It says their definition of "Unknown" is that those 121 patients do not show up as vaccinated in the Australian Immunisation Register.
This doesn't refudiate VaxedAndContagious1's headline. They're showing the stats separately now.
The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly overrepresented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with COVID-19.
Only if you count "unknown" as "unvaccinated.” What do you think the point of this post was?
How about this line from the link, though:
There were 98 COVID-19 deaths reported this week. Of these, 97 were eligible for a third dose of a COVID-19
vaccine but only 64 (66%) had received a third dose.
Nice way of saying that 97-out-of-98 of the deaths were fully vaccinated. Didn't these people get the covid vaccine specifically not to die?
Didn't these people get the covid vaccine specifically not to die?
The first vaccine appeared in December of 2020 and you cannot come up with a single link where any infectious disease specialist or public health official claimed that it or any other vaccine was 100% guaranteed to prevent anyone dying or getting sick from covid-19.
Yet here it is 18 months later and people like you are asking why vaccinated people are getting sick or dying. It's hard to believe that you have been missing all those memos.
So why do you continue to pretend the vaccine should provide that guarantee?
CDC propaganda promised that the vaccines were 100 percent effective against death and hospitalization. Now the triple vaccinated and double vaccinated are getting infected and dying off at 900% higher rate than the unvaccinated.
This is finally your apology for spreading lies and finally admitting the vaccine is doing more harm to the fully vaccinated.
Thank you for admitting the vaccine if doing more harm
They claimed it was 95% and 94.5% effective (only 5% and 5.5% of those who got symptomatically infected during the clinical trial were vaccinated).
The demographics represented in the trial should be 95% disease free. Older and sicker people will of course get sick, but math the mathematical comparison of age cohort to age cohort, adjusted for pre-existing conditions, should show that there have been more than twice as many unvaccinated infected as vaccinated. 5% of 90% VS 100% of 10%.
If this is not the case, the vaccine has less efficacy than was claimed. It's baffling that anyone would argue that the 2020 wild spike vaccines targeting a pathogen that replicates primarily in the lungs, are going to have the same efficacy against a distant descendant that's had evolutionary pressures to circumvent reliance on the wild spike and which replicates in the upper respiratory tract. You appear to be that anyone and are incapable of just moving on and admitting that mandates that might have been arguable as appropriate out of an abundance of caution, are no longer proportionate or rational during the omicron waves.
Imagine risking your heart to not get a cold but then getting the cold anyway.
u/Tuchodi is the perfect example of every Public Health politician. They read a piece of paper handed to them, theyre paid to parrot content they don’t have the ability to understand.
Their ego, lack of education and refusal to acknowledge the abject failure and catastrophic VE is reflected in all of Tuchodi’s posts. The more she posts, the more it is obvious how little she knows
You obviously have a Snopes and a Politifact subscription Tuchodi, you copy paste Politifact and Snopes links the good trained monkey you are.
Denying the CDC director and Fauci didn’t promise highly efficacious, 100p efficacy makes you look like a deranged liar.
Fauci and the CDC director are on camera saying “almost 100p efficacious at prevent death and severe disease” and “the vaccinated don’t carry the virus”
Keep denying and keep lying. No one here takes you seriously and everyone sees you are an uneducated monkey, copy pasting content you admitted yourself you don’t have the ability to understand
Only abstinence is 100% effective at stopping infection. But we can't abstain from breathing. We could get close if we were 24/7 in respirators, but this isn't the 12 monkeys plague.
Either of these will get you around paywalls. 95% was the initial claim and was considered good enough that mandates were justified. 95% is well within the threshold for herd immunity at 70% uptake and it seems it actually was with the Wuhan strain, as it's gone extinct. For herd immunity, you need to remove enough vectors to collapse the R0 of a given strain. This either comes about naturally, behaviourally, or is induced through vaccination/prophylaxis/treatment.
