Boosters

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853548#Comment_117853548

Ok

10,000 nursing residents exposed to covid

Injected with a

95% efficacy

99% prevent hospitilisation

Vaccine

How many end up in hospital?

Based on that 95% and 99%

I got 5 is that incorrect?

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853593#Comment_117853593

Same question I gave Lumen, Astro

10,000 nursing home residents exposed to covid

Injected with a 95% efficacy/99% prevent hospitilisation vaccine

How many end up in hospital?

Based on that 95% and 99%

It's basic math lads

Should be easy to answer

I got 5 as my answer

Is it wrong?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853625#Comment_117853625

500 and 100, but I already posted that and it was ignored so not sure where to go next.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853636#Comment_117853636

Why are you giving 2 answers? It's one answer

How many end up in hospital? One answer

How can it be 100 in hospital?

Only 500 get infected

How can 100 end up in hospital from 500 cases?

That's a 20% hospitilisation rate

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853677#Comment_117853677

Of 10,000 exposed to COVID, 5% of them will have symptoms (500), 1% of them will be hospitalized (100).

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853704#Comment_117853704

Why would 100 of the 500 end up in hospital?

That's a 20% hospitalisation rate for the people with symptoms

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853731#Comment_117853731

Yes it is, none of what you are saying is correct, but 1 is 20% of 5, that is irrefutable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853738#Comment_117853738

But you never specified you were working in base 10?

/s

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853738#Comment_117853738

No man

Your use of that 95% and 99% are wrong

Crazy wrong infact and you don't understand how it works

Lets break it down again

Only 500 people can have symptoms from the 10,000 ? Correct

500 people have symptomatic covid? Correct

How many of those people with symptomatic covid end up in the hospital

If you say 100 again, i'll laugh.

You will

100 = 20% of symptomatic covid people end up in hospital, which is insane, that's like bloody SARS1. If I get symptomatic covid I have a 1 in 5 chance of going to hospital lol

We know that is wrong because only 2% of covid cases end up in Ireland thankfully, not 20% like your saying

We get 10,000 cases a week and only 200 end up in hospital, that's pcr confirmed cases

Not 10,000 exposed to the virus.

To get those 10,000 cases a week and if everyone was vaccinated, you'd need 200,00 people exposed to the virus eg 95%

I find it hard to believe 200,000 fully vaccinated people are exposed to the virus every week, do you?

Lumen

@godzilla1989 again, you are misunderstanding what the 95% and 99% statistics mean, specifically what the 99% means.

It has been explained already in various ways, but I'll try again.

Split a population into two, matching for risk.

Vaccinate half.

Compare the numbers of cases and hospitalised between vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The 95% means that there will be 1/20 of the number of cases in the vaccinated half, compared to the unvaccinated half.

The 99% means that there will be 1/100 of the number of hospitalisations in the vaccinated half, compared to the unvaccinated half.

That's how the studies were done. You can do whatever you like with those numbers, but that's where they came from, pre-Delta.

You are trying to interpret the 99% as the fraction of cases that become hospitalised, the Case Hospitalisation Rate, CHR. That's not what it is. There does exist various CHRs from studies and real world observation, but they won't be anything like 99%.

The fact that you have stated repeatedly that the CHR is the only stat that you're interested in doesn't change the origin or meaning of the 95% and 99% stats.

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853820#Comment_117853820

You need to stop laughing at other people and laugh at yourself. Efficecy and serious illness are independent of each other.

From the Pfixer trial......There were two groups of about 22,000 people each. They were similar in all ways — age, health, location, activities — except that one group received a real vaccine and the other received a fake one. Over time, 162 unvaccinated participants developed at least one symptom and tested positive, while only 8 people in the vaccinated group did. That’s 95% fewer infections, suggesting 95% efficacy. But less than 1 in 2,700 of the vaccinated participants fell ill.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853904#Comment_117853904

Ok do that half and half split here then

I'll split population in half for you like in that study

10,000 people are exposed to covid

5,000 unvaccianted

5,000 vaccinated

How many get symptomatic covid in unvaccinated?

