There just isn’t any need to over analyse it. Just look at the curves which for each indiviual country are a good reflection of what’s going on in each individuel country (since the time when they last changed how they record the numbers). It is clear that the UK both cases and deaths are still increasing where as many EU countries have or are peaking. This of course can change but at the moment that is the case and indicates the UK are doing something wrong. I wasn’t at all catagoric but I think it’s worth asking why?
This hasn’t anything to do with how data is collected it’s a simple observation!
In certain debates yes and I don’t dispute the data you put up, it was just irrelevant!
When observing trends all you need to know is that the countries data one week is collected like that of any other. i.e following trends!
For more in depth analysis on more specific points then understand how each countries data is collected becomes important, yes. Thats not what my very general comment was doing. Your response was that of an over zealous UK has no problems pov!
Fully vaccinated: 8.96m
At least one dose: 19.6m
Total population: 170m
The government has decided to open the schools and educational institutions. Exact date is, as per norm, sketchy, but in all probability beginning of October.
Considering our school calendar usually ends in early December, the wisdom of opening schools at this point is, once again, debatable.
It’s not right. Observing that transmission from fully vaccinated people is possible does not mean the vaccine has no effect. It does. A significant one.
They do. They just don’t eliminate it meaning that NPI are still required as an adjunct (that is, if you have interest in trying to reduce overall case load). There is also the reality that a big reason we see so many so called “breakthrough” cases is the level of exposure to the virus vaccinated people have from unvaccinated people. If there vaccine mandates, vaccinated people would be further protected from infection because there would be fewer cases thus limiting their level of exposure
That is only partly true. Comparing trends between different countries can be useful, but can be misleading if the different approaches to testing are capturing different images at any point in time that don’t change equally when situations on the ground change.
Thanks I’ll see if I can dig out the reports that lead to this conclusion. I was highly suspicious of the claim but needed to fact check it further. Lets just say I was far from convinced by it.
I agree however it’s not so flagrantly stupid as to accumulate ‘averages’ over the whole pandemic where the collecting of data within an individuel country has changed over the course.
It still gives a relative picture particularly when comparing european countries and in fact the biggest variant would be the UK with there 28 days deaths don’ count stuff. Even with that the deaths in the UK are increasing!
Edit: I will leave the precise data analysis to experts. As an amateur I feel my points are valid. Why not look at what others have posted? crickey that would be a mess.
They didn’t have to they chose to. Some constraints were imposed. The initial target of 60% vaccination would have been reached anyway and Macron’s personal appeal helped sped that up.
Too early to say the effect of what was imposed, seems people not vaccinated are just shopping in smaller surfaced shops.
Lowering transmission by e.g. 50% would still be fricking great. Genuinely don’t get how some people can use that as an excuse not to get vaccinated. I hear that a lot from people/idiots
It’s become a common refrain, but it’s the result of a variety of misunderstandings
Ignoring the bad faith takes from people who need that to be true to justify their position, I think the two main causes of misunderstandings on this are 1) related to the regulatory strategy to get these vaccines initially approved under a tight timeline, and 2) viewing this as binary rather than continuous
The vaccines were initially only approved to protect against serious disease and as such in their approvals there was no mention of protection against transmission. That was merely a case of how difficult it was to collect the different types of data and so what was available for the regulatory bodies to review in the required timescale. It was always assumed there would be an effect on transmission as well, and the RWE has shown that to be really robust.
The correct way to think about these things is in reduction in risk, not in the elimination of risk. Therefore, the existence of breakthrough cases only means it doesn’t work if you have an unrealistic view of what “work” means.
There is a reality that there is little the vaccine can do to protect you in the period between the virus getting into your airway and making it down into your blood stream. So what we see is there is a short period where symptomatic vaccinated people appear to be as contagious as symptomatic unvaccinated people, but what we also know is that period is much shorter and we strongly suspect it occurs at a far lower rate among the vaccinated. The net result is a significant if imperfect level of protection against infection/contagiousness for vaccinated people.
We’re also running into other issues that make the vaccine appear less effective in ways that don’t actually argue for it not protecting against infection/contagiousness - 1) people are now experiencing waning effectiveness, 2) new variants, 3) a mathematical quirk that pushes the measurement of vaccine effectiveness lower the more people develop natural immunity through infection.
