Toronto Hospital 70% Unvaccinated

[Vaticinator]

So you're as scared of covid as you would have been of getting bombed by the Germans in WW2. Got it. Totally normal.

[Aviatard]

So you're as scared of covid as you would have been of getting bombed by the Germans in WW2. Got it. Totally normal.

Nice attempt at deflection.

I didn’t say that. It’s just comparable levels of contrarian behavior. It wouldn’t be so bad but for all the lies you use to justify your position. Why not just admit the real reason is nobody is going to tell you what to do. You know, like a toddler reasons.

[Aviatard]

No. YOU can stay home and leave the normal people alone.

So, you’re the normal people then?

Based on what is written in these threads. Yup.

LOL

[JonMom]

https://elizabethjohnston.org/majority- ... 325f6f02ba

The majority of COVID-19 hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada are made up of “fully vaccinated” cases and greatly outweigh “unvaccinated” and “partially vaccinated” cases.

LifeSiteNews reports that, based on the publicly available data for the province, as of January 7th while there were 1,327 “Fully vaccinated cases” in hospitals, there were just 441 “Unvaccinated cases” and 100 “Partially vaccinated cases.”

In ICUs, “unvaccinated” patients slightly surpass partially and fully vaccinated cases; there were 119 “unvaccinated,” 17 “partially vaccinated,” and 106 “fully vaccinated” cases.

As for those who test positive for COVID-19, those who are fully vaccinated also greatly outweigh those who are not.

In the same period, the province reported there were 9,515 positive tests among “fully vaccinated” people.

The number of “unvaccinated” COVID-19 cases, meanwhile, was just 1,543. Of those who were “partially vaccinated,” this figure was a scant 375.

Meanwhile, other Canadian provinces appear to be witnessing the same phenomenon.

“The Alberta government lists 258 people who have a ‘complete’ vaccine status, 19 people with ‘partial’ vaccine status, and 221 with ‘unvaccinated’ status as in hospital due to COVID,” LifeSiteNews notes.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, “there are 1,948 ‘fully vaccinated’ people in hospitals attributed to COVID. This compares to 1,046 ‘unvaccinated’ people and 78 ‘partially vaccinated’ people in hospitals due to COVID.”

Last year, one of Canada’s largest newspaper, The Toronto Sun, ran a headline quoting vitriolic comments about the unvaccinated, some going as far as to suggest that they should be denied care at hospitals over their refusal to get vaccinated against the virus should they contract it and need medical attention.

Pandemic of the vaccinated it appears. I think we need to start taxing the vaccinated as they are taking all of the ICU beds.

[CpnCrunch]

Pandemic of the vaccinated it appears. I think we need to start taxing the vaccinated as they are taking all of the ICU beds.

Not really. Even your data shows that unvaccinated adults (about 10% of the Ontario adult population) are taking up 50% of the Covid ICU beds. That means they are 5x more likely to be hospitalised.

[DanWEC]

Posthumane, thanks for a rational response. Good points, and justifies a proper reply.

First off, I am far from a statistician. I've had to use modelling and population economics in the past in some genetics studies, but stats can be utterly bonkers to try and reign in the more levels you add. You know the expression about stats!

I wouldn't say taking the face value statistics from the ICU is crude, it's simply unadjusted or interpreted, because of the fact that it simply "is". It's the end result. There is no prediction or bias in the sample group. It encompasses everyone in the population from neonatal units to geriatrics, so there shouldn't need to be a correction of any kind unless I'm misinterpreting your point.

Since the ICU percentage really is the end result of what the efficacy of vaccinations should represent, it should just be as simple as ICU True/False and Vaccinated True/False, compared to the population. And since, in our health care system, there isn't a bias or barrier in the sample group, it should be an accurate cross-section and theoretically should yield a near 0% residual.

The ironic part, and why I hate statistics, is that the mere fact that the sample group, as a first order result, is .003% of the population, and data from that size could be rendered irrelevant depending how you look at it. I got a rough margin of error around 6%, but I feel that might be too low. I also forget off the top of my head as I'm writing this on a break how to do a correlation, not just instances, which will change the efficacy based on the pure numbers a bit. Enough to make your head spin.

