2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 2268 | 2269 | 2270 | 2271 | 2272 | 2273 | 2274 | 2275 | 2276 | 2277 | 2278 | ... | 2429

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2861891 4-Feb-2022 22:36

Log scale graph from Chris Billington:

Omicron surge looking exponential (appears linear on log scale).

Doubling time 4.9 days. Obviously a great outcome so far, given much of the rest of the world saw a doubling time of around 3 days at the start of their omicron wave's.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2861924 5-Feb-2022 07:15

debo: No. No. No. Try reading the words.

They are comparing BA1 to BA2. So boosters work 3x better against BA1 than BA2.

That not what the words say at all. They are comparing "susceptibility to infection" in the excerpt, and the words literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted - hence the confusion.

quickymart

14941 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13956

ID Verified

#2861927 5-Feb-2022 07:41

This is an American cartoon, but could just as easily be applied almost anywhere:

ezbee

2657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3099

#2861949 5-Feb-2022 09:27

Ge0rge:
debo: No. No. No. Try reading the words.

They are comparing BA1 to BA2. So boosters work 3x better against BA1 than BA2.

That not what the words say at all. They are comparing "susceptibility to infection" in the excerpt, and the words literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted - hence the confusion.

Danish study on omicron.
Maybe they could add an appendix with a short explanation for normal people and press :-)

It is a preprint, so things may change from academic feedback or even withdrawn.

The study assumes that a case in the household 1-7 days after the primary case is a result of the primary.
The primary is selected from cases that were gnomically tested, secondary 'assumed' to be same variant.

They note the time period includes Christmas New Year when there was considerable mixing and jump in cases.
So their 'assumptions' of secondary cases could be off.

Seems possibilities of variations in incubation rates or people simply picking it up later elsewhere not considered.
I guess the big data nature of this study they expect this to be uncommon and smoothed out.

They also have quite different numbers for transmissibility, but its hard to figure out what this means.

After an attempt to read original study I ended up more confused than when I started.
Suppose it just shows that big data analysis is not so easy.
It may be saying nothing given limitations.

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#2862000 5-Feb-2022 09:35

Ge0rge:
debo: No. No. No. Try reading the words.

They are comparing BA1 to BA2. So boosters work 3x better against BA1 than BA2.

That not what the words say at all. They are comparing "susceptibility to infection" in the excerpt, and the words literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted - hence the confusion.

What?
In my browser, the article compares BA1 to BA2.

A preliminary study from Denmark, where BA.2 has largely replaced BA.1, suggests BA.2 increases unvaccinated people’s susceptibility of infection by just over two times when compared to BA.1.

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible."

Can you quote the words that " literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted".

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2862003 5-Feb-2022 09:52

debo:

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible."

This is awkwardly phrased, maybe for reasons of scientific precision, but the way I read it, vaccination is less effective against BA.2 than BA.1. It does not suggest that vaccination is no good at all, or even no good at all against BA.2. It is merely a comparison between how the two variants respond to the vaccine. It is like saying falling off a cliff will kill you, but you won't fall as far if the cliff is less high.

I am a retired professional wordsmith and usually pretty good with the written word. This is my understanding of it as quoted here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

cshwone

1093 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 850

#2862007 5-Feb-2022 10:08

debo:

What?
In my browser, the article compares BA1 to BA2.

A preliminary study from Denmark, where BA.2 has largely replaced BA.1, suggests BA.2 increases unvaccinated people’s susceptibility of infection by just over two times when compared to BA.1.

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible."

Can you quote the words that " literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted".

So if I am only twice as likely to get BA2 being unvaccinated compared to someone boosted who is three times more likely to get BA2 doesn't that mean that unvaccinated is less likely to get BA2? That is what it seems to imply and just doesn't make sense.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2862011 5-Feb-2022 10:19

"Austria signs law making Covid vaccine compulsory for ALL adults - giving citizens a month to get jabbed or face being randomly checked and fined by police"

Fine is equivalent to NZ$6,200!

rhy7s

673 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 147

#2862060 5-Feb-2022 10:33

cshwone:

So if I am only twice as likely to get BA2 being unvaccinated compared to someone boosted who is three times more likely to get BA2 doesn't that mean that unvaccinated is less likely to get BA2? That is what it seems to imply and just doesn't make sense.

The baseline of susceptibility to infection is different between the two groups.

Edit: Add Table

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#2862063 5-Feb-2022 10:38

cshwone:
debo:

What?
In my browser, the article compares BA1 to BA2.

A preliminary study from Denmark, where BA.2 has largely replaced BA.1, suggests BA.2 increases unvaccinated people’s susceptibility of infection by just over two times when compared to BA.1.

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible."

Can you quote the words that " literally state that unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted".

So if I am only twice as likely to get BA2 being unvaccinated compared to someone boosted who is three times more likely to get BA2 doesn't that mean that unvaccinated is less likely to get BA2? That is what it seems to imply and just doesn't make sense.

That comparison is not made any whare in the article.

They are only comparing unvaccinated BA1 vs unvaccinated BA2, vaccinated BA1 vs vaccinated BA2, boosted BA1 vs boosted BA2.
It appears people are getting confused and mixing up the comparisons. It does NOT compare unvaccinated BA1 vs boosted BA2. Do not infer this comparison. It is not valid.

ezbee

2657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3099

#2862065 5-Feb-2022 10:49

Plus 1 to debo

If you read the actual study they specifically state vaccination was more protective overall.
Like...

175 ever, both booster-vaccinated individuals and fully-vaccinated individuals had reduced
176 susceptibility and transmissibility compared to unvaccinated individuals for both subvari
177 ants, suggesting that the effectiveness of vaccines remains significant (appendix Figure
178 6)

However their point is to see if they can measure difference BA1 to BA2.
Can they conclude its immune evasion driving growth BA2 vs BA1.
They note that BA2 had been growing faster in population before study.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

cshwone

1093 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 850

#2862083 5-Feb-2022 11:36

I think I understand now!!

tieke

687 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 256

ID Verified

#2862085 5-Feb-2022 11:44

cshwone:

So if I am only twice as likely to get BA2 being unvaccinated compared to someone boosted who is three times more likely to get BA2 doesn't that mean that unvaccinated is less likely to get BA2? That is what it seems to imply and just doesn't make sense.

As others have said, these are comparative figures, not absolute ones.

As an example, say that the chance of unvaccinated people catching BA1 were 40% and vaccinated people were 10%. In that case, the comparison says that the chance of unvaccinated people catching BA2 would increase to 80%, and vaccinated would increase to 20%. The comparison doesn't necessarily imply that overall the unvaccinated are less susceptible than boosted.

KellyP

1250 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 115

ID Verified

Subscriber

#2862148 5-Feb-2022 13:31

243 new cases today, highest number we've had.

ezbee

2657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3099

#2862151 5-Feb-2022 13:36

James Bond:

243 new cases today, highest number we've had.

Northland has doubled ?
So rate of increase there should give a pause to think for unvaccinated there.

Today's new community cases were in Northland (21), Auckland (165), Waikato (34), Rotorua (1), Bay of Plenty (8), Tairāwhiti (2), Hawke's Bay (6), Whanganui (1), and Wellington (2).

The 21 new cases in Northland include 14 cases in Kerikeri, two cases in Kaeo, one case in Kaikohe, three cases in Whangārei, and one case in Taipa Bay-Mangōnui.

Yesterday It was a record day for boosters, with 66,864 booster doses given.

1 | ... | 2268 | 2269 | 2270 | 2271 | 2272 | 2273 | 2274 | 2275 | 2276 | 2277 | 2278 | ... | 2429