Coronavirus | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Coronavirus

larabee

#13!
Jun 11, 2010
2,535
2,184
Tigerland
That’s not answering the question. Why, when we are close to 90% full vax in Victoria do we have such a higher volume of cases and hospitalisations v NSW at their same point in time ? Especially with the easing approach that we took to opening up v NSW’s more liberal approach.

Excuses like the weather etc don’t cut it for me. It’s been raining in Sydney for weeks. And citing past infection rates and the lag theory doesn’t either. We’ve totally stagnated running 1000-1200 cases a day for the last 2 weeks. We’re not seeing a dedicated slide in numbers like NSW has.

Victoria accounts for 14,000 of the 17,000 active cases in Australia.

Something is not right in this state and never has been right throughout.
I don't know why VIC has got more cases than NSW, I doubt there is a simple one size fits all answer.

(BTW, there are 12591 active cases in Australia, and Victoria accounts for 9632 of them, but same point.)

But the virus is still hanging around in both VIC and NSW, just at different levels. In both states, daily cases have plateaued - the Reff number has been hovering between about 0.8 and 1.0 for a while now.
VIC finally got under 1.0 on 23rd Oct, has dipped as low as 0.8 on 5th Nov and has ben up and down, and back up (to 0.98) since.
NSW got under 1.0 on 14th Sept., dipped to 0.75 (17 Oct), climbed to 1.01 (26 Oct), dipped again to 0.75 (2nd Nov), peaked at 1.16 on the 9th and has now got back down to 0.9.

The virus is still out there in both VIC and NSW, and it's infecting mostly the vaccinated because most of the population are vaccinated.

NSW Reff

1637485789960.png

VIC Reff

1637485818480.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
24,523
10,597
my bad. didn't realise that.

igorancism on my part

No worries. I know that because I watched Syriana and George Clooney made a big deal about another guy speaking terrible Farsi. Good film actually
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The_General

It's been a very hard working from home
Staff member
May 4, 2004
9,324
2,856
Not buying much of that.
Facts are facts.
I'm not selling. You can go look em up yourself.

If you ask me, we've got a bigger bunch of anti-vax fucktards here in Victoria. We've got a lot more rebellious anti-authoritarian people who just want to say "*smile* you" to a government, when the same things being done here are being done elsewhere in the world, let alone in Sydney.
 

Redford

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
21,296
7,201
Tel Aviv
Facts are facts.
I'm not selling. You can go look em up yourself.

If you ask me, we've got a bigger bunch of anti-vax fucktards here in Victoria. We've got a lot more rebellious anti-authoritarian people who just want to say "*smile* you" to a government, when the same things being done here are being done elsewhere in the world, let alone in Sydney.
The weather has been terrible in Sydney for weeks. That’s hardly an excuse for Victoria to use considering. They have a huge construction industry themselves as well. And we’re almost at the same level of vax as them as well. Can’t accept any of those reasons General Motors.

For mine, we have a three pronged issue. Of the 10 percenters (if we were to call them that), we have: a) a more militant core amongst them leading to more reckless/less protective behaviour than in NSW. Something you’ve highlighted also. Protests, anti to any safety measures etc etc. It’s *** endless with them; b) a stronger cultural component in Victoria that needs much more education and support to prevent spread amongst its members. Dunno what we do about a) but we can address b).

The third element is a general lackadaisical nature across venues in Victoria. This vax certificate thing is a joke. Just as I said it would be. The shops, the pubs etc I went to over the last week I reckon 50% at best were applying any security around it. One pub I walked into… no QR…showed the bloke behind the bar my certificate and he said “Ah don’t worry about it…we don’t check any of that stuff.” Compared to Queensland and NSW where I spent a fair bit of time earlier in the year, they’re much more rigid around that sort of thing.
 

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
23,019
8,306
Fascinating data coming out of England. After I posted some UK data possibly indicating that people 30 plus in the UK who are vaccinated are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated, the data in the UK government link below shows that fully vaccinated people between 10 and 59 are TWICE as likely to die from Covid as unvaccinated people. I did a double take when I saw the figures. Totally counter intuitive.

The data is in table 4 of the Excel spreadsheet and it needs a bit of scrolling because there is no direct comparison but its very clear. Over the last 5-6 months (to end of September) rates of death for fully vaccinated are roughly twice the rates for unvaccinated in the 10-59 age group

For all older age groups the benefit of vaccination is clear. Death rates for unvaccinated people are much higher in all those groups.

However when you think about it makes sense. The vulnerable are those 60 plus. In Victoria 98.5% of all deaths are 50 plus. On a risk reward basis vaccination is a no brainer for that cohort. For younger people based on the UK data maybe not so much (and maybe even negative)

This data is obviously relevant to the discussion on vaccination of children and vaccine passports.

If people over the age of 30 are more likely to be infected if they are vaccinated and if people aged 10 -59 in the UK are more likely to die of Covid if they are vaccinated the scientific argument for mandatory vaccination is severely weakened.

