Live data from Hacker News

Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

ons.gov.uk

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone needs vaccination. Full stop. I wrote more about this topic here: https://soatok.blog/2021/05/10/why-i-chose-to-be-vaccinated-... Some real-world data: https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/143741231155210240... A Twitter thread from a scientist and vaccine researcher: https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/143814553785796199...

Young males perhaps shouldn't be vaccinated since they are more likely to have a side effect than covid. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

That’s not the claim in the article.

The article states that boys are 6 times more likely to get myocarditis than be hospitalized with covid. But such a claim is inherently biased. You have an extremely well followed population on the vaccine case, and a relatively poorly followed population in the infected case. As such, it should not be surprising when results like this are found; boys in that age range are 3-9 times more likely to get myocarditis from COVID itself than the vaccine: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocardi...

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK recommendation was that immunocompromised people be vaccinated; they were prioritised, in fact, so ~all of the immunocompromised people would've been vaccinated for most of the time period.

Ok thanks for the clarification, I was under the impression that immunocompromised people couldn't take the vaccine.

No, they can generally take it, and most jurisdictions recommend it and prioritise them. There is some question of how effective it is in immunocompromised people; some appear not to produce very many antibodies for long after vaccination (though that's not all that great a proxy for efficacy).

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glancing though the report you linked, it says 55-70% reduction in symptomatic disease after 1 dose and more after 2. Higher effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalisation and death. For delta, they quote a 10-15% drop of effectiveness after two/one doses respectively. That seems in line with the “official” line and different to your numbers? Or am I reading you wrong? Another nugget in there is that something…

The numbers are in table 5.

p.s. The table 5 mentioned above is in the week 36 report.

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#154
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear Facebook Karen, What is ironic is how people like you talk with such confidence and self-assurance, but don't know the meaning and can't use simple words like endemic. Kids from 4th grade know more stuff about viruses, the immune system, and what vaccines are supposed to do. But those kids actually went to biology class and opened a real textbook. Textbooks. Not facebook posts. Difference of mere 4 letters, but…

Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? You've done it repeatedly lately (e.g. this comment, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514075 ). It has the effect of destroying curious conversation, which is what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Tolerating the spread of false and manipulative information and opinions does much worse things than destroying "curious conversation." As i said - society is sitting on a high horse with its choice to tolerate nonsense for the sake of "guidelines" and inclusion and that has proven detrimental for everyone but the undertakers.

Do you have a button in the admin panel that will save the next person who believed that they're part of the "overwhelming majority of adults are at no risk?"

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#155
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? You've done it repeatedly lately (e.g. this comment, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514075 ). It has the effect of destroying curious conversation, which is what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Tolerating the spread of false and manipulative information and opinions does much worse things than destroying "curious conversation." As i said - society is sitting on a high horse with its choice to tolerate nonsense for the sake of "guidelines" and inclusion and that has proven detrimental for everyone but the undertakers. Do you have a button in the admin panel that will save the next person who believed that th…

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it ok to post name-calling rants on divisive topics, which is directly against HN's rules. If you want to do something about false information, there are ways to do that which don't break the HN guidelines. As a bonus, they're also more likely to be persuasive (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

I've noticed that when people use phrases like "the spread of false and manipulative information and opinions", they generally just seem to mean "I think X is wrong and I feel strongly about it" (because such comments generally contain no information to disambiguate what they're saying from the latter). In other words, phrases like "manipulative information", "dis/misinformation", and so on, are generally pejoratives that express an intensified feeling. If we take such statements at the level of their components, i.e. "X is false" and "I feel strongly", it's easier to see how to deal with them in the intended spirit of this site:

X is false – patiently provide better information and explain how it is correct;

I feel strongly – take responsibility for regulating one's own feelings rather than venting them into language that blasts the opposing side.

There's nothing wrong with strong feelings, but it's important not to let them morph into aggression towards the perceived source of the feeling, such as by calling people who disagree with you stupid, and so on. We can't have that here because it destroys conversation. When other people who also feel strongly get hit with that, they respond in kind—where "in kind" means escalating, because it always feels like the other person is doing worse. That's how we get a downward spiral and we're trying to avoid that here (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=downward%20spiral%20by:dang&da...).

You've done this kind of thing repeatedly before (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28192074 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26744307). Even if you feel like you're nobly defending society by addressing others that way, it's seriously against HN's rules and we ban accounts that keep doing it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They reduce the chances of mutation. Perhaps, but you also don't get what I am saying. If we vaccinated everyone, the virus wouldn't be eradicated because animals can be hosts. Because of that, the evolutionary pressure put on the virus by everyone being vaccinated could result in the virus mutating enough to evade immunity. The same thing happens with flu every year.

I never said one word about eradication. You're having an argument with someone who isn't me. If you vaccinate everyone then the near perfect VE against severe disease and hospitalization keeps people out of the hospitals and keeps them from falling over. And that is sufficient. I never said anything about eradicating the virus or eliminating all infection and transmission. But at that point THEN you have hit the poi…

> Or put simply, to stop the waves of nearly 100% unvaccinated people dying in hospitals, just vaccinate everyone. No unvaccinated people, no hospitals falling over.

Half of the people getting hospitalized are not getting hospitalized for COVID. They are just testing positive for COVID.

And hospitals nearly always run near capacity. And their capacity is also determined by staffing, which is going down because nurses don't want to get vaccinated against a virus they are probably immune to.

All factors matter. You can't just claim vaccination would be a panacea, even if it appears that way.

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said one word about eradication. You're having an argument with someone who isn't me. If you vaccinate everyone then the near perfect VE against severe disease and hospitalization keeps people out of the hospitals and keeps them from falling over. And that is sufficient. I never said anything about eradicating the virus or eliminating all infection and transmission. But at that point THEN you have hit the poi…

> Or put simply, to stop the waves of nearly 100% unvaccinated people dying in hospitals, just vaccinate everyone. No unvaccinated people, no hospitals falling over. Half of the people getting hospitalized are not getting hospitalized for COVID. They are just testing positive for COVID. And hospitals nearly always run near capacity. And their capacity is also determined by staffing, which is going down because nurses…

> Half of the people getting hospitalized are not getting hospitalized for COVID. They are just testing positive for COVID.

Yeah this myth again.

You're not "doing your own research" you're just regurgitating talking points.

I'm entirely done here.

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any under-12 kids in the blood donors? And yes blood donors aren't representative of the general population due to selection effects.

You can read the report, but the blood donor population is 17 years or older. The result of the report is that some form of immunity exists in 97%+ of the blood donors at least 17 years old, in the UK.

And blood donors are either socially responsible (probably vaccinated) or economically disadvantaged (probably exposed).

Re: Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AND IF EVERYONE HAD JUST GOTTEN VACCINATED NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING AND WE WOULD BE BACK TO NORMAL. We can't know that. You are assuming. For all we know, if everyone got vaccinated the virus could have mutated around it faster, leaving us at square one.

The vaccines are something around 98% effective against severe disease. If people were vaccinated they'd stay out of the hospitals. The hospitals are the problem. I feel like I'm explaining arithmetic to an idiot. And if you vaccinate everyone there will be less infections overall. For all of the worst-casing about VE and waning against infection it still isn't 0% VE. And breakthrough infections have less culturable…

Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. You did that repeatedly in this thread and that's not cool.

Even if you don't feel you owe the people you're disagreeing with better, you owe this community better if you're posting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN