So Compulsory Vaccinations are Happening Then…..

Andy_W said:
Bit of both I suppose, but my thinking is >75% to do with it wasn't going to be enough.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, but that wasn't really my point. I found it interesting that the government had decided to enforce vaccination when it was going to take them 3 months, at best to vaccinate everyone. They then decided to lock down just the vaccinated, then u-turned to lockdown everyone.

My point I guess is that their strategies seem to be all over the place and reactionary. I found that interesting. not least because they have exponential rises in cases which probably reflect the scattergun approach to preventative measures. They don't seem to be thinking things through particularly well, in fact it's appalling.

If you lockdown some folks based on any category, eye colour, then you will have a drop in infections. The Austrian approach was nonsense both to combat the rising cases and on the general populace in terms of government trust.
 
Laughing said:
Quite possibly, but that wasn't really my point. I found it interesting that the government had decided to enforce vaccination when it was going to take them 3 months, at best to vaccinate everyone. They then decided to lock down just the vaccinated, then u-turned to lockdown everyone.

My point I guess is that their strategies seem to be all over the place and reactionary. I found that interesting. not least because they have exponential rises in cases which probably reflect the scattergun approach to preventative measures. They don't seem to be thinking things through particularly well, in fact it's appalling.

If you lockdown some folks based on any category, eye colour, then you will have a drop in infections. The Austrian approach was nonsense both to combat the rising cases and on the general populace in terms of government trust.
Click to expand...
They probably want to stop/ limit the effect of additional waves, but anything now (vaccines, partial lockdown, full lockdowns) will help from one-two weeks of it happening, whether that's reducing cases, or significantly limiting the number of hospitalisations and deaths, but a lot of that is baked in already.

I wouldn't call the additional lockdown measures a U-Turn (unless you mean a U turn from case growth, into recession), they've just pressed the brake much, much harder.

Yeah, they are reactionary, we were very similar with the first couple of waves, but to be fair it wasn't too long ago that most places had it under control, didn't take long to get out of hand. Austria cases really only started going bananas a month ago, and they've still been doing better than us for almost two weeks of that month, and for all of the previous 5 months. It will take a while for them to get below us again mind, probably 3-4 weeks, maybe around the end of their planned lockdown (if they stick with the 20 days).

We just maintained a high level of infection (and vaccination), effectively getting additional coverage (and deaths), so they didn't all hit at once, in winter, when healthcare is under the most strain. This was an intentional choice by our government, it spread the load (a heavy load), but was guaranteeing deaths, most people were up for removal of restrictions, but maybe they didn't know the price that we were going to pay (have paid). My bet is most EU countries end up with a far lower death rate, come the end of all this.

Locking down the unvaccinated slowed the increase, that's undeniable, I wouldn't call that nonsense, and the full lockdown will make it recede, quickly, which also isn't nonsense.
 
Andy_W said:
There's been lots of description about this, PHE should have used much smaller age bands, and will be doing in the future..
Average age of vaccinated in 10-59 is 50+, average age of unvaccinated in 10-59 is 24, from what I've read.

Effectively the age risk, overcomes the vaccination benefit.

The vaccinated are >90% less likely to die than the unvaccinated (based on the same age and risk profile), but average of 10-59 (24 year olds) are on average 50x less likely to die than 50+ etc (based on the same risk profile).

This twitter thread explains it:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1462573183970824201

Also called the Simpsons Paradox.
Click to expand...
Is this data available anywhere andy, split by age and vaccine status?
Andy_W said:
They probably want to stop/ limit the effect of additional waves, but anything now (vaccines, partial lockdown, full lockdowns) will help from one-two weeks of it happening, whether that's reducing cases, or significantly limiting the number of hospitalisations and deaths, but a lot of that is baked in already.

I wouldn't call the additional lockdown measures a U-Turn (unless you mean a U turn from case growth, into recession), they've just pressed the brake much, much harder.