I'm looking forward to the segment on the Project called " UK people aged 10 -59 twice as likely to die of Covid if vaccinated"

THE ABC and Guardian could run a segment called "Pandemic of the vaccinated in 10 -59 year age groups in the UK."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
so you're saying you shouldn't get vaccinated if your under 60 based on that data? Surely can't be right.
 
Last edited:

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,837
1,529
Fascinating data coming out of England. After I posted some UK data possibly indicating that people 30 plus in the UK who are vaccinated are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated, the data in the UK government link below shows that fully vaccinated people between 10 and 59 are TWICE as likely to die from Covid as unvaccinated people. I did a double take when I saw the figures. Totally counter intuitive.

The data is in table 4 of the Excel spreadsheet and it needs a bit of scrolling because there is no direct comparison but its very clear. Over the last 5-6 months (to end of September) rates of death for fully vaccinated are roughly twice the rates for unvaccinated in the 10-59 age group

For all older age groups the benefit of vaccination is clear. Death rates for unvaccinated people are much higher in all those groups.

However when you think about it makes sense. The vulnerable are those 60 plus. In Victoria 98.5% of all deaths are 50 plus. On a risk reward basis vaccination is a no brainer for that cohort. For younger people based on the UK data maybe not so much (and maybe even negative)

This data is obviously relevant to the discussion on vaccination of children and vaccine passports.

If people over the age of 30 are more likely to be infected if they are vaccinated and if people aged 10 -59 in the UK are more likely to die of Covid if they are vaccinated the scientific argument for mandatory vaccination is severely weakened.

I'm looking forward to the segment on the Project called " UK people aged 10 -59 twice as likely to die of Covid if vaccinated"

THE ABC and Guardian could run a segment called "Pandemic of the vaccinated in 10 -59 year age groups in the UK."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

What are you looking at that leads you to this conclusion? I’m perplexed plus your logic is flawed (worked example below). Here is the headline from those who analysed this from what you linked. It’s in the link on the right.

- - -

Main points

Between 2 January and 24 September 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.
The weekly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving COVID-19 were consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared with one or no vaccinations.
ASMRs take into account differences in age structure and population size to allow comparisons between vaccination status groups; however some differences between the groups such as health status may remain and partly explain the differences in ASMRs.

- - -

So based on the data you sent, and adjusting for age, you are 32 times more likely to die if unvaccinated than vaccinated. Not a great case for not getting vaccinated as you suggest.

- - -

The problem with the logic you sent through is you haven’t thought through population sizes and nor have you thought through age spreads. If we just tackle population size here. And use a 95% vaccination rate and 100% infection rate (which will in of itself bias to anti vax so is very conservative)

Imagine there are 100 50 year olds and 95 of them are vaccinated and 5 of them aren’t.

Now imagine they all get Covid and 2 of the unvaccinated ones die and 6 of the 95 unvaccinated ones die.

The anti vax headline will be 3 times as many vaccinated 50 year olds die than unvaccinated 50 year olds. (6 vs 2) This is the headline you have posted that made you do a double take.

If you do the maths though. 2 in 5 = 40% unvaccinated died and 6 in 95 unvaccinated. = 6.3%. So in this theoretical example you are 6-7 times more likely to die unvaccinated.

- - -

The fact you sent this through as proof does my head in because it just reinforces to me that the social media you are subscribing to prays on your and many others lack of statistical /mathematical knowledge. (Year 9 level stuff). I’m sure it’s emotionally appealing but it is literally leading to so much death and misery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

lamb22

Tiger Legend
Jan 29, 2005
11,393
1,235
Table 4 does show the correllation. Overall mortality (not covid deaths as I first thought) is about twice the rate in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group in 10 -59 age group.

For example :

on

24 September rate of death per 100,000 for vaccinated is 2.2, unvaccinated is 0.9%
17 September vax 2.2% unvaxxed 1.3%
10 Sep Vax 2.7% Unvax 1.4%
3 Sept Vax 2.3% Unvax 1.4 %
27 Aug Vax 2.2% Unvax 1.4 %
20 Aug Vax 2.5% Unvax 1.5%
and so the pattern goes back to March

However I've looked at footnote 8 and it states that a greater amount of people at the older part of that age group are vaccinated and younger people are not as extensively vaccinated and as mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. That makes sense so the figures and the argument need to be qualified appropriately. Note taken.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

It would be useful to see a break down in smaller age groups ie 10 - 19, 20 - 29 etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,837
1,529
Table 4 does show the correllation. Overall mortality (not covid deaths as I first thought) is about twice the rate in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group in 10 -59 age group.

For example :

on

24 September rate of death per 100,000 for vaccinated is 2.2, unvaccinated is 0.9%
17 September vax 2.2% unvaxxed 1.3%
10 Sep Vax 2.7% Unvax 1.4%
3 Sept Vax 2.3% Unvax 1.4 %
27 Aug Vax 2.2% Unvax 1.4 %
20 Aug Vax 2.5% Unvax 1.5%
and so the pattern goes back to March

However I've looked at footnote 8 and it states that a greater amount of people at the older part of that age group are vaccinated and younger people are not as extensively vaccinated and as mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. That makes sense so the figures and the argument need to be qualified appropriately. Note taken.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

It would be useful to see a break down in smaller age groups ie 10 - 19, 20 - 29 etc.