The reality is that no one thing is a panacea, especially in an environment way under what is required to reach the herd immunity threshold, so even with an effective vaccine additional measures have to be layered on top to provide full protection. This only means the vaccine “doesn’t work” if you believed that the vaccine was a magic bullet for the individual. I understand why some people might feel that way given some of the messaging, but it was never true.
I don’t think it’s particularly meaningful what label a person wants to give themselves. He may not consider himself Anti-Vax, but he has said a lot of dumb shit about the disease, the politicization of it and the standard public health measures being pursued, and done so on ways that stokes fear, distrust and unfounded skepticism. I prefer to critique him on that rather than on whether he conforms to any specific label.
As for the larger issue of being open minded, I don’t think that by itself is a positive trait to be celebrated or to protect one against criticism. If it is not aligned with tools and a demonstrated ability to separate the dumb ideas from the good ones, then the person is just gullible. Rogan is not only gullible, but starts from a baseline of unconventional beliefs bolstered by an under appreciation of how little he knows about the things he is willing to offer an opinion on. He might at times play the “I’m just a dumb jock asking questions” card, but you don’t get to have the most successful podcast in the planet based on the expression of interesting ideas and then fall back on “blurgh, but I’m just an idiot, why are you listening to me?” as a protection against criticism for advocating dangerous ideas.
Thanks and yes I agree with your points. I’ve always taken the view that these vaccines do nothing other than give you body the tools to recognise and fight the infection.
If I can find time I’ll see if I can find that report that was quoted (on mainstream media believe it or not), see how aligns with your thoughts and try and get a better understanding of where that person was coming from.
Actually I don’t know what messages were communicated elsewhere but in Singapore, we were always told from the beginning that vaccinations is more to prevent serious illnesses and not to prevent transmission. And that was the reason why they were pushing more to be vaccinated because if that is true, then its the unvaccinated that is in danger because with the vaccinated going out and about, they are going to transmit the virus unknowingly to these groups of people and they will get seriously sick and possibly cripple the healthcare system. And that is why even at 83% full vaccination, the government is still pushing for more to be because 17% unvaccinated can still easily cripple the system if clusters start appearing everywhere because of increased mask off activities.
You see I cannot agree with hardly anything in your comments.
Only in the last few weeks Rogan has interviewed Dr Rhonda Patrick who is a virulent supporter of vaccinations. Rogan uses his platform to broadcast the vaccination message. He asks questions, attempts to go deep into specifics with her and on occasion disagrees with her and questions the standard vaccination message.
Could you reference the “dumb shit” he has said about vaccinations? Or has he just raised valid questions that may go against the mainstream thinking? Believe me , if you can show me his dangerous and gullible attitudes I will have a rethink regarding his podcast.
With regards keeping an open mind about things - just because you are willing to consider a proposition or theory does not mean you necessarily believe it. Sometimes you can research things and find that your previously held beliefs on a topic were wrong. Sometimes you are right - the point is to question and examine those beliefs constantly.
For instance take a look at another health crisis that has occurred in the last 40 years or so - “the obesity epidemic.” To keep things brief, there were two main arms of government and medical advice to combat this “epidemic”
Follow a Low fat High Carb Diet.
The Calories in v Calories out mechanism of weight control.
Both have now been proved to be incontrovertibly wrong. The whole premise of dietary advice for the past 50 or so years has not only been wrong, but has made people sick and caused numerous deaths as a result. The same dietary advice is still being promoted in Western cultures today - and look at the outcomes. If you want dangerous advice and dangerous outcomes you would be on far firmer ground with this
It has been proven beyond doubt that obesity is an hereditary and/or hormonal condition for the vast majority of people. But anyone saying so until recently, was considered a quack / a conspiracy theorist or plain gullible. The absolute best thing a person can do for their health is ignore the Government food recommendations.
It is fortunate that we have open minded people who are willing to question the accepted wisdoms and baseline beliefs. It is far more dangerous to blindly accept the advice of buffoons like Matt Hancock or the erstwhile President of the USA.
Until someone shows me that Rogan has dangerous or ridiculous opinions I will still listen and explore the world with an open mind.
As stated previously - I have received both AZ shots and encourage everyone to get vaccinated.
