Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

Thanks for that. Yes, that's the phrase I was looking for. Relative vs Absolute risk reduction. So I've now looked that up. Ta.

However it appears that you're not necessarily correct when you say "For vaccines, you use relative risk reduction"
You are spot on in that's what they seem to actually BE using ... whether that is what they SHOULD be using is another matter.
I just did a search. Let me give you an example of a paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/pdf/medicina-57-00199.pdf

In it, let me quote some sections:
"Abstract:
Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy"

It seems the FDA themselves give the following advice!
" Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced
when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used"

And here is one of the charts:
View attachment 44917

Hmmm. So looking at that, if you got the Pfizer Jab and thought you were getting 95% protection .... turns out, you've only reduced your absolute risk of getting symptoms by 0.7%
(yet of course you still run the same risks of adverse reactions, whether you call it 95% efficacy, or 0.7% efficacy!)
I wonder if that has caused some of us to have made what the FDA called "suboptimal decisions"
???

The average human doesn't put that much thought into the problem
though it is remarkable that they shy away from a little prick that could with luck save their lives , and yet many of these people voted for arguably the biggest prick ever into a position where he could do the most harm.

 

[Zlatan]

The average human doesn't put that much thought into the problem
though it is remarkable that they shy away from a little prick that could with luck save their lives , and yet many of these people voted for arguably the biggest prick ever into a position where he could do the most harm.

It's not just a case of the thought OG... Its who you ask for information and having a bit of faith in those qualified to know about virology and statistics. Every doctor, epidemiologist, NHS boss, Mhra rep, JCVI member, Sage member will all say same. Get the jab. But who do some folk want to listen to. Conspiracy theorists. I just can't believe it.
Jonathon Van Tam, Chris Witty, Patrick Valence, Stephen Powys all come on and say. Look there are risks, tiny ones, with vaccine, but rewards far outweigh them,get jabbed. Then on here we get a plethora of information from GI Joe, SW and a few others trying to educate us against getting jabbed.
Now who do I put more faith in. A chap who rides his illegal pushbike on pavements at 35mph,grows and smokes weed and feels it necessary to keep a samurai Sword under his pillow or JVT? Now I wonder.

 

[Woosh]

Then on here we get a plethora of information from GI Joe, SW and a few others trying to educate us against getting jabbed.

SW does not care you get a jab or not but besides him, nobody on this thread is anti-vaxxer.

 

[Zlatan]

SW does not care you get a jab or not but besides him, nobody on this thread is anti-vaxxer.

It certainly doesn't appear that way Woosh. For last few weeks if you want negative information about vaccines, this is the place to look.
For example.. Your claim vaccine producers sold vaccines on "flimsy" evidence is hardly supportive is it. And it assumes a level of collusion by Mhra /JCVI that taints them entirely. Yet more ammunition for SW .
That is certainly an opinion held by anti vaxxers. Which is the part I find very odd. You had vaccine but then argue against it. (with little or no recognition of its obvious benefits)

 

[Woosh]

It certainly doesn't appear that way Woosh. For last few weeks if you want negative information about vaccines, this is the place to look.

what negative information?

 

[flecc]

I do see that point flecc and also agree it could be case but on our progress towards herd Immunity, if solely by that mechanism we would have to see hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
If case vaccines would have been a scaffold during our natural progression to herd Immunity. I suspect well before that natural progress to herd Immunity there will be a much more appropriate, efficient vaccine.
As it is, agreed, but still see that our herd Immunity will be a combination of pre infection and vaccine. Arriving there uniquely by either would see far more deaths.
Would we have arrived at natural herd Immunity for small pox or polio? Well perhaps eventually..

Yes, it has to be a combination of both to keep suffering to a minimum, but there are two big flaws in the vaccine argument:

The first is that we cannot know how effective the vaccines are at avoiding disease, since distancing is by far the most effectiove way of avoiding the disease. So it's impossible to say how effective the vaccines are while having no idea how much distancing from the virus contributed, be it by physical distance, masking or old fashioned fresh air.

The second is that we don't know how much prior infection immunity has prevented subsequent catching of the disease or consequent suffering if it's caught.

Until we know those accurately, the vaccines could be doing next to nothing, almost everything, or anything in between.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

A chap who rides his illegal pushbike on pavements at 35mph,grows and smokes weed and feels it necessary to keep a samurai Sword under his pillow or JVT? Now I wonder.

He's just a rebel without a clue, and a well justified inferiority complex

 

[Zlatan]

what negative information?

I gave you an example. (flimsy evidence)

 

[Zlatan]

Yes, it has to be a combination of both to keep suffering to a minimum, but there are two big flaws in the vaccine argument:

The first is that we cannot know how effective the vaccines are at avoiding disease, since distancing is by far the most effectiove way of avoiding the disease. So it's impossible to say how effective the vaccines are while having no idea how much distancing from the virus contributed, be it by physical distance, masking or old fashioned fresh air.