Yep without that it is meaningless. Old people are more likely to vaccinated - that is how vaccines got rolled out - to older people first - but also more likely to die from any cause so the dominant correlation will be age. Especially I'd imagine once you get into your 50s as people start dropping off with heart issues and cancer etc. etc.. You need to do it for constant age to draw the comparison.

If there was a massive death effect caused by vaccination, which is what is being implied then it should show up in the numbers but we need that further split of data.
Table 8 shows this in a summary form (and is done by 5 year groupings), but we can't get the detail in the other tables to my eye. Averaging 10-59 year olds which happens in table 4 is meaningless.

On table 8 it shows the age standardized mortality rate for all deaths is around triple (2187 vs 783 mortality rate per 100,000 person years) for vax vs fully unvax and for just COVID is 850 vs 26. I'd have to see how they standardized it to comment but assuming given they are a national statistics board I'd give a pass mark by default.

The surprise to me on that table is how much better you are after the second dose in the first few weeks than later. Even though the risk is low its 25 vs 6. I thought it took a couple of weeks to kick in so thought it might be higher averaging out the first 3 weeks - so this probably more speaks to the efficacy dropping off over time. They do have a comment on that.

Anyway thanks for sharing the data - it pretty convincingly says go and get vaccinated to protect yourself, those you care about and even Collingwood supporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Tigers of Old

Proud of our Club.
Jul 26, 2004
70,498
15,469
www.redbubble.com
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,837
1,529
Criminal negligence? Gladys may have left the building but her recklessness is still impacting the country.


It’s interesting TOO. You could argue what she did hurtled us towards vaccine uptake more quickly than anything else (and actually saved lives / shortened lockdown) than anything else any other politician did. Extremely Machiavellian though.

Need to do a marvel ‘what if Gladys followed the health advice?’ to be able to compare though.

Her biggest issue is lying about it. It can’t be uncommon for leaders to get technical advice and not 100% follow it. If you do that though you should be transparent and have the risks laid out clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
12,030
9,416
Table 4 does show the correllation. Overall mortality (not covid deaths as I first thought) is about twice the rate in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group in 10 -59 age group.

For example :

on

24 September rate of death per 100,000 for vaccinated is 2.2, unvaccinated is 0.9%
17 September vax 2.2% unvaxxed 1.3%
10 Sep Vax 2.7% Unvax 1.4%
3 Sept Vax 2.3% Unvax 1.4 %
27 Aug Vax 2.2% Unvax 1.4 %
20 Aug Vax 2.5% Unvax 1.5%
and so the pattern goes back to March

However I've looked at footnote 8 and it states that a greater amount of people at the older part of that age group are vaccinated and younger people are not as extensively vaccinated and as mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. That makes sense so the figures and the argument need to be qualified appropriately. Note taken.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

It would be useful to see a break down in smaller age groups ie 10 - 19, 20 - 29 etc.

So hang on, you ignored Table 3 (exactly the same table as Table 4, but showing for only Covid deaths) that shows its significantly higher risk for those unvaccinated to die of Covid to show Table 4 that is related to all deaths and has so many more variables included because it "may" suit your agenda but ignore the actual table that talks about Covid deaths???

Lamby - Sorry but you sound more and more desperate to try and find some inclination of data to support your hypothesis. Its the same with the "data" you provided that shows you are more likely to become infected by Covid if you are vaccinated, you took 1 table (that had a significant warning message over using the data as it could be easily misinterpreted) and out of the same data set you again ignore all of the data that goes against your hypothesis.

You are the worst type of investigator. Most people just want the truth, so will look at all data and end up making their minds up (even if it changes their original thought pattern). It appears you don't follow this protocol, and are just trying to find any snippet of data that may support your hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,837
1,529
Confirmation bias is a *smile*.

@lamb22 given the data you posted actually proves the opposite of you original contention what does this mean for you?

what would it take to change your view point? (and potentially i'm assuming your view point but please clarify for me if i have it wrong - my assumption is your view is that getting vaccinated carries more risk to most people than getting covid) if the data you provided no longer fits your viewpoint do you now ignore that data and look for something else or do you reconsider things?
 

caesar

Tiger Legend
Feb 9, 2015
5,572
8,420
I have booked for my Pfizer booster shot for the day I am eligible which is Dec 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

iLoVeNeWmAn

RFC - can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em
Apr 15, 2003
2,124
11
www.abcsports.com.au
jumping into this debate for no apparent reason however when looking at Covid deaths, one must understand that the deaths attributed to Covid are in fact false. The vast majority may have died WITH Covid in their system, but no from Covid.

On the contrary, the majority of deaths associated with the vax are directly from the vax.
 
  • Haha
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users