Regardless, I'm standing by my own opinion, based on my own observations on published data, and peer-reviewed studies without funding or beneficiaries from any pharmaceuticals- and no wacko third party sources or websites. Yes, immunization absolutely has an positive effect, but I don't personally believe the benefits justify this insane division we've created amongst ourselves. It's utterly tragic the rhetoric and vitriol from "both sides" (Ug). We need to be a bit nicer, this will hopefully be long gone in a year and there doesn't need to be lasting scars from our own actions.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and ability to govern themselves in whatever way necessary to feel safe. I absolutely won't ascribe my opinions onto anyone else, hurl any insults or give those received any credibility. I'm merely describing how I've arrived at my own conclusions in recent months.

Cheers.

[Posthumane]

I wouldn't say taking the face value statistics from the ICU is crude, it's simply unadjusted or interpreted, because of the fact that it simply "is". It's the end result. There is no prediction or bias in the sample group. It encompasses everyone in the population from neonatal units to geriatrics, so there shouldn't need to be a correction of any kind unless I'm misinterpreting your point.

That is what the word crude means: unadjusted, unprocessed, unrefined. That is how the term is used in statistics; e.g. crude mortality rate vs age adjusted mortality rate. The crude rate tells you something (i.e. how many people are in the hospital from the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups) but it doesn't tell you everything (i.e. vaccine efficacy) until you adjust for confounding factors.

Since the ICU percentage really is the end result of what the efficacy of vaccinations should represent, it should just be as simple as ICU True/False and Vaccinated True/False, compared to the population. And since, in our health care system, there isn't a bias or barrier in the sample group, it should be an accurate cross-section and theoretically should yield a near 0% residual.

This is where your error lies. There is a definite bias in the sample group. In order to test for vaccine efficacy you would need to have two groups that are roughly equal in all variables except the one being tested (vaccination status). Since the two groups have other differences between them besides vaccination status (age being the big one) then you are not testing one variable by looking at ICU admissions, but a combination of several variables. This is an example of Simpson's Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox).

Let me see if I can make that a bit clearer:
People in the 70+ age group in Canada are vaccinated at a rate of 95%+, people in the <12 age group are vaccinated at a rate of less than 5%, and the ages in between vary from low 80%s to mid 90%s, scaling positively with age. The median age of a vaccinated person is significantly higher than that of an unvaccinated person, so if the vaccine had 0% efficacy you would expect the mortality rate in vaccinated group to be significantly higher than the unvaccinated group, not equal to it.

As an example, take the hospitalization data from Alberta. As of 12 Jan they had 3981 unvaccinated hospitalizations and 1857 fully vaccinated hospitalizations in the preceding 120 days. As a crude analysis you could say that the number of unvaccinated hospitalized people were 2.14 times greater, and with a vaccine coverage of 72% in Alberta the rate of hospitalization was about 5 times greater. However, once you age stratify it you get a much different picture:

ABhosp12Jan.JPG (169.98 KiB) Viewed 2223 times

As you can see, a person in the 40-49 age range is about 35x more likely to be hospitalized if unvaccinated compared to their vaccinated counterparts.

Regardless, I'm standing by my own opinion, based on my own observations on published data, and peer-reviewed studies without funding or beneficiaries from any pharmaceuticals- and no wacko third party sources or websites. Yes, immunization absolutely has an positive effect, but I don't personally believe the benefits justify this insane division we've created amongst ourselves. It's utterly tragic the rhetoric and vitriol from "both sides" (Ug). We need to be a bit nicer, this will hopefully be long gone in a year and there doesn't need to be lasting scars from our own actions.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and ability to govern themselves in whatever way necessary to feel safe. I absolutely won't ascribe my opinions onto anyone else, hurl any insults or give those received any credibility. I'm merely describing how I've arrived at my own conclusions in recent months.

Cheers.

I don't disagree with you about the idea that everyone needs to be nicer to each other. I'm not big on making things mandatory; rather I'm a fan of natural selection. However, people need to have the correct information in order to make informed decisions. If an "informed opinion" is based on bad data or incorrect analysis, then it is not an informed opinon at all. I'm merely correcting the logical error you made in arriving at your conclusion that the vaccine efficacy is nowhere near what was advertised.

[7ECA]

The latest data from BC shows the unvaccinated at at a significantly elevated risk of negative outcomes, compared to their vaccinated peers.

Unvaccinated adults are:

12 times more likely to be hospitalized.

27 times more likely to be in the ICU or CCU.

40 times more likely to die.

But hey, it's just a cold...

[Vaticinator]

40 times more than what number?