Yeah, they are reactionary, we were very similar with the first couple of waves, but to be fair it wasn't too long ago that most places had it under control, didn't take long to get out of hand. Austria cases really only started going bananas a month ago, and they've still been doing better than us for almost two weeks of that month, and for all of the previous 5 months. It will take a while for them to get below us again mind, probably 3-4 weeks, maybe around the end of their planned lockdown (if they stick with the 20 days).

We just maintained a high level of infection (and vaccination), effectively getting additional coverage (and deaths), so they didn't all hit at once, in winter, when healthcare is under the most strain. This was an intentional choice by our government, it spread the load (a heavy load), but was guaranteeing deaths, most people were up for removal of restrictions, but maybe they didn't know the price that we were going to pay (have paid). My bet is most EU countries end up with a far lower death rate, come the end of all this.

Locking down the unvaccinated slowed the increase, that's undeniable, I wouldn't call that nonsense, and the full lockdown will make it recede, quickly, which also isn't nonsense.
Click to expand...
There approach in locking down on unvaccinated is pretty much nonsense Andy. As I said, you could equally pick another characteristic to lockdown on and get identical results. The example I used was eye colour. You lockup 40% of your population selected at random, you get reduced infections.

Lockdown for everyone... U-turn. Hmmm maybe, maybe not. It could be a realization that it wasn't going to be enough, it could be because of public backlash. It's not a u-turn in as much as they have pressed on with the strategy, albeit inclusive this time.

I really do think they have screwed the pooch on this one though, 18 months in and governments are still acting too late.

One stat that would be interesting is to get deaths as a proportion of infections. It should correlate to our numbers, perhaps be a bit worse based on us having more vaccinated, all other things being equal, which they are not, of course. I think they have a much higher spend per capita on healthcare. It would be interesting to see if they have a lower death toll correlating with higher healthcare spend.
 
Laughing said:
Is this data available anywhere andy, split by age and vaccine status?

There approach in locking down on unvaccinated is pretty much nonsense Andy. As I said, you could equally pick another characteristic to lockdown on and get identical results. The example I used was eye colour. You lockup 40% of your population selected at random, you get reduced infections.

Lockdown for everyone... U-turn. Hmmm maybe, maybe not. It could be a realization that it wasn't going to be enough, it could be because of public backlash. It's not a u-turn in as much as they have pressed on with the strategy, albeit inclusive this time.

I really do think they have screwed the pooch on this one though, 18 months in and governments are still acting too late.

One stat that would be interesting is to get deaths as a proportion of infections. It should correlate to our numbers, perhaps be a bit worse based on us having more vaccinated, all other things being equal, which they are not, of course. I think they have a much higher spend per capita on healthcare. It would be interesting to see if they have a lower death toll correlating with higher healthcare spend.
Click to expand...
It's in that (long) twitter thread, but this is one extract
1637768246242.png

Then from there you can calculate a weighted average:
1637768312764.png

Effectively all the stats guys are saying the graph should have looked a lot worse, but the vaccine out performed the age standardised risk. The thread explains it way better than I can, and the Simpsons Paradox explains why lumping bands together is really bad news when they're nowhere near the same quantity and/ or risk.
 
Andy_W said:
It's in that (long) twitter thread, but this is one extract
View attachment 28497

Then from there you can calculate a weighted average:
View attachment 28498

Effectively all the stats guys are saying the graph should have looked a lot worse, but the vaccine out performed the age standardised risk. The thread explains it way better than I can, and the Simpsons Paradox explains why lumping bands together is really bad news when they're nowhere near the same quantity and/ or risk.
Click to expand...
Thanks Andy,

I notice a couple of things in the data, particularly the table, which I think is either wrongly labelled, or I am reading it wrong. So in the 20-24 through 30-34 the annual deaths of vaccinated v unvaccinated are roughly equal per 100k. The vaccination rates at those age groups is around 50% and we see very similar numbers per 100k dying.

As you get to the age ranges that are more likely to be vaccinated, the number of deaths in the vaccinated, per 100k go up when compared to the unvaccinated. This must be wrong surely? Given it is equalized data as it's per 100k, more unvaccinated must be dying.

