Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (69 Viewers)

[PVA]

The vaccine has no real effect on anyone under the age of 50 when it comes to fatality either.

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!)

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

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. 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!

 

[PVA]

It also misses out hospitalisations.

The full report mentions that.

Aged 40-49 you're about 8 times more likely to present to emergency care if unvaccinated.

 

[COV]

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!)

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.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

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.

Now... a brief pompous lesson in critical thinking.

But the issue is not to take every source as equal, but decide which sources are authoritative. The issue is not to look for the lone wolves within those authoritative voices, but the consensus.

Now.. that consensus may not always be right, with hindsight, but it's more likely to be than not (as, indeed, the evidence shows over the years) and it's all we have as people train for years for this sort of thing, and the reason they do is to stop it being anarchy where we start using potions from the wisewoman (and horse dewormer!) because somebody said it might work!

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!)

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.

 

[SBT]

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.

 

[COV]

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

 

[PVA]

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.

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.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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.

If it was 50% for unvaccinated, you might have a point, but it is almost nothing.

0.1% if you are between 29 and 40, that doesn't even cover those below 29, where the statistical percentage would be 0 in some definitions.

As I said, for older people we see more of a difference. In a total of 2381 deaths here, 2031 were between 60-80+. The boosters should go to older people before younger people get jabbed, as they are 'almost' at no risk of death.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

So would most sane people

Cracking contribution as always.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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.

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?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's not being negative

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 )

 

[COV]

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.

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

 

[Grendel]

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?

It’s calculated from those in the age group that have the vaccine and those who don’t. I thought looking at 1.4 and 0.1 it’s a lot higher than 7 but I can’t be bothered to get into details. Absolutes yes are small but always have been for lower age groups

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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

My point regarding the graph was how younger people may not see the value in getting vaccinated. The numbers are so low for people under 40, at a push 50, so it is therefore important to explain the effect of the vaccine on transmission rates instead. It sounds dramatic, but young people are the killers rather than the ones dying.

It is negative, because instead of focussing on that, the usual suspects have gone straight to try and analyse the data regarding the age ranges that are older, and pick out even the smallest of numbers to try and win an argument with.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Excellent, a poo emoji. The sign of quality open and healthy debate.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Open and healthy debate, that.

Excellent, a poo emoji. The sign of quality open and healthy debate.

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.

 

[SBT]

If it was 50% for unvaccinated, you might have a point, but it is almost nothing.

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?

 

[PVA]

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?

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

Im not sure what the debate is - it’s not a real threat to under 40’s never has been. It’s going clearly to be dealt with by a passport and restrictions on movement and lifestyle for those unvaccinated

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

or restrict their liberties and career choices

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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.

 

[PVA]

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

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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:



Zero is literally zero. Even Homer Simpson could work that out.

 

[PVA]

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

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

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

That isn't what we are talking about here. Might as well start talking about strawberries and apples. Sure, change the line of the argument though to throw some shade on yourself.

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?

My whole point has been, and the data supports it, that the vaccine doesn't affect young people with deaths. The only way more will take the jab is education regarding transmission, or even long term effects of the virus on them which the jab might mitigate.

The only person who isn't getting it is you, and it is on purpose.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

healthy debate lasted long

 

[PVA]

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?

If you'd only said those things then that'd be fine, no problem with that.

The problem is you also said:

"The vaccine has no real effect on anyone under the age of 50 when it comes to fatality either"

Which is proven to be totally false by the data YOU POSTED.

I don't know how many times I can tell you that statement is false. The data is right there for you so clearly you don't understand it. That's ok, just admit you got it wrong

 

[PVA]

And I'm not the only one who doesn't understand because several people have agreed with me, and none with you

 

[SBT]

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.

I mean, anything that persuades more people to get the vaccine is good by me. I’m not sure if debating this chart of yours really helps that - or was this all about vaccine outreach for you all along? What has motivated you to get the vaccine?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

And I'm not the only one who doesn't understand because several people have agreed with me, and none with you

Several people (who also have been really prone to go as negative as possible and also have admitted they have been scared during the pandemic) have taken your side.

Stop the press.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

If you'd only said those things then that'd be fine, no problem with that.

The problem is you also said:

"The vaccine has no real effect on anyone under the age of 50 when it comes to fatality either"

Which is proven to be totally false by the data YOU POSTED.

I don't know how many times I can tell you that statement is false. The data is right there for you so clearly you don't understand it. That's ok, just admit you got it wrong

There wouldn't have been no problem with that, because you would have found the next thing to argue about. That's your whole purpose here, because what you are saying makes absolutely no sense and you are just arguing for the sake of it.

The data backs up what I have just said (which you just admitted was fine). Where do you want to draw the line, 43, 46, 49.746578389? Wherever that line in the sand is, it still reinforces my point (again which you admitted was fine).

One thing was right about the healthy debate thing though, if you cannot be bothered to read what others have said, or digest a simple table of data, then I really can't help you. I think that is part of the problem though, when the facts don't fit your agenda, the fingers go in the ears.