And originally yiu was able to avoid it but delta varient, higher viral load = higher chance of catching it, its common sense really.
And originally yiu was able to avoid it but delta varient, higher viral load = higher chance of catching it, its common sense really.It's a strange one because it states on the government site that you are less likely to catch it in the first place .. that's why I was a bit shocked at those figures , your point on majority vaccinated makes it make sense
The death figures read well in terms of protection
In contrast the head of AZ was quoted along with his second in command being far more discerning about who would actually get/need it venturing as far to suggest mass boosters would also overload the NHS regards staff lost to the program.
The vaccine has no real effect on anyone under the age of 50 when it comes to fatality either.
It also misses out hospitalisations. And not only would people not fancy getting hospitalised thankyou very much, but also the whole point of lockdowns has been to ensure the NHS does not become stretched beyond its capacity, so reducing hospitalisations is a) more pleasant for the people involved and b) better for the rest of us as we can get our treatment for other ailments moving along.That's not what it says.
Of 212 people aged 40-49 that died, 43% of them were not vaccinated.
But only 12% of the population are not vaccinated.
It shows that if you are not vaccinated and aged 40-49 you are about 7 times more likely to die than someone fully vaccinated aged 40-49.
(only read it very quickly so I hope I've got that right!)
It also misses out hospitalisations.
That's not what it says.
Of 212 people aged 40-49 that died, 43% of them were not vaccinated.
But only 12% of the population are not vaccinated.
It shows that if you are not vaccinated and aged 40-49 you are about 7 times more likely to die than someone fully vaccinated aged 40-49.
(only read it very quickly so I hope I've got that right!)
We've seen what the healthy debate is across the past few pages. 'Hilarious' gifs, bizarre allusions and insinuations, fucking nonsensical phrases about 'vaccine wars', and then some contest to try and distort, confuse, obfuscate, while deciding people are just following a crowd when they assess the actual (as opposed to made up) evidence and come to the conclusion that vaccines are of benefit to society during this pandemic.Seems a fair assumption to me. But won't make any difference, the anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists will never look at things with an open mind.
It also misses out hospitalisations. And not only would people not fancy getting hospitalised thankyou very much, but also the whole point of lockdowns has been to ensure the NHS does not become stretched beyond its capacity, so reducing hospitalisations is a) more pleasant for the people involved and b) better for the rest of us as we can get our treatment for other ailments moving along.
It also misses out that the vaccine is to reduce transmission too, which then allows for a more open society as it reduces the risk to others, from you, if they're vaccinated or not.
But... we've had all this before. Healthy debate, from this poster, appears to consist of deciding people are lockdown lovers, that there's some bizarre conspiracy where the medical profession lie for the hell of it, and that he sees the light where people far better qualified than him, with actual, like critical faculties rather than thinking they do, are somehow missing a trick.
It's boring, it's unhelpful, and it's the very antithesis of healthy debate as it's uninformed, mindless drivel.
And with that... I'm out. Again.
I might have to reassess my amnesties!
Seems a fair assumption to me. But won't make any difference, the anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists will never look at things with an open mind.
That's not what it says.
Of 212 people aged 40-49 that died, 43% of them were not vaccinated.
But only 12% of the population are not vaccinated.
It shows that if you are not vaccinated and aged 40-49 you are about 7 times more likely to die than someone fully vaccinated aged 40-49.
(only read it very quickly so I hope I've got that right!)
The vaccine has no real effect on anyone under the age of 50 when it comes to fatality either.
I’d argue that having a 0.0% fatality rate for vaccinated people aged 30-49 (compared to a non-zero rate for the unvaccinated) is extremely significant.
What is boring and unhelpful is people that constantly look for the negative and belittle any bit of information that doesn't fall in line with their agenda.
7 times of what? You are just making it look as negative as possible. The numbers you are pooling from are ridiculously low. Chances of survival being 99.97 rather than 99.96 for example.
I’d argue that having a 0.0% fatality rate for vaccinated people aged 30-49 (compared to a non-zero rate for the unvaccinated) is extremely significant.
So would most sane people
It's not being negative, you posted some numbers and claimed they show something that they don't.
And what do you mean '7 times of what?'. The numbers quite clearly state death rates are 7 times higher for unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated, in the 40-49 age range. That's not negative, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact according to the numbers you posted.
Open debate that is, deciding people are just being negative when they counter with something based on analysis, critical faculties...It's not being negative
What is boring and unhelpful is people that constantly look for the negative and belittle any bit of information that doesn't fall in line with their agenda. You are one of the worst for it. Now, no doubt, you will block me again and run away again.
