Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated
individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive
COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated (Table 11). 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.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is
substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with
age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.

And notes to go with it.

If you look at Whittys tables on his 5pm press conferences you will see they equally say this Data is not a good representation of vaccine efficacy. So it works both ways.

So why crop the table?

because that was the bit relevant to increased NHS staff absences in the vaccinated. Hospitalisation rates have been covered many times before so aren't relevant...
In my age group 15 more people per 100K are presented to emergency care within 28 days of a positive test. In terms of risk analysis I'm more than happy with that considering some of those will have nothing to do with covid and I also consider myself healthy, have previously had it and take high dose Vit D, Zinc and others.

It’s not though is it? They are absent due to a rule.
Hospitalisation and or death rate is a better metric.

If they are vaccinated they are twice as likely to test positive and be off work, the current situation is due to staff shortages not bed shortages.

Only if you take your crop.

Your hypothesis seems to be, if you are vaccinated you are more likely to catch it, but less likely to end up in hospital or die.
So you shouldn’t take the vaccine.

Feels like the world is getting more and more polarized by the day.. You are either pro trump or anti trump you are either for all vaccinations or anti vaxxer. You either believe in climate change or you think its a hoax and regardless of what you think rest assured you are an idiot in the minds of those who think different. Hard to do anything about but sad just the same and not for the benefit of anyone.

Vaccines have obviously not been what we hoped them to be. At least not for me. Perhaps i had to high expectations. That does not mean they are useless or should not be used or that we should not have done what we have done up to this point. Going forward with an open mind seem like the right thing to do. I dont want 3 shots a year if it does not have great benefits and very litte downsides. Where that cutoff is made is up for debate. If we are no longer protecting our old and fragile and are mostly just protecting ourselves and overloading our healthcare i dont see the point of beeing so fast to shut down anyone who offers a different view at this point.

Was more of a comment on the major cause of false negatives.

Ok, where do you get information from?

Government information but it's general population, not NHS staff data. I would assume there's a pretty strict testing regiment in the NHS vaxxed or not, whereas in the general population there are a lot more variables that may affect the numbers, such as unvaccinated people possibly tending not to test as much.

If they are vaccinated they are twice as likely to test positive and be off work, the current situation is due to staff shortages not bed shortages.

But, as the notes say, it's not comparing apples with apples.

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.

A significant percentage of the cases will come from the NHS staff itself where avoiding Covid infections is nigh on impossible, and the vast majority of NHS staff are going to be in the vaccinated column.

I hear you

On my visit a few months ago you were all praising how France had such low case number and how it must be down to mask mandates and passports.

That was before Omicron.

I honestly don't know how well mandates/vaccine passports work though. If you really want to stop the spread you may need more.

Problem though is that 2 years in the pandemic some people don't even test and check before visiting people.

Schools are of course breeding grounds and many don't get help with virus scrubbing airco etc.

Yeah I agree with the polarization, not everyone is "I never take ANY vaccine COS "some completely utter nonsense"" it is far more nuanced than that.

Government distrust / information access barriers etc.

I got my booster as I'm still worried about long covid. There's no treatment for it and vaccines seem to cut the risk.

My hospital/death risk is low though according to an Oxford uni calculator.

This narrative is gaining momentum in the media, but, although I share your concern, I hope it is more an example of the spouting-online heuristic rather than a true representation of society.

Article in the Times on the govt ignoring their own test on mask efficacy. Misleading headline but hopefully there will be more questions about the mandating of cloth and paper masks.

https://archive.fo/TjsAe

The thing is the "other viewpoint" has been predicting vaccine/immune escape from the beginning. Thats the trouble with Coronaviruses and partly why we have never been able to successfully develop a vaccine against one.
To add to that we are still using a vaccine that only targets the spike protein from the original wuhan variant.

Does no one look at the current fear led booster campaign and think its all a bit crazy?

In my age group 15 more people per 100K are presented to emergency care within 28 days of a positive test. In terms of risk analysis I'm more than happy with that considering some of those will have nothing to do with covid and I also consider myself healthy, have previously had it and take high dose Vit D, Zinc and others.

Though if you do get it you are 15x more likely to die. But, as you say, that's your personal risk assessment and choice.
The problem with your stance (and others that have posted similar on here) is that vaccination effectiveness is, societally, not about personal risk/choice. The more people who are vaccinated (and boosted) the better it is for everyone (and this applies very much globally in an ideal world) so the likelihood of further mutations is greatly reduced and we can get back to living with this as we do with flu - regular vaccinations for the vulnerable but for most people something a bit grim they get once in a while (and some people will continue to die from).
Being vaccinated against Covid, smallpox, MMR etc should not be weighed against personal risk, it is just as much to benefit society as a whole. Like recycling - your cans individually won't make a difference, but if everyone does it - we will save resources. Or giving blood - you don't get anything from it (except a biscuit and cup of juice) but you could save someone's life. Thinking about other people is a thing.

1. US study and other studies still argue their effectiveness
   
2. UK study still showed some effectiveness although not statistically significant
   
3. 70% of students said mask wearing made them 'feel safer'
   
4. 80% said they found communication harder
   
   

Maybe the government on balance decided that any chance of reducing transmission during a highly infectious wave (1,2) would be prudent, while hopefully it only needing to be temporary to avoid too much impact to learning (4) while also appreciating the anxiety some students feel (3).

I'm genuinely not thinking selfishly here. I truly believe what has been done and how this has been handled is far more detrimental for society than if we had taken a different path.
On top of that vaccinating with a non neutralising leaky vaccine is more likely to create vaccine escape and new variants than a population with high levels of natural immunity.

edit: looking at the wider picture my barber and a colleague at work is suffering severe depression as a result of the past two years. None of this fallout has been a part of the governments wider plan.

edit again: all they are interested in is dropping everything and getting jabs in arms

Going to ignore my point then?

sorry which one?

About your hypothesis. About NHS staff being off, from a selective crop of data…

Em, I am confused: These vaccines work against hospitalisation. Unfortunately, not as well against re-infection/spreading it as other vaccines.

If the argument is that vaccines aren't a 100%, perhaps cancel the flu jab as well?

"fear led"? Em...that all depends on what your goal is. Look, you think covid isn't that serious, you had it, you don't want the vaccine.

But campaigns deal with country-wide decisions, and having no jab is linked to a far higher risk of ending in hospital which as a country you may not want.

So if the goal is avoiding hospitalization, it works.

NOW there is perhaps an argument to be made to get more relaxed as omicron is less severe.

Lockdowns do suck. And carehome lockdowns are no longer evidence based I think, the harm to people in it VS omicron harm doesn't balance. (my view)

But, we may need vaccination / masks / workplace safety / airco for that, I think.