The second is that we don't know how much prior infection immunity has prevented subsequent catching of the disease or consequent suffering if it's caught.

Until we know those accurately, the vaccines could be doing next to nothing, almost everything, or anything in between.
.

So how do you explain all the current social gatherings with relatively low infection rates with correspondingly lower severe infection/death rates?
A good friend of mine manages a care home. Not a single covid death in 3 months and no social distancing at all. Yes, they, ve had a few infections.
Without vaccines how many deaths would they have had.??
It's easy to dismiss the vaccine positives in this cynical atmosphere but they have had a massive beneficial effect.

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report published

National coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine surveillance report, including estimated number of hospitalisations and deaths prevented.

www.gov.uk

Report suggests vaccines have prevented 230,000+ hospitalisations..

 

[Zlatan]

He's just a rebel without a clue, and a well justified inferiority complex

What about SW?

 

[flecc]

Without vaccines how many deaths would they have had.??

No, how do you explain London's much lower death rates with only half the vaccines than the country? Taking it down to the boroughs as I've been doing and posting, shows the larger the original infection from whatever variant, the lower the death rate that follows, borough by borough. That clearly shows that prior infection is doing this, not the vaccines at their very much lower rate.

Report suggests vaccines have prevented 140,000+ hospitalisations..

Yes, the vaccines definitely do that, but you can't know how much prior infection immunity contributed too. London's evidence shows it was quite a lot, it must have been or with our very low vaccine rates we'd have a very high death rate instead of the lower rate we have.
.

 

[Danidl]

Yes, it has to be a combination of both to keep suffering to a minimum, but there are two big flaws in the vaccine argument:

The first is that we cannot know how effective the vaccines are at avoiding disease, since distancing is by far the most effectiove way of avoiding the disease. So it's impossible to say how effective the vaccines are while having no idea how much distancing from the virus contributed, be it by physical distance, masking or old fashioned fresh air.

The second is that we don't know how much prior infection immunity has prevented subsequent catching of the disease or consequent suffering if it's caught.

Until we know those accurately, the vaccines could be doing next to nothing, almost everything, or anything in between.
.

No flecc. Nobody can say that person A and Person B were put into a room with a specific concentration of virons and because person A survived a bit longer before getting ill that they had the better preparation. However, Statistics does work on large populations. When you take whole populations and see how many have had succumbed ,and if they have had a different preparation, you can make valid comparisons. In the case of vaxxed and unvaxxed, the hospitisation ratio is statistically striking.
Now you might be wary that there are factors interfering .. such as the vaxxed are better educated, eat less chips, smoke less , wear nicer clothes , wear face masks, have better jobs , drink a better class of beer etc etc, but until one actually separates out these potential variables, a simple fact remains ... , the unvaxxed are statistically much more likely to end up in high dependency wards.

You have been floating this hypothesis that multiple sub clinical exposures to the virus somehow confer immunity. Regrettably there is no evidence for this. There is evidence that a prior clinical level exposure does confer limited protection for a while.

 

[Zlatan]

No, how do you explain London's much lower death rates with only half the vaccines than the country? Taking it down to the boroughs as I've been doing and posting, shows the larger the original infection from whatever variant, the lower the death rate that follows, borough by borough. That clearly shows that prior infection is doing this, not the vaccines at their very much lower rate.



Yes, the vaccines definitely do that, but you can't know how much prior infection immunity contributed too. London's evidence shows it was quite a lot, it must have been or with our very low vaccine rates we'd have a very high death rate instead of the lower rate we have.
.

By that argument Flecc we could have come out of lockdown, enjoyed the lifestyles we have over past 6 months or so, saved all the hassle and expense of vaccines and still only had same infection rate. I suspect had Tories known we could have done that without our vaccines Lizz Truss would have bern selling them to all and sundry.
Sorry flecc, IMHO, you are wrong this time. NHS would have been completely and utterly devastated without our vaccine roll out.
As for explaining London situation. I haven't a clue. There are lots of anomalies in this pandemic above my explanation capabilities.
I do believe the . Gov link I posted.

 

[flecc]

By that argument Flecc we could have come out of lockdown, enjoyed the lifestyles we have over past 6 months or so, saved all the hassle and expense of vaccines and still only had same infection rate.

We've had much higher infection rates with the vaccines, very true even now. The higher the vaccine rate, the higher the infection rate found from testing , simply because those who accept the vaccine most also co-operate with testing the most. Not being tested means lower infection rates found per 100k. Pretty obvious really, except to our dumb government.

As for explaining London situation. I haven't a clue.

Only because you refuse to open your mind. I've repeatedly explained exactly why we've done so well, but you and many others just go into disagree mode, simply because it doesn't match the official version spun to you.

Remember, I'm only quoting the government's own data to show that truth, adding nothing.
.

 

[GLJoe]

How many of us examine our jabs to this extent before foreign travel.

Probably none of us?
I certainly haven't done so in the past.
Mind you ... I now realise how naive I have been in the past!