The graph was about fatalities from covid, but if you want to add in other aspects you could have long covid, or even illness directly from the vaccine itself. That is not what this graph is about.
I have posted this graph to open up a conversation about it. One of the usual posters has quickly spun it into a negative, and you have done what you always do. Take cowardly snipes from the sidelines without making any genuine attempt to crush the data, so you can't lecture me about my level of debate.
Ok, so I have posted a graph that shows the effect on older people rather than young, and here we go again with 'anti-vaxx' and 'conspiracy theorists'. Please tell me what part of that post is either of those things?
7 times of what? You are just making it look as negative as possible. The numbers you are pooling from are ridiculously low. Chances of survival being 99.97 rather than 99.96 for example.
1) You have ignored all the younger people which was what I originally posted about.
2) Where did you get 7 times in that age category? How many people actually died in that age category across the whole country?
Open and healthy debate, that.He just engaged you in debate and you went straight to your default position of obnoxious & angry, spitting out nonsense about “agendas”, and giving a commentary on how everyone is afraid of you & how you’re superior. Can’t be arsed with it- you have way too much anger for a Friday
Open debate that is, deciding people are just being negative when they counter with something based on analysis, critical faculties...
(You'd better be bloody right mind you, so I'll add the caveat that I haven't checked *your* figures either, so *you* may be spouting bollocks too)
He just engaged you in debate and you went straight to your default position of obnoxious & angry, spitting out nonsense about “agendas”, and giving a commentary on how everyone is afraid of you & how you’re superior. Can’t be arsed with it- you have way too much anger for a Friday
Open and healthy debate, that.
Excellent, a poo emoji. The sign of quality open and healthy debate.
If it was 50% for unvaccinated, you might have a point, but it is almost nothing.
1) You have ignored all the younger people which was what I originally posted about.
2) Where did you get 7 times in that age category? How many people actually died in that age category across the whole country?
You've blocked me, so how can we debate? In fact, five times in the last 24 hours you have taken a swipe at something I have posted, without tagging me, or replying to what I have said directly.
If you cannot handle an internet forum then that's on you, not me.
We could argue about the statistical significance of the jump between 0% and 0.1% for ages but I doubt either of us have the maths knowledge.
I suppose I’m just struggling to see what point you’re trying to get at here, given we all know there’s a huge benefit for younger people having the vaccine beyond it stopping them from dying of COVID. Or do you think young people shouldn’t feel bothered about getting it because they probably won’t die anyway?
The point, I've made several times, is that the death risk of Covid to young people is extremely slim. Therefore, the vaccine saving their lives won't really happen because of it. This data supports that.
Young people know this, and in my view, is why many of them are not taking the vaccine. As I said, if you want more young people to take the jab then more needs to be discussed regarding the transmission rates with versus without.
1) You said people under 50.
But let's look at 30-39 then. You're 10 times more likely to die if not vaccinated and 8 times more likely to be hospitalised.
2) the numbers are right there:
Death rates per 100k amongst vaccinated - 0.4
Death rates per 100k amongst non vaccinated - 3.1
So it's actually a little higher than I said, 7.75 times more likely.
If you'd have said 'the number of deaths in younger people is very low at the moment, regardless of vaccination status' you'd have been correct. But you said the graph shows that vaccinations make almost no difference in younger people, which is clearly false.
Don't accuse people of being negative or trying to spin numbers to suit agendas when it's simply a case of you not understanding the data you've posted.
You really aren't getting it, and using the classic line of 'you don't understand the data' is lazy.
My point, as raised above, is that one of the main reasons why the vaccination uptake in young people is not that high, is because many of them don't think the jab makes a difference. They would be right.
It is helpful to stop transmission, which needs to be the education point.
Well the data that YOU POSTED quite literally shows it does make a difference. So I think it's very fair to say you don't understand the data.
But you keep on believing it doesn't make a difference though and then keep on getting upset when people call you out on it if it makes you happy
The vaccine makes almost no difference in deaths for young people, how can you argue the opposite? The data is right there:
View attachment 21719
Zero is literally zero. Even Homer Simpson could work that out.
Christ. You really don't get it do you.
You don't seem to understand that many, many more people have been vaccinated than not.
Have a read of the actual report and come back to me : Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics
I have said:
Young people are at very low risk of dying. True or false?
Young people are the most hesitant to get the vaccine. True or false?
Part of the reason young people are hesitant is because they don't think it affects them. True or false?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?