seeks attention anywhere he can get it!

How many times have you posted your contempt for people on this board? Too many to count!

See a pattern?

Leave the thinking to others. You might cause yourself to stroke.......

Isn’t the booster made up from the same junk that’s in the first two shots? So why are the first two useless against OMICON?
How much is one these shots costing us down the road? Got to be $700-1000 a piece. Can’t wait to see that shit show of excuses of why it was for the greater good that I’ll need a third job to pay taxes.

Your just too stupid to talk too

I’m not doing it again
Live in your bubble

Funny how your sources (which you now obviously hide) contradict all mainstream sources.

Fake news................

What facts did you present?

Like the rest of your posts........GARBAGE!

You are just a blowhard who seeks attention anywhere he can get it!

How many times have you posted your contempt for people on this board? Too many to count!

See a pattern?

Leave the thinking to others. You might cause yourself to stroke.......

contempt doesn’t begin to describe it
A lot of you are really amongst the stupidest ppl I’ve ever had the displeasure of communicating with

well mannered
Well educated
Morons
I’m short liberal
Of that there is no doubt

stay in your bubble
Take your juice every 3 months
You’ll be safe there

This is out of Public Health England, weeks 44-47, which I can't even believe publishes their true numbers.

65% of ICU admisssions for CV19 are from Fully Vaxxed People. Page 31
The death count is staggering on a comparative basis (vaxxed to unvaxxed). Page 32-33

[URL unfurl="true"]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037987/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-48.pdf[/URL]

ICUs are not “full” of unvaccinated covid patients, they’re not even full of covid cases. In fact, they’re not even full at all.

As of last week, NHS England’s own bed statistics [reported]('https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/') that England has 4330 available critical care beds, of which 894 (21%) are being used by Covid patients, 2608 (60%) non-Covid patients and 828 (19%) were empty.

So, England’s critical care beds are not even 90% full, let alone 90% full of unvaccinated covid patients.

But let’s be charitable and assume these people misspoke or communicated their point badly. Let’s assume they meant 90% of covid hospitalisations are unvaccinated.

That, at least, is true right? Wrong.

[U]The actual number is 35.4%[/U]

According to the UK’s Health Security Agency data (page 31 of [this document]('https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037987/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-48.pdf')) 6639 patients were admitted to hospital “with Covid” in the weeks 44-47 of this year. Of those 6639, 2355 were unvaccinated.

**So unvaccinated people do not even make up the majority of Covid cases, let alone the majority of ICU admissions in general.**

So, even going by the official statistics – which we’ve previously shown are routinely inflated to make the “pandemic” appear frightening – the claim is incorrect.

And that doesn’t even account for the fact that, according to Public Health England,** a “Covid hospitalisation” is anyone admitted to hospital for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test. **This could include people who are admitted to hospital for something else and then happen to test positive while they are there.

Interesting data, but as they say, the raw data should not be used without additional considerations. Your silence on the data regarding the vaccines presented on the first 26 pages is deafening.

Here's an important quote from page 27:

These data are published to help understand the implications of the pandemic to the NHS, for example understanding workloads in hospitals, and to help understand where to prioritise vaccination delivery. These raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness. We have published a blog to accompany this section of the vaccine surveillance report.

If one opens the "Blog" here's what you'll see. Whether or not your care to believe or ignore the explanations, is up to each individual.

[HEADING=2]Case rates in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people[/HEADING]
*UKHSA publishes [vaccine effectiveness]('https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports') by vaccine and has done for many months. This is the source that should be used to understand how effective vaccines are in the population as there is a well-established method for calculating this.

We separately publish the rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups by age. This is important to understand the implications of the pandemic to the NHS and to help understand where to prioritise vaccination delivery.

A simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes. This is because these figures are susceptible to a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

If we look at the numbers of cases in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people, the rate of cases in the vaccinated people appears higher for many age groups. This is because there are key differences in the characteristics and behaviour of individuals who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated. The rates therefore reflect this population's behaviour and exposure to COVID-19, not how well the vaccines work. We also know that, as infection rates have been high over the summer, many people were previously infected, and this has had an impact on the rate of infection in recent weeks.

Several important factors can affect the rates of diagnosed COVID-19 cases and this may result in a lower rate in unvaccinated than in vaccinated people. For example:*

[LIST]
[]People who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace).*
[]Many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues.*
[]People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.*
[]People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.*
[/LIST]
*These factors are all accounted for in our published analyses of vaccine effectiveness which uses the test-negative case control approach. This is a recommended method of assessing vaccine effectiveness that compares the vaccination status of people who test positive for COVID-19, with those who test negative.

This method helps to control for different propensity to have a test and we are able to exclude those known to have been previously infected with COVID-19. We also control for important factors including geography, time period, ethnicity, clinical risk group, living in a care home and being a health or social care worker.

