Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

It’s also very different if you take into consideration health prior to Covid, or any other health problems, others may be more healthy and well fit than others. So people with weaker immune systems will be affected harder, if they are younger. I think there’s so many different factors we can’t just put it all in one category for age. 

That is very true, but people who are immunocompromised probably have special recommendations from their doctors. It is also totally reasonable to get vaccinated if you have high risk of dying from COVID but why make it mandatory/favorise it for people who don't? Also I mean the numbers for 12-17 and 18-29 are so low. Now the word days does confuse me, I'm not sure what its presence in the sentence refers to.

But since there are several factors, the point stands, you cannot generalize the 97 times things.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vaccination+rate+US&oq=Vaccination+rate+US&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l5j69i60l2.2802j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

They're all over 50%, with many over 60%. Not sure how the US has won still. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlygUb9RVgA

Apparently, Bill Gates said that "they didn't do a great job with therapeutics". Does "they" refer to the WHO since he's their biggest donator? It's kind of similar to what you've mentioned @Pug2 about 'winning'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlygUb9RVgA

We had a question a few posts ago about generalized statistics.
As to 'how'.
The answer is - by doing so.
The unvaccinated are 97 times as likely to die by getting Covid as the fully vaccinated are to die from getting Covid.
The statement stands.  The statistic - stands.
Talking about variations in the various sub-groups will never ever invalidate an overall statistic ?
Try "most Canadians live in Canada"
but somebody sputters:  "But but but - a lot of Canadians live abroad - outside Canada  !!  How can you possibly say that ?? "
Yes - a lot of Canadians live outside Canada - but so what ?
And water is wet too.  How many of these 'water is wet' style assertions are we going to see ?
The statement continues to stand.
Most Canadians live in Canada.
"How do you know ?  Have you got 'evidence' ??  Peer-reviewed ?  Links please ! "
The moon exists too.  
So what if subcategories within a group vary from the overall statistics?

What do we call it when anybody/somebody then keeps asserting to the effect 
"how can you then state that statistic?"
One mo' time -   odds are 9,700 percent worse of dying once getting Covid for unvaccinated persons as compared to such odds for fully vaccinated persons.
Comment:
But what about people living in monasteries in Lourdes France?
Or Shaolin priests isolated in Asian mountains ?

What about them?
We could talk about Icelanders in Reykjavik penthouses too ...
maybe 'the odds' are different for them too.  So what ?

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

" The probability that someone dies from a disease doesn’t just depend on the disease itself, but also on the treatment they receive, and on the patient’s own ability to recover from it."

If the statistic of a sub-category varies that massively, then different decisions should be taken regarding those sub-groups. 

For example age, in the study I referenced:

The difference is clear between 18-29 (0.02 daily deaths per 100 000) for example and 60-69 (3.12 daily deaths per 100 000)

If according to ANSM at one point in France there were about 30 000 people who developed serious side-effects related to a vaccine dose, out of about 136M doses (I already sent that link many times), that makes 0.02% which is greater than:

0.02 daily deaths for 60 days per 100 000 (0.02*60=1.2; 1.2/100 000 = 0.000012; 0.000012*100 =0.0012%) for people between 18-29 years of age on average.

For 70+, risks of dying from COVID are far greater and thus greater than risks of developing side-effects from a vaccine dose, which makes it beneficial for people like this to take the vaccine.

Age is one of the more important factors, but there are many other factors. Some people are immunocompromised. Some people are obese, have comorbidities. For these people, the vaccine is beneficial.

For some other people, it's just not. 

Here's another good graph that helps compare the age factor and the vaccination status factor.

We can see that the difference in hospitalizations is greater between some age groups than between vaccinated/unvaccinated status groups except for that 70+ age group which according to this should receive the vaccine asap.

There are all kinds of subcategories and variables.
Including by country - region - and so on.
But that doesn't invalidate overall statistics.

I've already suggested - emphatically - that seniors and people who are infirm or with chronic conditions and people who have allergies and are allergy-prone ...  could weigh their decisions carefully.
Vaccination should be planned.
It may be important to provide for difficulties that might arise.
Who knows this ?  How about an example.
The authorities that vaccinate people.
They'll want to observe you for 15 or 20 minutes - following vaccination.
Its on the web.  All authorities everywhere in the world?
Anybody checking the web could know by 'checking' ??
(no - nobody is all-seeing or all-knowing.  Reminder.   )

Do people go into vaccination with their eyes shut ?
Would authorities ask them to wait - as a kind of Afterthought?
Why would they do it that way?
'Oh - by the way - we want you to hang around for 15 minutes ...  Okay?'
How about ... No.  Its not done that way.
I can almost see it now ...  "but but but how do you Know this ??  Links please !"