What am I reading wrong, or, is the deaths per 100k wrongly labelled?

Gotta work for a bit so no rush, and I could read the twitter thread myself, but you seem to have already read and digested. Cheers
 
Laughing said:
There approach in locking down on unvaccinated is pretty much nonsense Andy. As I said, you could equally pick another characteristic to lockdown on and get identical results. The example I used was eye colour. You lockup 40% of your population selected at random, you get reduced infections.

Lockdown for everyone... U-turn. Hmmm maybe, maybe not. It could be a realization that it wasn't going to be enough, it could be because of public backlash. It's not a u-turn in as much as they have pressed on with the strategy, albeit inclusive this time.

I really do think they have screwed the pooch on this one though, 18 months in and governments are still acting too late.

One stat that would be interesting is to get deaths as a proportion of infections. It should correlate to our numbers, perhaps be a bit worse based on us having more vaccinated, all other things being equal, which they are not, of course. I think they have a much higher spend per capita on healthcare. It would be interesting to see if they have a lower death toll correlating with higher healthcare spend.
Click to expand...
No, as the unvaccinated are far more likely to end up filling the hospital beds, per 100k, and more likely to be infected for longer/ transmit for longer, this makes sense, from a risk point of view.

You can think it's morally nonsense, which is your choice, but they each carry and give out more risk, so if anyone should go first, it's them. I'm not going around in that circle again though.

Locking down all will still solve the problem (lockdowns are proven to work of course), as it still locks down the unvaccinated/ higher risk, but is a more blunt instrument, rather than being risk based/ precise. They probably did need to lock all down though, by the locks of it (easy to say in hindsight though), to get it to regress back to our levels anyway (which is probably coming in 2-4 weeks, depends how harsh the lockdown is).

It'll be interesting to see what the changes there are over the next week (hospitalisations and cases), as locking down everyone will not show in the numbers yet, it's way too early to tell, but we will soon tell what that first week did, and then tell what the latter weeks did. The first week would have a much lesser total effect, but it depends whether they were trying to lessen the increase, or whether they thought it might make it decline (wishful thinking on their part), but after seeing more data it's plain to see that a partial lockdown wouldn't likely be enough, and they probably knew this before the date they locked the unvaccinated up.

This will be another one for the Simpsons Paradox, people will say "but look, the cases didn't come down until we locked the vaccinated up", but it will purely be down to the massive number change (from partial to full), and the partial lockdown will have only bent the line and not had enough time to show up for a week.

Deaths/ infections is reliant on testing, depends how open they are to testing, but you will be able to measure deaths v hospitalisations. Will be interesting to see how their healthcare manages v ours, but we've ashamedly had a lot more practice. Hard to say whether our vaccination will show us as better, but because we got there earlier, we have waned more.
 
Laughing said:
Thanks Andy,

I notice a couple of things in the data, particularly the table, which I think is either wrongly labelled, or I am reading it wrong. So in the 20-24 through 30-34 the annual deaths of vaccinated v unvaccinated are roughly equal per 100k. The vaccination rates at those age groups is around 50% and we see very similar numbers per 100k dying.

As you get to the age ranges that are more likely to be vaccinated, the number of deaths in the vaccinated, per 100k go up when compared to the unvaccinated. This must be wrong surely? Given it is equalized data as it's per 100k, more unvaccinated must be dying.

What am I reading wrong, or, is the deaths per 100k wrongly labelled?

Gotta work for a bit so no rush, and I could read the twitter thread myself, but you seem to have already read and digested. Cheers
Click to expand...
Yeah it will be already skewed for the young (<40), as vaccinated/ unvaccinated the risk of death is tiny, but I think those numbers at the end are cumulative or multiplied from lesser numbers to start with. The wording under the table explains it better than I can, and there was about 20 other tables going through the process, it was extremely thorough.
 
Andy_W said:
It can take a week to develop symptoms, and another week for those to pass onto others in the household and for those to develop symptoms etc, these are "baked in", so changes don't happen instantly, can take up to two weeks or even more, depends how good the testing is and how people are open to testing.