We calculate the rate of cases in people who are vaccinated by taking the number of people who have tested positive and who have been vaccinated, and comparing to the total number of people who have been vaccinated in each age group.*

[HEADING=2]The denominator[/HEADING]
To calculate the percentage of people who have been vaccinated, we need to know how many people are eligible to receive the vaccination, this is called the denominator. Although it would seem straightforward, there is a degree of uncertainty about the true denominator. The two sources that are most commonly used to derive a denominator are:

[LIST]
[]The NHS national register (called NIMS) includes everyone who registered with the NHS and is therefore eligible to be called forward for a vaccine. Although NIMS is not perfect, it represents each unique individual who is being targeted for the vaccination programme and provides the only comparable information on key criteria for those who are targeted and those who are vaccinated. One of the basic problems with NIMS is that it contains some people who were registered with the NHS but may have moved – for example overseas – but these people have not yet been removed from the database – these are often called “ghosts”. Because vaccine uptake has been so high, even a small number of additional people included in the database will inflate the number recorded as unvaccinated – so this makes the rate of COVID-19 cases in some of the younger unvaccinated groups appear lower than it should be.*
[]The second main denominator is the Office of National Statistics (ONS) which provides an estimate of the total number of people in each age group in the middle of each year. This is based on the 2011 census, and it updates the estimates each year using other surveys and sources of data. Using this population estimate as a denominator would potentially avoid some of the “ghost” people in the younger age groups – but it would also give rise to other issues. As the ONS data is not based on a list of unique individuals, it does not allow linking of a COVID-19 case to an individual’s vaccination status. This limits any analysis of uptake by some key criteria. As well as this, the current estimates seem to be undercounting in some older age groups. As rates of COVID-19 in older people are those we need to be most concerned about, because these age groups are at highest risk of hospitalisation and death – using the ONS denominator gives some inconsistent age-specific rates for these more severe outcomes.*
[/LIST]
Neither is perfect, however for estimating rates of cases by vaccination status we consider that using NIMS to identify those who are vaccinated and those who are unvaccinated is the best way to provide stable and comparable data, even though we accept that the infection rates in unvaccinated younger groups may seem lower than the true figure. These figures are useful for planning, for example in understanding workload in hospitals, but should not be used for assessing how effective the vaccine is. Vaccine effectiveness analysis of routine data is only possible by using the variables coded in NIMS and available at an individual level for all people who come forward for a test.

[HEADING=2]What data should we be looking at?[/HEADING]
*Data on COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths is much less prone to bias, as testing is more complete, and so it is more valid to compare rates for these severe outcomes. But even so a properly conducted analysis is much more reliable, as explained above.

Our publication of COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data is consistent with all the other vaccine surveillance data we publish and this consistency is important for understanding the patterns we see across all of our surveillance data sources. We have consistently published the data in this way, aligned to other vaccine surveillance data, since early in the year.

We believe that transparency - coupled with explanation – remains the best way to deal with misinformation. UKHSA has been committed to regular publishing of our vaccine effectiveness data and sharing this evidence promptly with others – this has played a huge role in increasing vaccine confidence in this country and worldwide.*

All there disclaimers aside, the "Narrative" there and in the US media, espoused by male nurses and scientists on this site, is that "90% of the ICU hospital admissions is in the unvaccinated".

The data by NHS England proves this to be patently false.

All there disclaimers aside, the "Narrative" there and in the US media, espoused by male nurses and scientists on this site, is that "90% of the ICU hospital admissions in in the unvaccinated".

The data by NHS England proves this to be patently false.

Not quite, one must remember one of the few statements about COVID that #45 said, along the lines of "The less we test, the less cases there will be". As more folks get fully vaccinated, the raw numbers of vaccinated folks dying from COVID will start to exceed the unvaccinated. Since the UK study was over a short time period during which the country is seeing a high % of vaccinated folks, those raw numbers will go in that direction. These type of data need to be evaluated as % over the entire pandemic population, and also broken out via variant.

If we could see US data broken out in short time periods like the UK data, then we can discuss whether or not the data are different. Until such a time, being skeptical is a personal decision, but appropriate.

Funny how your sources (which you now obviously hide) contradict all mainstream sources.

Fake news................

Nothing for nothing but when someone compared how many teeth some had as to whether they were for or against being vaccinated the same group of “Show Me The CNN Data” were silent with all thumbs up. Where’s was the outcry then? Was that guy black or something? You guys ran to him like flys to shit.

Always good to see other countries data. I know scientists in this country who have supported the Chinese have had funding pulled and have been virtually silenced.

These are renowned leaders in the field of Coronavirus research.

Point of Covid origin is a whole other debate.............