There's something called logic.  It does exist in the world.
They're going to vaccinate you and then kick you out - send you home without bothering to see if you have a severe reaction or not?
The policy I've heard about - more than once - is if you do have a Truly severe reaction  (emphasis on the word Truly) - then you're not to be vaccinated again. 
But
Does one need to cross the street ?  Is safety guaranteed?
No.
Does that mean people are afraid to cross the street?
It means you watch.  And you wait for the light.  And you watch.
Some pedestrians are silly in how they cross though.
Arrogant.  I imagine they account for a lot of the runovers.

"The authorities that vaccinate people.
They'll want to observe you for 15 or 20 minutes - following vaccination."

Side-effects aren't only developed 15 or 20 minutes after vaccination. There are long-term, mid-term, and short-term. 

"The policy I've heard about - more than once - is if you do have a Truly severe reaction  (emphasis on the word Truly) - then you're not to be vaccinated again. "

Oh yeah if I get something like pericarditis or myocarditis I won't get vaccinated again, thank the lord for that. If I die, I won't get vaccinated again. If I get a severe condition I won't get vaccinated again, but the severe condition has already happened. There's no repayment.

"Does one need to cross the street?  Is safety guaranteed?
No."

The safety of both isn't comparable. In fact, with some common sense (looking out and as you said waiting for the light), you can avoid getting into a car accident when crossing the streets. Can you prevent the side-effects/serious reaction of developing with simple common sense as well? No! 

What are the odds of getting into a car accident by crossing the road if you lookout? Maybe we can get a concrete number, or maybe not but that's not important because it's not comparable to the risks of side-effects of that vaccine. They're about 0.02%. And they're greater than the odds of a young person in good health to die from COVID so why on earth would you vaccinate them. Some people want to get the vaccine as a precaution. It's totally understandable. Some people want to take their own precautions and refuse to get the jab because of those side-effect numbers. Is it reasonable to force someone to do something that's not beneficial, and call it " "good for society's health?"

Some random observations…

We’re all being lied to. Daily.

One doesn’t know who to believe and i choose not to read, watch, or listen to the media/news. Does that mean i have my head in the sand?

I’m “older” and took the initial two-shot program. When i was told i had to sign a waiver of my rights in order to be vaccinated, i wondered why? I got pretty sick for about a week. Then and only then did my physician say that maybe i shouldn’t have done so. 

I’m still employed and am considered an “out of compliance” employee not having been boostered in the last five months. I asked if the boosters only last five months, and if one can receive the vax every five months. Either way, I do not have the same access to the same benefits as the others. (i work 100% from home) Now I’m considered a lower classification of employee. I’ve never had anything less than superb and stellar annual appraisals… until now. 

I have an elderly acquaintance, ( or more correctly had) who became ill and was admitted to the local hospital. Yes, fully and completely vaccinated and up to date. He was told he had pneumonia. Eight days later tested positive for Covid. He was tested negative upon admittance. The hospital air flighted him to the university hospital where five days later he passed away. The official reason of death stated was pneumonia. The university said he should have been transferred immediately. (EDIT: Because of the Covid) Since he died in another county, his death isn’t recorded as local, as many others were not. 

We’re all being lied to. Daily.

"Side-effects aren't only developed 15 or 20 minutes after vaccination. There are long-term, mid-term, and short-term. "
Yes - and again - water is wet too.
Does the fact that side effects might happen later mean that the authorities shouldn't observe for 15 minutes?
No.
Does the fact that crossing the street doesn't have side effects mean that people shouldn't get vaccinated ?
No.  
Does the fact that side effects of vaccination might occur later mean that those who are fully vaccinated have an over 9000 percent better chance of surviving if they then get covid - than those who aren't vaccinated ... just 'goes away' ?
No.  
Does the fact that hospitalizion for Covid is much much less likely to be necessary if one has been fully vaccinated 'go away' because 'side effects of vaccination might happen later in a small percentage of cases' ?
No.
Does the fact that I'm saying these things mean that I'm claiming somebody else here is saying the things I'm referring to?
No
Does that mean that person won't try to make it about him or me ?
We'll see.  

Next:  More examination of this Raoult character. 
And of some of the 'others'.

Yeah that story is quite sad, may his soul rest in peace. I think what you said goes to show that the vaccine isn't a magical thing that makes you survive if you get infected with COVID.

I wonder what the conditions of the waiver are.

As for the employment-related things, yeah it's crazy what some employers are doing because of vaccination status.

Apparently, immunity gets lower several months after vaccination, hence the 5 month-booster requirement but I believe it's totally unfair to relegate someone because of vaccination status for reasons stated in this thread. 

"Does the fact that side effects might happen later mean that the authorities shouldn't observe for 15 minutes?"

Who put that under contention? I just said it wasn't sufficient.

"Does the fact that crossing the street doesn't have side effects mean that people shouldn't get vaccinated ?
No.  "

Again completely missing the point. Some people have more side-effect risks than covid death risk!

"Does the fact that side effects of vaccination might occur later mean that those who are fully vaccinated have an over 9000 percent better chance of surviving if they then get covid - than those who aren't vaccinated ... just 'goes away' ?
No.  "

But this 9000 percent isn't specific to certain people who aren't benefiting from taking the jab.

