Austria hits panic button.

Again, there's too much tunnel vision in this. And as for the "anti-vaxxer" nonsense, I've a skinful of Pfizer. I'm just realistic about where it leaves us.

It's not just that someone is more likely to end up in ICU with underlying conditions. It's that entry to ICU is overwhelmingly about having underlying conditions.

And other things. Like being a non-native, apparently.

Making the fixation with mass vaccination of people who aren't likely to end up in ICU look like despair.

I just hope you're not a Russian troll farm.

You contradict yourself when you say "wholly preventable". You admit yourself that folk with underlying conditions can reduce, but not eliminate, their risk. That's just to (hopefully) alert you to the need to reconsider the absolute statements you are making.

To put some perspective on it, that CSO publication identifies 250 cases in ICU. Only 39 didn't have an underlying condition. Absolutely, let's assume none of them were vaccinated. Let's also notice that half of them (call it 19) were probably non-native, and that disproportionality suggests there's some extra factor to the be understood.

So that leaves you with, maybe, 20 cases where you'd (maybe) think a planned expansion of vaccination to folk not in an "exposed" group will make a blind bit of difference.

Now, I can utterly understand that if you're running the Mater ICU you'd want the whole country vaccinated for the sake of just maybe having 230 people in ICUs across the country instead of 250. It just doesn't make much sense from any other perspective.

Austria news are hilarious

- No early end of lockdown

- Overstretched public services

- Intensive care overwhelmed till Christmas

- Great Ski opening 3rd of December!

You see anyone who doesn't agree with your fringe opinion as a scrounger or a facebook degenerate.

With this you have painted yourself as the most illogical person in the thread, if not outright emotion fueled. Emotion has no place in science I'm afraid, no matter how much you want it to.

That article takes into account September and October and the author even admits this was a quiet period for the health system. You know people can be admitted to ICU as a precautionary measure? i.e if your oxygen levels are slightly below a range you can be sent to ICU as a precaution and then released the day after?

So far in this thread I've seen data snapshots from April-November and Sep-Oct, with no graph of figures in sight to establish any remnants of a trend. They are great for throwing the graphs and trends in your face when cases are on the rise but anything else they couldn't be more selective about what they show us.

For Ireland to follow Austria's lead (and it's coming) and mandate vaccines with the current figures presented would be a disgrace, an embarrassment even. A sure sign they haven't a clue.

I personally don't think Austria will force people to get it in the end. I think they are just playing a smart psychological game at the moment

I don't think it would materially alter things, no. As I've said exhaustively at this stage, there's a couple of elephants in the figures that people keep ignoring.

Can I give a little example of how "expert" advice needs to be examined?

"A Professor of Anaesthesia and Consultant in Critical Care at Beaumont Hospital has said previously healthy people aged in their 30s are dying each week with Covid-19."

That's got to be a problem, yeah? Except

If you look at "Table 2: Weekly Profile of COVID-19 Confirmed Deaths" in the official CSO statistics, they haven't recorded one single death in the 25 - 44 age bracket (or under 44, for that matter), in a table showing weekly deaths since 13 August. None, never mind if they were "previously healthy" or not.

It is literally bull. From, apparently, a "Professor of Anaesthesia and Consultant in Critical Care".

Make up your own minds, and you are welcome to your opinion. I've made up mine.

The CSO table is from 2020, is it not?

And here we are again with people not reading the footnotes.

3 '..' Indicates a cell number < 5 or a cell number < 5 can be identified

So at a minimum it's 8 deaths under 44 or a maximum of 32 deaths.

Your link seems to show quite a large drop in percentage of total cases in unvaccinated between 8 October and 12 November (table a).

Unless I am reading it wrong?

You stated "As you'll see from Table 2: Weekly Profile of COVID-19 Confirmed Deaths, not a single case" and when it was pointed out that you didn't understand the table you don't have the good grace to admit that you were wrong, and instead just moved the goalposts on to speculating about underlying conditions.

It's like you're looking for evidence to justify your biases.

Will be interesting to see if that is relected in hospitalisation and icu admissions.

Assuming a two week delay, we should see any changes popping up from the this week on.

Nice little post mortem on the discussion, thanks for this. So to conclude, you don't see the benefit in looking at the data but the poster's value system or morals don't meet your standards. Very scientific indeed.

A doctor claimed people in the 30's were dying each week. The OP claimed he was lying and nobody since August under presented proof which they assumed would prove the doctor wrong. However the link they supplied, did indeed show there was people under 45 dying since August. Proving themselves incorrect.

Now they are deflecting away from it instead of putting their hands up and admitting they were incorrect.

I don't care what the discussion was about, I just hate when people use incorrect data to prove something and when it's pointed out to them, they don't change their opinion or they just ignore it.

My god. I don't think I've ever seen such utter ignorance and scutter being presented as some kind of logic.

I'm going to try one more time, but I know that I'll be wasting my time. Lets suppose there are 100 people with diabetes. Which is an underlying condition. 94 of these get vaccinated. 6 don't.

At the end of 1 year we look at how those the 100 got on. 8 have ended up in ICU. 4 of these were vaccinated. 4 were not. So we have a 50:50 split of who went to ICU.

These example numbers show that a vaccinated person is 16 times (4.17% vs 66.7% )more likely to end up in ICU than an unvaccinated one. Most people will see this as obvious incontrovertible evidence that all of the 100 should have been vaccinated.

What you and your scientifically. mathematically, and logically, illiterate buddies on here would conclude (possibly after copying and pasting from a facebook rant) is that vaccination status was irrelevant because 100% of the people who ended up in ICU had an underlying condition 🙄

But that's it. I don't have time to be trying to explain, to certain types of posters, logic that is really only one step above the ability to count.

There are scientifically, mathematically, and logically, illiterate posts on this thread. That is just the truth. What you wrote was indeed scutter.

You can work through through my example for other scenarios. I made it as simple as possible so try to understand it as it is first. If you want to knock yourself out, you can even adjust it so that there were 2/4/6/8/10/12 people in ICU from the 100. Just keep the ratios of 94:6 and 50:50. You will see that the relative ratio between the groups is still 16. There is nothing magical about me choosing "8" to end up in ICU. It is mathematically the same once the two other ratios remain as above.

Or you can argue with me why vaccination status is irrelevant because 100% who ended up in ICU had an underlying condition. That's really what you want to conclude isn't it?