For other people's benefit since you seem to give zero shits about efficacy as they pertain to vaccine mandates:
With the delta variant, efficacy fell to 60-80%. Even at the high end, 20% is four times greater than 5%. At the low end, 40% is eight times greater than 5%. So, if it's equally infectious as the origin strain, and we need to remove 70% of vectors, then @80% efficacy we're looking at (70% * .95%)/80% = 83% vaccination rate to stop delta at the high efficacy end or (70% * .95%)/60% = 110% vaccination rate to stop delta at the low efficacy end.
So 83% to 110% of the population needs to be vaccinated to eradicate delta. Adjust the number down for the ratio of naturally immune.
With omicron, efficacy falls to 5-15% for fully vaccinated people at 6 months. The herd immunity threshold is also going to be higher because it's an upper respiratory virus. Let's be generous say that doubling R0 means we only have to halve the # of vectors in the herd immunity equation. So we had 30% or so being infectious = covid just dies. Half of 30% is 15%. We need to remove 85% of people as vectors.
OK. So full vaccination at the high end provides 15% protection against symptomatic infection at the high end. (85% * .95%)/15% = 538% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated to stop the spread. OK that's impossible, so calculating the low end isn't worth it.
But for 2-12 weeks after a third dose, someone has 60-80% protection against infection. So let's see if we can get that number to 100% to eradicate the omicron variant.
(85% * .95%)/80% = 101%
We can sort of maybe eradiate omicron if 100% of the population is perpetually kept at 2-12 weeks since the third dose and it turns out the highest estimates of efficacy for this group are true. They're actually run down for weeks 0-2 though, so 16.667% of the time, people are going to need to be in a hard quarantine.
^^^
This is what you'd have to mandate, by the numbers, to eradicate COVID-19. Assuming naturally immunity doesn't exist.
Just saying that vaccine efficacy has become moot as far as eradication goes and Canada is now counting on blindly blundering out of COVID-19 in a borderline retarded fugue because we can't allow ourselves to understand how things actually work because the preached to masses of hysterical bigots will melt down when release comes from reasons that are forbidden to explain.
This doesn't refudiate VaxedAndContagious1's headline. They're showing the stats separately now.
Only if you count "unknown" as "unvaccinated.” What do you think the point of this post was?
How about this line from the link, though:
Nice way of saying that 97-out-of-98 of the deaths were fully vaccinated. Didn't these people get the covid vaccine specifically not to die?
The first vaccine appeared in December of 2020 and you cannot come up with a single link where any infectious disease specialist or public health official claimed that it or any other vaccine was 100% guaranteed to prevent anyone dying or getting sick from covid-19.
Yet here it is 18 months later and people like you are asking why vaccinated people are getting sick or dying. It's hard to believe that you have been missing all those memos.
So why do you continue to pretend the vaccine should provide that guarantee?
lol
Can't answer the question, eh?
CDC propaganda promised that the vaccines were 100 percent effective against death and hospitalization. Now the triple vaccinated and double vaccinated are getting infected and dying off at 900% higher rate than the unvaccinated.
This is finally your apology for spreading lies and finally admitting the vaccine is doing more harm to the fully vaccinated.
Thank you for admitting the vaccine if doing more harm
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/health/covid-vaccine-95-effective.html
They claimed it was 95% and 94.5% effective (only 5% and 5.5% of those who got symptomatically infected during the clinical trial were vaccinated).
The demographics represented in the trial should be 95% disease free. Older and sicker people will of course get sick, but math the mathematical comparison of age cohort to age cohort, adjusted for pre-existing conditions, should show that there have been more than twice as many unvaccinated infected as vaccinated. 5% of 90% VS 100% of 10%.
If this is not the case, the vaccine has less efficacy than was claimed. It's baffling that anyone would argue that the 2020 wild spike vaccines targeting a pathogen that replicates primarily in the lungs, are going to have the same efficacy against a distant descendant that's had evolutionary pressures to circumvent reliance on the wild spike and which replicates in the upper respiratory tract. You appear to be that anyone and are incapable of just moving on and admitting that mandates that might have been arguable as appropriate out of an abundance of caution, are no longer proportionate or rational during the omicron waves.
