FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > It's a numbers game
It's a numbers game
Jump to: Newest in thread
From public health England... Via the BBC.
"A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%"
So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent.
Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed.
Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed.
Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *F65Man
over a year ago
Ventnor |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
"
Perfectly answered! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If 1 of the jabs had 95% efficacy in the trials and in the real world it had exactly the same results, it's easy to think of it in terms of how much extra protected you are.
You would be 20 times less likely to get infected than someone like you who's not vaccinated.
The vaccines also substantially reduce the potential for serious illness and death. Those types of serious illness would be more likely to need hospitalisation than the vaccinated people, who have just a tiny chance of getting a mild infection. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
"
Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations.
What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *F65Man
over a year ago
Ventnor |
Talking of numbers, the UK currently tests between 1.2 -1.5 million people per day. According to various media/news sites the EU as a whole do not match this number with a population of 300 million plus and that’s just the main countries. Is it no wonder our rates look so high, it’s skewed data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago
Leeds |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations.
What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants.
Cal"
We're does it say new variant less servere |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
From public health England... Via the BBC.
"A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%"
So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent.
Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed.
Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed.
Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday...
"
Let’s just hope we see the top of this wave before we reach 6500 hospitalisations per day else we will go back into lockdown. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The highest number of hospitalisations was January this year - over 4,100 in a day
As we now have 67.8% of the population (over age of 18) double vaccinated I think it highly highly unlikely the daily hospitalisations would exceed the highest hospitalisation day back in January when there was very little vaccine coverage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations.
What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants.
Cal
We're does it say new variant less servere"
I presume it's shown by the change in symptoms. The new top 3 symptoms are headache, runny nose, sore throat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
"
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. "
For god’s sake don’t look up the efficacy of the flu vaccine, that’s when you realise we’re all doomed, doomed .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. "
No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *Marvel-Man
over a year ago
In The Gym |
"
From public health England... Via the BBC.
"A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%"
So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent.
Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed.
Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed.
Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday...
"
I'm going to be honest. You've worked that out incorrectly. The data is correct but your method of calculation isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused."
OK... Well PHE numbers do not say that but let's assume for one moment that you are correct.
How do you measure something that doesn't actually happen? Ie how does one measure a percentage of people who would have been hospitalised?
And then having measured something that doesn't happen.. How does it make any sense to derive a percentage from that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. No its 8 or 4 percent of the people who would have been hospitalised not the total people vaccinated this is where you are getting confused.
OK... Well PHE numbers do not say that but let's assume for one moment that you are correct.
How do you measure something that doesn't actually happen? Ie how does one measure a percentage of people who would have been hospitalised?
And then having measured something that doesn't happen.. How does it make any sense to derive a percentage from that? "
You are saying that 6% of 56k would definitely end up in hospital.
That wouldn’t be the case as not everyone who is infected has required hospital treatment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
No that's not an assumption I am making. I'm using the numbers supplied by PHE. That two jabs of a vaccine are 92 or 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalisations. By definition then 8 or 4 percent are hospitalised. "
No! That is 92/96 percent of those who would otherwise have been hospitalised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"vaccinated or not vaccinated, an infection has not always lead to a hospitalisation. Using the assumption all infections lead to hospitalisations may be why your calculated daily numbers are extraordinarily high.
Yes. If you want a simplistic view of the effects of vaccine on hospitalisations, then it would be: As 66% of the adult population are fully vaccinated and the vaccines are 94% effective, then we could reasonably expect that the number of cases being hospitalized should be around 62% lower than it was before vaccinations.
What that doesn't consider though is improvements in treatments, or the reduction in severity linked to the newer variants.
Cal
We're does it say new variant less servere"
Currently, the newer variants have been shown to be more infectious, but less severe.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated.
The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations.
I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated …
What’s the maths on this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated.
The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations.
I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated …
What’s the maths on this?"
68% of the adult population are double vaccinated..
32% are single vaccinated or not at all (unvaccinated adults is around 12%)
So 68% are 60% of hospitalisations.
32% are 40% of hospitalisations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated.
The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations.
I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated …
What’s the maths on this?"
Just corrected by Vallance 
Now the statistic makes sense
60% of hospitalisations are from unvaccinated
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abs..Woman
over a year ago
.. |
"Announced today that 60% of hospitalisations are those who are double vaccinated.
The vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisations.
I would have expected a higher percentage from those not vaccinated …
What’s the maths on this?
Just corrected by Vallance
Now the statistic makes sense
60% of hospitalisations are from unvaccinated
"
I’ve just read that as well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
From public health England... Via the BBC.
"A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%"
So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent.
"
No - you've misunderstood the stat completely I'm afraid. The jabs are ~95% effective at preventing hospitalisations. This means that of 100 people who've had both jabs and would have previously ended up in hospital if they'd caught covid before being jabbed, 4-8 of them will still end up there. Of the other 92-96, some won't catch covid at all and some will catch it but with less severe symptoms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
From public health England... Via the BBC.
"A separate analysis from PHE found the vaccines were highly effective against preventing hospitalisations from the same variant, with two doses of the Pfizer jab 96% effective and the AstraZeneca jab 92%"
So if my layman's brain understands it... Its saying for every 100 infections having a double dose will keep 92 or 96 percent out.or 8 or 4 percent will be hospitalised. Take an average 6 per cent.
Currently double jabbed adults are nearly 70 percent. Meaning 30 per cent of adults have not been double jabbed.
Today's infections 54k. So let's give it a favourable number and say all of those have been double jabbed even though we know that it's only 70 per cent of adults who have been double jabbed.
Any way... 6 per cent hospital admissions of infections. So 6 per cent of 54k infections... If you follow PHE argument would mean... 3240 hospitalisations a day... Everyday.. As infections go up (they have doubled in about a week) so will be over 100k in a few weeks... That's over 6500 hospitalisations a day... Everyday... Just shows how a total lack of understanding of the subject can lead one to such ridiculous conclusions. To start with about 99% of infected people never even feel particularly ill even without a vaccination. Therefore your starting figure is approximately 1% of infected people who would ordinarily need hospitalisation. Then adjust for the benefit of vaccination !!!!!
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