How many get symptomatic covid in vaccinated? I get 250 here

How many end up in hospital in unvaccinated?

How many end up in hospital in vaccinated? I get 50 here

Fill in the unvaccinated part please

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853951#Comment_117853951

ow many get symptomatic covid in unvaccinated? hard to tell

How many get symptomatic covid in vaccinated? 95% fewer than unvaccinated

How many end up in hospital in unvaccinated? hard to tell

How many end up in hospital in vaccinated? 99% fewer than unvaccinated

***PRO TIP***Read the pfizer study correctly.

99% of 95% is stupid wrong.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853920#Comment_117853920

How many of those 162 and 8 ended up in hospital? Was it 20% of them like astro suggests ?

32 and 1.6?

How can efficacy and severe illness be independent of each other?

Using astro weird logic of his 99% hospilitsation of that 22,000 group

22,000 *(100/99) = 220 shoud have ended up in hospital

But only 8 got symptoms ( because 22,000 of them were never exposed to covid )

astrofool

It's not my weird logic, it's you asking others to do maths with numbers that don't make any sense at all, so the answers don't make sense, all of what you're saying is completely meaningless and I'm unsure what point you're trying to get to or hope to find out.

You're trying to simplify something that can't be simplified the way you want it to and making yourself look foolish in the process. Read the Pfizer results, look at the results per age group, understand that those numbers are pre-delta and at peak efficacy and that delta changes transmission rate and the various efficacies reduces over time as antibody count wanes (but still remains strong).

If you come out with "10,000 are exposed to SARS-COV2" (COVID-19 is the disease not the virus) again we'll know you haven't read or understood the Pfizer results.

You're also completely derailing the thread about boosters.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853964#Comment_117853964

Hard to tell? You can't answer the unvaccinated part then

See not one of ye can answer a simple question

10,000 people ( similar in all ways — age, health, location, activities ) are exposed to covid in a trial

5,000 unvaccianted

5,000 vaccinated

What's the outcome here in both groups? How many get symptomatic covid in each group, how many end up in hospital.

If none of ye can answer that, please give up reading studies, ye don't have a clue.

Honestly it's a question a child should be able to answer.

Your answer of 95% and 99% is a cop out btw.

95% more than vaccinated = 4750

99% more than vaccinated = 4900

Which brings us back to 5000

A circle, which is where we are with covid, going around in circles.

Honestly very disappointed not one of ye geniuses can answer a simple question

Beasty

The topic is boosters. There are other threads where you can analyse the unvaccinated versus vaccinated

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854000#Comment_117854000

Thats not how the study of efficacy.

I honestly do not think you understand this so maybe need to move on.

But to answer your question you need to ask how many ended up in hopsital .

Vaccinated = 1/22,000 . This compares with 9 cases in the 22,000 unvaccinated.

Lumen

The answer depends on the level of exposure. It's not a cop out.

For instance, here's a similar question you can't answer:

Take a population of 1,000 unvaccinated people. How many get Covid?

Do you see how ridiculous a question that is?

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854069#Comment_117854069

ok fine - going by pfizer official results with no particular exposure to te virus and adhering to safety/Hygeine guideslines (washing hand etc) it would be expected:

5,000 vaccinated

Infection circa 2

Serious illness 0.22

5,000 unvaccinated

Infection 36

Serioud illness 2

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853951#Comment_117853951

You cannot answer the vaccinated question without knowing the unvaccinated number as the efficancy is based off that answer.

So 5000 unvaccinated all exposed to Covid and assuming a population average of 5% hospitalization and 80% of positive cases are symptomatic and efficiency based on vanilla Covid strain.

Unvaccinated:

4000 symptomatic and 250 hospitalized

Vaccinated:

95% fewer with symptoms: 200 symptomatic people

99% fewer hospitalized: 2.5 people

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854090#Comment_117854090

None of us understand, because it's a joke those numbers.