Baffling.
Imagine risking your heart to not get a cold but then getting the cold anyway.
u/Tuchodi is the perfect example of every Public Health politician. They read a piece of paper handed to them, theyre paid to parrot content they don’t have the ability to understand.
Their ego, lack of education and refusal to acknowledge the abject failure and catastrophic VE is reflected in all of Tuchodi’s posts. The more she posts, the more it is obvious how little she knows
I agree. Hysteria and stupidity rule our day.
You are full of claims you can't back up.
They are worthless.
No one promised that the vaccines would provide 100% protection.
I don't have a subscription to the New York Times.
This is a discussion about pretending the vaccines should be 100% effective at stopping infection.
You obviously have a Snopes and a Politifact subscription Tuchodi, you copy paste Politifact and Snopes links the good trained monkey you are.
Denying the CDC director and Fauci didn’t promise highly efficacious, 100p efficacy makes you look like a deranged liar.
Fauci and the CDC director are on camera saying “almost 100p efficacious at prevent death and severe disease” and “the vaccinated don’t carry the virus”
Keep denying and keep lying. No one here takes you seriously and everyone sees you are an uneducated monkey, copy pasting content you admitted yourself you don’t have the ability to understand
Only abstinence is 100% effective at stopping infection. But we can't abstain from breathing. We could get close if we were 24/7 in respirators, but this isn't the 12 monkeys plague.
https://archive.ph/ https://12ft.io/
Either of these will get you around paywalls. 95% was the initial claim and was considered good enough that mandates were justified. 95% is well within the threshold for herd immunity at 70% uptake and it seems it actually was with the Wuhan strain, as it's gone extinct. For herd immunity, you need to remove enough vectors to collapse the R0 of a given strain. This either comes about naturally, behaviourally, or is induced through vaccination/prophylaxis/treatment.
For other people's benefit since you seem to give zero shits about efficacy as they pertain to vaccine mandates:
With the delta variant, efficacy fell to 60-80%. Even at the high end, 20% is four times greater than 5%. At the low end, 40% is eight times greater than 5%. So, if it's equally infectious as the origin strain, and we need to remove 70% of vectors, then @80% efficacy we're looking at (70% * .95%)/80% = 83% vaccination rate to stop delta at the high efficacy end or (70% * .95%)/60% = 110% vaccination rate to stop delta at the low efficacy end.
So 83% to 110% of the population needs to be vaccinated to eradicate delta. Adjust the number down for the ratio of naturally immune.
With omicron, efficacy falls to 5-15% for fully vaccinated people at 6 months. The herd immunity threshold is also going to be higher because it's an upper respiratory virus. Let's be generous say that doubling R0 means we only have to halve the # of vectors in the herd immunity equation. So we had 30% or so being infectious = covid just dies. Half of 30% is 15%. We need to remove 85% of people as vectors.
OK. So full vaccination at the high end provides 15% protection against symptomatic infection at the high end. (85% * .95%)/15% = 538% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated to stop the spread. OK that's impossible, so calculating the low end isn't worth it.
But for 2-12 weeks after a third dose, someone has 60-80% protection against infection. So let's see if we can get that number to 100% to eradicate the omicron variant.
(85% * .95%)/80% = 101%
We can sort of maybe eradiate omicron if 100% of the population is perpetually kept at 2-12 weeks since the third dose and it turns out the highest estimates of efficacy for this group are true. They're actually run down for weeks 0-2 though, so 16.667% of the time, people are going to need to be in a hard quarantine.
^^^
This is what you'd have to mandate, by the numbers, to eradicate COVID-19. Assuming naturally immunity doesn't exist.
Just saying that vaccine efficacy has become moot as far as eradication goes and Canada is now counting on blindly blundering out of COVID-19 in a borderline retarded fugue because we can't allow ourselves to understand how things actually work because the preached to masses of hysterical bigots will melt down when release comes from reasons that are forbidden to explain.