[JonMom]

https://headlineusa.com/cdc-8-10-omicron-fully-vaxxed/

Looks like Omicron is hitting the hospital admissions in the U.S. with almost 80% being vaccinated per the CDC.

If the vaccine, vaccine passports, lockdowns and such worked you would think Israel would be able to show a victory. This is not the case however. More cases then ever in Israel. But the fifth shot will work just you wait. Also interesting to see four spikes in cases/death and four shots to be fully vaccinated.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ry/israel/

I don't see how vaccinating an entire country has proven to be successful anywhere in the world. Can you send me an example of success?

[CpnCrunch]

https://headlineusa.com/cdc-8-10-omicron-fully-vaxxed/

Looks like Omicron is hitting the hospital admissions in the U.S. with almost 80% being vaccinated per the CDC.

No, you're lying. Here is the cnbc source they are apparently quoting:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/new-cdc ... ov-15.html

Read it. It doesn't say what "headline usa" says it says. It's nothing to do with hospital admissions. It's surveillance data from 43 early omicron cases in early December. Why do you post this lying bs? Can you not do some basic fact checking?

Here is a cnbc article which does talk about vaccine status vs hospitalisation:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/31/omicron ... tudy-.html

"One vaccine dose is 52% effective at preventing hospitalization from the omicron variant, while two doses were 72% effective, according to the study."

[Aviatard]

[a bunch of bullshit from a misinformation site that isn’t remotely true]

Anti-vaxxers always lie

[DanWEC]

What we should really be focusing on is 80% capacity in the US is making news mid-pandemic, while our relentlessly amputated health care system was at 90% BEFORE covid.
Every year there are hundreds of articles during flu season describing hospitals as being overwhelmed.

At 2.5 hospital beds per 1000 people we're near the bottom of all developed nations. It's embarassing, an utter failure that was long predicted, and THE reason you can't eat in a restaurant or have a family party right now. We should be a lot more angry and more vocal about this from here on out.

[CpnCrunch]

[a bunch of bullshit from a misinformation site that isn’t remotely true]

Anti-vaxxers always lie

The Pandemicist’s lies are far more dangerous.

So there is no pandemic?

[cdnavater]

The Pandemicist’s lies are far more dangerous.

So there is no pandemic?

Bit of a leap there captain breakfast cereal. Feel like I’m talking to a toddler.

FOD, you literally contribute absolutely nothing to this forum, other than made up words.
So, I reiterate, FOCUS!

[CpnCrunch]

Bit of a leap there captain breakfast cereal. Feel like I’m talking to a toddler.

FOD, you literally contribute absolutely nothing to this forum, other than made up words.
So, I reiterate, FOCUS!

I cordially invite you to focus as well. You have become radicalized, yet you don’t see it. Your pandemicist rhetoric is offensive and bigoted. I’m here to make sure you know it. But of course you know this already.

Whats a pandemicist?

[rxl]

[a bunch of bullshit from a misinformation site that isn’t remotely true]

Anti-vaxxers always lie

The Pandemicist’s lies are far more dangerous.

“The Pandemicist’s lies are far more dangerous.”

I would encourage you to think about that statement for just a moment …

[Aviatard]

FOD, you literally contribute absolutely nothing to this forum, other than made up words.
So, I reiterate, FOCUS!

I cordially invite you to focus as well. You have become radicalized, yet you don’t see it. Your pandemicist rhetoric is offensive and bigoted. I’m here to make sure you know it. But of course you know this already.

Whats a pandemicist?

It’s a word that angry, contrarian anti-vaxxers use to describe normal people when their lies and phony arguments are exposed as utter bullshit.

[Just another canuck]

…

[C-GKNT]

...
First off, I am far from a statistician. I've had to use modelling and population economics in the past in some genetics studies, but stats can be utterly bonkers to try and reign in the more levels you add. You know the expression about stats!
...

I am, at least was trained as, a statistician (B.Math/M.Math in Statistics). Statisticians are trained to examine data with varying levels of quality (how and why is it collected makes a BIG difference) and use that data to form conclusions (?opinions?). These opinions are changed or strengthened as more data is collected/verified.

The problem is when people do the opposite. They instead form their opinion and then accept or reject data based on how it supports their opinion.

The biggest gap I see is the lack of understanding of what statistics can and cannot do. A rigorous mathematical analysis concludes with "Based on the data it is/is not statistically significant that..."
Anything beyond that is subject to personal biases.