It's like how we locked down March 23rd, 2020, but cases didn't peak till April the 7th, two weeks later, they were baked in.

It's not that the initial Austrian measures were not working, just that they didn't give them time to work/show up, and/or didn't think it was going to be enough. For them, locking everyone down was probably the right choice, in hindsight. Don't forget they might have thought it was going to slow up in-between confirming the unvaccinated lock down, and were probably basing than on data from weeks before.

They locked the unvaccinated down on the 15th (probably made that decision a week or tow earlier, based on cases from 2-4 weeks earlier), and on the 23rd they had their first decline after exponential growth. They locked everyone down on the 22nd I think, and one day isn't enough for everyone to show symptoms, or show on a test, and not long enough for the baked in cases to materialise. The they will likely level off over the next week or so, and then it should sink like a stone.
Click to expand...

Good to see that Austria's "lock down" is working, and locking down the unvaccinated on the 15th, started to show up significantly about a week later on the 22nd (as expected), so it really was working. To go from exponential growth, to levelling so fast is impressive.

It should hopefully now come down, and quickly, with them taking additional measures and locking everyone down on the 22nd, and they will probably keep that in place until they get below our numbers, at least.

1637922044173.png
 
Andy_W said:
Good to see that Austria's "lock down" is working, and locking down the unvaccinated on the 15th, started to show up significantly about a week later on the 22nd (as expected), so it really was working. To go from exponential growth, to levelling so fast is impressive.

It should hopefully now come down, and quickly, with them taking additional measures and locking everyone down on the 22nd, and they will probably keep that in place until they get below our numbers, at least.

View attachment 28603
Click to expand...
When you see the number of infections normalized per-capita, you wonder how Austria got so bad, so quickly.
 
Laughing said:
When you see the number of infections normalized per-capita, you wonder how Austria got so bad, so quickly.
Click to expand...
I don't, it's coming into winter, and compared to us they have low vaccination rates, low previous infection/ deaths etc, everything was open, Delta is around etc.

It was guaranteed to happen, it was just a case of when, not if, but they should have saw it coming (and probably did to be honest). Seasonality may play more of a part for them maybe, they're more outside in summer/ more ventilation, and more inside in winter (compared to us).

Our modelers saw our third wave coming in summer, and we seemingly decided to spread our wave out over summer/autumn/ winter to lighten the specific load on healthcare, at any one time. This might seem to have been the right choice for us, but it probably wasn't as it's guaranteeing deaths. Our people are seemingly more against lock downs or restrictive measures though, which probably has something to do with our clowns running our show being heartless fools. We're more pro vax though, which is great.

I think their method will be effective, for their low vaccinations (and help increase their low vaccinations), and the area under their curve for the same timeframe will less or equal, and the area = deaths. Their total of all curves will certainly be lower.

If they can get out of this with less deaths per capita, than us, despite having much lower vaccination uptake, then they will have done very, very well.

They could have put the brakes on sooner, but they probably needed that shock, to show why they needed to lock down, and why they needed higher vaccination. The more I think about it, I think they've actually played their hand quite well, and we've played ours quite poorly.

They should have done something to incentivise vaccine uptake though, a lot sooner, but their people will pay the price for that, for not taking it upon themselves.

1637927073377.png
 
sherlock1969 said:
Austria's vaccine take up is 66%. Stop lying.
Click to expand...
Don’t bother Sherlock, just don’t. It’s laughings “schtick” he starts arguments with people using cod science or half facts in order to pretend he has the moral high ground, when in reality he just wants to troll on the internet.

I don’t bother with him now but we got into a crazy loop where he’d follow my posts to start arguments with me, even on subjects we agreed upon, and then complain that an argument had been started.
A psychologist would have a field day with that!
 
SmallTown said:
Don’t bother Sherlock, just don’t. It’s laughings “schtick” he starts arguments with people using cod science or half facts in order to pretend he has the moral high ground, when in reality he just wants to troll on the internet.

