What I don't get is the logic of the vaccine passport for indoor hospitality. What it the purpose of such a scheme? A fully vaccinated person over 75 is still more likely to die from Covid19 than an unvaccinated 29 year old. Both can carry the virus so both can spread the disease so what's the point of it all?Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this scheme, the Delta variant is in every other country in Europe. They have all opened indoor hospitality with restrictions including some Countries that use this pass. Ireland as usual spend months saying no, no, no, no and then just as they about to reopen as promised to thousands of employees and despite no rise in case numbers, hospitalisations or deaths, NPHET and the Government decide that we now have to introduce a scheme like this. Zero work has been done on this. It was considered such a good idea and such a useful contingency that NPHET, the HSE and the Government have spent zero time and effort up to now. This is despite constant warnings about the threats of variants.
Rate ratios compared to 18-29 year olds | |||||||||
0-4 years old | 5-17 years old | 18-29 years old | 30-39 years old | 40-49 years old | 50-64 years old | 65-74 years old | 75-84 years old | 85+ years old | |
Cases | <1x | 1x | Reference group | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x |
Hospitalization | <1x | <1x | Reference group | 2x | 2x | 4x | 6x | 9x | 15x |
Death | <1x | <1x | Reference group | 4x | 10x | 35x | 95x | 230x | 610x |
I'm not on Twitter. Can you post the details of his errors?Prof. Philip Nolan published a long Twitter thread on the modelling last night. I don't think it passes the sniff test at all and it boggles the mind that NPHET's modelling is not subject to any external oversight or interrogation. There's probably plenty of people on here that prepare projections for work and we all know how significant a few minor changes in assumptions can be when compounded over time. With exponential growth this would seem an even bigger issue. The professor also seems to completely misrepresent or misunderstand what 95% vaccine efficacy actually means with his 5% of 500,000 calculation - truly bonkers stuff. The probability of some of these pessimistic scenarios coming to pass seems pretty remote given the real world evidence we have. Case numbers may rocket but an IFR rate of 0.29% seems to be at the very upper end of the scale, which paints a far grimmer picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.
Did he?Why is no one reporting the fact that the Taoiseach misled his cabinet at the meeting on Monday that NPHETs modeling included the additional vaccination of the under 30's?
Thanks for posting the tweet, his first mistake was to publish it on Twitter, a blog would be an easier read.I'm not on Twitter. Can you post the details of his errors?
The modelling didn't include the change in rolling out AZ and J&J to sub 40 year olds.Why is no one reporting the fact that the Taoiseach misled his cabinet at the meeting on Monday that NPHETs modeling included the additional vaccination of the under 30's?
Paul, @24601 posted the Tweet.Thanks for posting the tweet, his first mistake was to publish it on Twitter, a blog would be an easier read.
My bad thanks 24601Paul, @24601 posted the Tweet.
Having read the full article he noted that with the Delta Variant 99% of deaths will be in the over 40's age group and the group in danger are the over 75's who have been vaccinated since the vaccine only offers 95% protection.All, you can view the full thread without having to do so via the awful medium of 36 tweets here:
Thread by @President_MU on Thread Reader App
Thread by @President_MU: It has been a difficult and disappointing week for many, as the rise to dominance of the delta variant has delayed plans for wider reopening; but the likely impact of delta is stark,...…threadreaderapp.com
While 70-80% of cases will be in people under 40, there will be a lot of infections and a lot of adverse outcomes in people over 40; about 70% of the hospitalisations and over 99% of the deaths would be in people over 40. 25/36
That backs up my earlier post about the proposed vaccine passport; what is the logic of allowing vaccinated older people to dine and drink in-doors and not younger people when the older group are at a high higher risk?Vaccines offer extraordinary protection, but not perfect. We have almost 500,000 people aged 70 and over; even if the vaccine is 95% effective in preventing severe disease, 25,000 people remain vulnerable.
I think nphet and Tony holohan (well nphet is Tony holohan because he has enormous power over it) have been guilty of that before last summer. They had the case numbers down to single figures and as soon as the July opening date approached suddenly jump in figures and the "very concerning" narrative . But the jump in figures was really just the distortion around weekends and when figures were added to the system. But the media not the most numerate people lapped it all up and sensationalized the whole thing.picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.
What is your understanding of vaccine efficacy and we'll be able to tell if your marbles are in place or not.Am I losing my marbles or is he completely misrepresenting 95% efficacy by suggesting that 1 in 20 fully vaccinated persons with have 0% protection against severe illness or death?
Surely there are other sports grounds that could be used for vaccinations...I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance.
Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
Baffling.
Just on this , let's assume the risk is there and it's a valid calculation, however how many of those 500,000 are going to be in regular contact with younger people in an environment that would cause them to contract covid?Having read the full article he noted that with the Delta Variant 99% of deaths will be in the over 40's age group and the group in danger are the over 75's who have been vaccinated since the vaccine only offers 95% protection.
That backs up my earlier post about the proposed vaccine passport; what is the logic of allowing vaccinated older people to dine and drink in-doors and not younger people when the older group are at a high higher risk?
Either open for everyone or open for no-one.
95% VE reduces the number of cases in the population by 95%. It does not mean that 5% of fully vaccinated people have 0% protection, which is what is being insinuated by Nolan.What is your understanding of vaccine efficacy and we'll be able to tell if your marbles are in place or not.
So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?95% VE reduces the number of cases in the population by 95%. It does not mean that 5% of fully vaccinated people have 0% protection, which is what is being insinuated by Nolan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?