1 out 22,000 and 9 out of 22,000, end up in hospital, ok very few of them have been exposed to Covid

All that tells me is the trials were a **** joke, reading below is laughable

"In the Pfizer study, 170 participants had symptoms and were found to have covid-19. Five people ended up hospitalized; all five were in the placebo group"

So Pfizer vaccine was in fact 100% effective at preventing hospitilsations, no one should ever end up in the hospital based on the trial data

"In the Moderna study, 196 participants had symptomatic covid-19. Ten people were hospitalized; only one was in the group that received the vaccine."

Moderna was 90% at preventing hospitilsations

So out of more than 30,000 people who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, only one person became ill enough to be hospitalized

No wonder Isreal are fucked, those trials told us **** all regarding preventing hospitilsations

1 bloody person went to hospital

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854144#Comment_117854144

What do you expect the trial to do give everyone the jab then covid???

Thats not why Israel are fucked.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854117#Comment_117854117

Thanks for the reply Wolf

That logic is sound, agree with 5% and 80%

So we are going to have 100 times less hospitalisations now thanks to the vaccine? How I would love that to be true

250 vs 2.5

Does that seem correct to you guys? Honestly now, take away vaccine bias.

We have 360 in hospital today and half of them are fully vaccinated ( 180 )

So we would have 18,000 people in hospital without vaccine's

18,000 vs 180

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854116#Comment_117854116

Thanks for the reply big syke

Those maths look correct

All that tells us is Pfizers trialists were never exposed to the virus to a great degree and the trial left alot of unanswered questions, it was not real world at all

Might as well have had the trial on Mars

Not even one person from the Pfzier trial ended up in hospital, not one, yet we have 180 fully vaccinated people in our hospitals today and Israel have thousands I believe

Lumen

@godzilla1989 low exposure to Covid is real world. Small numbers produce wide confidence intervals.

The alternative is a human challenge study, but it's dubiously ethical even with low risk subjects.

What are your proposing to do, vaccinate half of a nursing home and spray them all with virus?

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854109#Comment_117854109

The daily attack rate in Ireland with 2000 cases a day is 0.04%

Everyday you've a 0.04% chance of being infected.

So those 1,000 will be knocked off at 0.4% per capita per day

I get your point it is a joke question and we took pfizers trial data as gospel when we have no idea who was exposed, as it was a joke trial, not even one person ended up in hospital from it's 22,000 trialists.

Only a challenge trial would give us answers

big syke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854239#Comment_117854239

6 people died in the trial pal.

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854552#Comment_117854552

Not relevant

None of them deaths are related to covid or the vaccine and I was wrong on hospitilisations

People did end up in hospital from the vaccine group, 4 got bells palsy

"Also four people in the United States, who got COVID-19 vaccine shot developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, developed Bell’s Palsy"

Now it's 5 hospitilsations in placebo group, 4 in vaccine group

5/4

You made a good point as well, the vaccine saved none of the trialists lives, no one died of covid in the placebo or vaccine group

The people died of other things.

"One of the vaccine recipients had a cardiac arrest 62 days after a second dose of the two-dose vaccination and died three days later. The other died from arteriosclerosis three days after a first dose of the vaccination. One of the placebo recipients died from myocardial infarction, another from haemorrhagic stroke and two others from unknown causes."

That trial was shockingly useless for the real world, told us nothing

170 infections from 44,000 people

162 in placebo

8 in vaccine

5 in hospital in placebo from covid

4 in hospital in vaccine group ( side effects, not from covid )

No one died, no lives saved

We injected billions of people based on that rubbish

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854316#Comment_117854316

Yes, but that's a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated with exposure risk and vaccination coverage differing by age. You can't infer efficacy from that. That's the problem with the "real world', it's messy. That's why we rely on controlled (but imperfect) trials.