I don’t bother with him now but we got into a crazy loop where he’d follow my posts to start arguments with me, even on subjects we agreed upon, and then complain that an argument had been started.
A psychologist would have a field day with that!
Click to expand...
You really are a horrible man, aren't you.

You seem to think mental health issues are fun to throw around. That tells me everything I need to know about you. You are worthless, have dubious morals and are a coward.
 
Laughing said:
You really are a horrible man, aren't you.

You seem to think mental health issues are fun to throw around. That tells me everything I need to know about you. You are worthless, have dubious morals and are a coward.
Click to expand...
I’m just reflecting on your Bizarre online behaviour. This post is a great example of your odd behaviour. You true and take the moral high ground and than quickly lose it in a tirade of foul abuse. There’s something seriously amiss with this schizophrenic behaviour
 
SmallTown said:
I’m just reflecting on your Bizarre online behaviour. This post is a great example of your odd behaviour. You true and take the moral high ground and than quickly lose it in a tirade of foul abuse. There’s something seriously amiss with this schizophrenic behaviour
Click to expand...
As I said coward. Keep hiding behind your keyboard.
 
Laughing said:
As I said coward. Keep hiding behind your keyboard.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean? I find that probably the most bizarre behaviour of trolls like you. You instigate arguments and then get screamingly offended when people like me refuse to play your weird games. Then you reckon it's because I'm a "coward". Do you realise how cracked your behaviour is sounding?

I'll make it simple for you: If you didn't follow me around trying to start arguments, even when we agree don things, I wouldn't have cause to question your mental state. The fact you did, really gave me pause as to what you are trying to achieve here and where your head is at. I'm sorry if you have normalised it with yourself but following people around and desperately starting arguments on the internet, even when they contradict with your views, doesn't seem the product of a healthy personality to me. I notice you do it with others too but they have more tolerance then I so humour you. You still insult them mind...
 
SmallTown said:
What does that even mean? I find that probably the most bizarre behaviour of trolls like you. You instigate arguments and then get screamingly offended when people like me refuse to play your weird games. Then you reckon it's because I'm a "coward". Do you realise how cracked your behaviour is sounding?

I'll make it simple for you: If you didn't follow me around trying to start arguments, even when we agree don things, I wouldn't have cause to question your mental state. The fact you did, really gave me pause as to what you are trying to achieve here and where your head is at. I'm sorry if you have normalised it with yourself but following people around and desperately starting arguments on the internet, even when they contradict with your views, doesn't seem the product of a healthy personality to me. I notice you do it with others too but they have more tolerance then I so humour you. You still insult them mind...
Click to expand...
You really are delusional, I haven't responded to any of your posts for ages, then you come on this thread to insult me.

Missing me are you?

Now please stop following me around, would you, I don't like you, and no one else does really either.
 
Laughing said:
You really are delusional, I haven't responded to any of your posts for ages, then you come on this thread to insult me.

Missing me are you?

Now please stop following me around, would you, I don't like you, and no one else does really either.
Click to expand...
It's that last line that is so hilarious and shows the type of person you are. All full of insults and ignorance and completely ignoring all the constant harrying you did of me.

That's, honestly, the main reason why I thought there might be something wrong with you. You went through a protracted campaign of following my posts and trying to start arguments then when I bit back you did this bizarre volte face and said you were bored and for ME to stop following YOU. You did it on numerous occasions. I don't know whether your condition means you can't see what you've done, or whether you are just being delvirately contrary to continue your abuse. I don't much care to be honest but I did find it utterly ridiculous
 
SmallTown said:
It's that last line that is so hilarious and shows the type of person you are. All full of insults and ignorance and completely ignoring all the constant harrying you did of me.

That's, honestly, the main reason why I thought there might be something wrong with you. You went through a protracted campaign of following my posts and trying to start arguments then when I bit back you did this bizarre volte face and said you were bored and for ME to stop following YOU. You did it on numerous occasions. I don't know whether your condition means you can't see what you've done, or whether you are just being delvirately contrary to continue your abuse. I don't much care to be honest but I did find it utterly ridiculous
Click to expand...
Do you proof read your posts? Some despicable comments there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top