Why can't it just be... "Doctor, what jabs do you recommend?"
And have them. Amazing, with absolutely no training we all know more than professionals these days. Damned Internet

If you want to find out information these days, you can. Easily. Quickly. Sometimes you can find out things that you weren't aware of, and if you don't have a closed mind, things that question your prior beliefs.
Damned Internet.

World really has gone mad.

What I've come to realise, is that the world was always mad. I was just to stupid and naive to see it.

Zlatan. You don't want to hear this, but your blind trust in Doctors is misplaced. Sure ... ask your Doctor what they recommend ... but then go and do your own research, then decide.
And lets remember - its not just a case of someone with "absolutely no training knowing more than professionals these days"
I mean .. what happens if your GP tells you one thing, then you come across dozens of world class experts (far more qualified that your doctor! or even Government advisor!) that are telling you something very different!!
That's why it shouldn't just be... "Doctor, what jabs do you recommend?.. And have them"

Here's a nice bit of light reading for you. Buy it for Xmas
(Lies My Doctor Told Me: Medical Myths That Can Harm Your Health)
(written by a doctor!! so some Doctors out there must by definition be lying )
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-My-Doctor-Told-Me/dp/162860378X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Lies+My+Doctor+Told+Me&qid=1638549158&sr=8-1

 

[POLLY]

VIRUSES DO NOT EXIST

 

[Zlatan]

Probably none of us?
I certainly haven't done so in the past.
Mind you ... I now realise how naive I have been in the past!




If you want to find out information these days, you can. Easily. Quickly. Sometimes you can find out things that you weren't aware of, and if you don't have a closed mind, things that question your prior beliefs.
Damned Internet.





What I've come to realise, is that the world was always mad. I was just to stupid and naive to see it.

Zlatan. You don't want to hear this, but your blind trust in Doctors is misplaced. Sure ... ask your Doctor what they recommend ... but then go and do your own research, then decide.
And lets remember - its not just a case of someone with "absolutely no training knowing more than professionals these days"
I mean .. what happens if your GP tells you one thing, then you come across dozens of world class experts (far more qualified that your doctor! or even Government advisor!) that are telling you something very different!!
That's why it shouldn't just be... "Doctor, what jabs do you recommend?.. And have them"

Here's a nice bit of light reading for you. Buy it for Xmas
(Lies My Doctor Told Me: Medical Myths That Can Harm Your Health)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-My-Doctor-Told-Me/dp/162860378X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Lies+My+Doctor+Told+Me&qid=1638549158&sr=8-1

Sorry GI, I, ll stick to having faith in doctors, not some so called self professed expert on the Internet, because that's exactly what is now seen as research.. And all you are doing is buying somebody else's propoganda.
Internet is awash with qualified experts advising one thing against another. Folk I, ve met in NHS so far have been incredible. From the bloke operating on my heart to the lady on my eyes and the team saving my wife's life... Why should I now question those very people because some idiot on Internet has "researched" subject.
When I want to know about engines I, ll research as you suggest, I, m qualified to sort BS from knowledge on that subject. My health? I don't know enough about micro biology and epidemiology and neither do you. So, I, ll listen to my doctor, my surgeon and my consultant along with JVT, PV, CW etc and have my jab/booster when told to. You carry on researching on Internet about a subject you know nothing about and drawing up wrong conclusions. Great idea.
Amazes me how many expert virologist we have posting on here. All gleaned from so called research... Actually Google.

Christopher Whitty | LSHTM

www.lshtm.ac.uk

I, ll let this chap do my research, then listen to him. He is infinetly better qualified than anyone on here or anywhere you, ll find on Google. You are as likely to find what some Chinese Bot wants you to believe. Which is exactly what idiotic anti vaxxers have done. Bought into utter BS disguised as research.
Research my ar5e.

 

[flecc]

You have been floating this hypothesis that multiple sub clinical exposures to the virus somehow confer immunity. Regrettably there is no evidence for this. There is evidence that a prior clinical level exposure does confer limited protection for a while.

I've been showing you that evidence but your mind is closed to anything that shows otherwise, as the above shows. Just think about it for a moment. How can London with its very high population density, suffering Covid 19 well before anywhere else in the country, at vastly higher infection rates and now with by far the lowest vaccination rates, have a death rate over the entire Covid two year period below the rest of the country with their far greater vaccine acceptance?

That's not in any way my opinion, it's just what the government's own statistics tell us:

UKHSA data dashboard

Showing public health data across England

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

Anyway, I'm happy that we in London are benefitting so much from what you say doesn't exist.
.

 

[guerney]

How is it useful if it doesn't work properly, misleading and misrepresenting? It gives no idea to others what is being responded to, while distorting the content of quotes by attributing words never posted by the quoted person.

I'm asking you once again not to respond to any of my posts again with that distorting shared post facility. That doesn't gag you in any way since you can use "Reply" and then post below anything you like within reason.
.

You're henceforth ignored.

 

[Zlatan]

You're henceforth ignored.

That's shown him..(irony alert for Agnew)