"Does the fact that hospitalizion for Covid is much much less likely to be necessary if one has been fully vaccinated 'go away' because 'side effects of vaccination might happen later in a small percentage of cases' ?
No."

That small percentage of cases for some people is higher than risks of dying from COVID/even getting hospitalized.

"Who put that under contention?"
Somebody might have.  Not I.
Why would it be 'under contenion' if its not and wasn't ?
But as predicted -whoever seems to be suggesting its about him.  Again.
Repeated:  
"Does the fact that side effects might happen later mean that the authorities shouldn't observe for 15 minutes?"
Maybe there'll be no reply this time.
Or maybe there'll be another reply - but again with no answer.
That's okay.  Questions don't have light coming out of them.

"the point."
There's many points.
And is it for anyone here to ordain for others what 'the' point is?
Try 'no'.
The 9000 percent better chance for the fully vaccinated of not dying after then getting Covid as compared with for those who are not vaccinated -
is 'a' point.  'A' point that isn't going to go away.
'Isn't specific'  - as already stated it might not be specific to Shaolin monks -
and many.  But it stands.  Perhaps whoever will try to cast as much doubt as possible on the overwhelming statistic.  9,700 percent difference.
And doubt on Australia and South Korea doing over ten times as better as the USA in the very important statistic of Covid deaths per million of their populations.
The Covid disinformation leaders in the world are powerful.
Especially in USA it seems.

"Does the fact that side effects might happen later mean that the authorities shouldn't observe for 15 minutes?"

Fine, no.

Is this relevant though? 

"The 9000 percent better chance for the fully vaccinated of not dying after then getting Covid as compared with for those who are not vaccinated -
is 'a' point.  'A' point that isn't going to go away.
'Isn't specific'  - as already stated it might not be specific to Shaolin monks -
and many.  But it stands.  Perhaps whoever will try to cast as much doubt as possible on the overwhelming statistic.  9,700 percent difference."

It doesn't go away. However, it's not specific to a huge amount of the population, which is the age group of healthy (most) 12-17 and 18-29 years old people, and not just a minority such as the Shaolin monks.

Just saw 'Is this relevant though?'
The fact that authorities observe the vaccinated for 15 minutes afterwards -
that needs to be asked as to whether that's relevant ?
Is there to be a 'case for irrelevancy' ?
Hopefully - whoever will refrain.  Save time and screen space.

Unless you are at risk of a severe allergic reaction from previous vaccines, which is a very tiny portion of the population, then the vaccine does not currently present any major risks.  Given that billions of people are vaccinated now (which is far more data than clinical trials), that low risk seems to hold up.

@btickler it is a low risk:

https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2022/02/08/olivier-veran-reconnait-enfin-lexistence-deffets-secondaires-graves-lies-a-la-vaccination/

“We based on a percentage which is that of the ANSM, on average 24% of the side effects observed are serious. What do we mean by serious: death, life-threatening, hospitalization, a severe condition that will burden your daily life for several weeks or months – officially the figure given to us by the ANSM is about 30,000 people reported serious side effects, but when we know that only 10 to 15% of side effects are reported to the authorities, it is in reality probably more than 300,000 people who are concerned”

M.Provence

“Of the 136 million doses injected in France, there are 137,400 victims of adverse effects... it is on this proportion that we count a quarter of serious adverse effects"

Maths suggests it's about 0.02% of serious adverse effects.

And again, there is this point of 10 to 15%, which might not be accurate, but possible, because logically there is no way all side-effects are reported and attributed to the vaccine. That's not the focus of the post though.

What is meant by serious?

Death, a life-threatening condition, a serious condition that can affect one's daily life for weeks or months...

According to the Ontario table I posted earlier taken from https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

There were 0.01 daily deaths recorded in the 'last 60 days' (at the time) for 100 000 people in Ontario for the unvaccinated of age 12-17.

There were 0.02 daily deaths recorded in the 'last 60 days' (at the time) for 100 000 people in Ontario for the unvaccinated of age 18-29.

Not sure how you calculate this, I tried for 18-29 (The more important one because these people have jobs and are being forced to get vaccinated in order to keep them):

0.02*60= 1.2

1.2/100,000= 0.000012

0.000012*100= 0.0012%

0.0012% < 0.02 %

Maybe the calculi aren't accurate? But still would the risk of dying from COVID be higher than the risk of getting adverse effects according to the ANSM numbers mentioned above?

And that's IN CASE of a COVID infection.

"Given that billions of people are vaccinated now (which is far more data than clinical trials)"

Not enough data to evaluate long-term side effects though. Again, probably low-risks, but unknown.

Once again it's not relevant here because it wasn't under contention. The demanded answer is not relevant, not the fact.

"Once again it's not relevant here because it wasn't under contention. "
Wrong wrong wrong.
Something doesn't become irrelevant because its 'not under contention'.
There was no 'demanded' either.

Good post.  Well put. 
States the salient points efficiently.