South African Covid-19 News and Discussions 3

[Forum Reader]

Either these figures are total BS or by some miracle the previously infected are also being hospitalised much faster than the vaccinated.
This seems very unlikely seeing as the reinfection rate is so low.

That wouldn't be a miracle. The whole purpose of the vaccines is to do a better job than being naturally infected whilst also reducing your chance of death/hospitalization in the process.

 

[flytek]

That wouldn't be a miracle. The whole purpose of the vaccines is to do a better job than being naturally infected whilst also reducing your chance of death/hospitalization in the process.

No the "current" purpose of the vaccines are to reduce disease severity and death rate amongst the infected and to possibly reduce the infection rate amongst the vaccinated slightly.
A prior infection does a very good job at preventing reinfection as can be seen from the Western Cape covid dashboard and therefor a prior infection also does a very good job at preventing death.
Some reinfected will die but the same is true for the vaccinated.
In SA prior infections vastly outnumber the vaccinated which is why the above data seems quite so suspect or "massaged".

 

[Forum Reader]

No the "current" purpose of the vaccines are to reduce disease severity and death rate amongst the infected and to possibly reduce the infection rate amongst the vaccinated slightly.
A prior infection does a very good job at preventing reinfection as can be seen from the Western Cape covid dashboard and therefor a prior infection also does a very good job at preventing death.
Some reinfected will die but the same is true for the vaccinated.
In SA prior infections vastly outnumber the vaccinated which is why the above data seems quite so suspect or "massaged".

Have you considered that the vaccines may be much better at preventing infection than just having a prior infection? That would explain both sets of data.

 

[R13...]

Jassat says 87% of all admissions in Tshwane are unvaccinated patients. She says there is also a higher chance of death in the unvaccinated.

- Tebogo Monama

 

[daveza]

 

[Paulsie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1465249722705272835

Be better to get the rest of the 75% outstanding data as anti-vaxxers are already going in on the '25%' on Twitter.

Just like with the "majority vaccinated" argument, would it be reasonable to assume that in a country where the majority of people are unvaccinated, they will also form the large % of hospitalized cases??

 

[EvoX]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1465249722705272835

Be better to get the rest of the 75% outstanding data as anti-vaxxers are already going in on the '25%' on Twitter.

Conveniently the same percentages as the population vaccinated numbers.

 

[R13...]

Just like with the "majority vaccinated" argument, would it be reasonable to assume that in a country where the majority of people are unvaccinated, they will also form the large % of hospitalized cases??

Just over half of the 40+ are vaccinated in GP, so if what you say is true then half of the admissions would be vaccinated.

 

[Geoff.D]

Just like the vaccinated argument, would it be reasonable to assume that in a country where the majority of people are unvaccinated, they will also form the large % of hospital cases??

Precisely! In a country with no people vaccinated the ONLY possibility is unvaccinated in hospital, sick and ICU.
In a country where 100% of people are vaccinated the ONLY possibility is vaccinated people sick, in hospital and ICU.
In between, there would be a gradual "shift" from one state to the other all things being equal.
The vaccines are "supposed to" show that the shift from one state to the other is "delayed" with a predominance of the unvaccinated still getting sick, in hospital and ICU.
And that is what the pro vaxxers crow about all day long.
Now that the crunch comes soon after the 50/50 point is reached, and the pattern does not maintain, their little stats game starts to fall apart.

In SA, we already see the shift to more younger people ending up in hospitals etc because they are now the dominant number not yet t 50% vaccinated.

 

[Paulsie]

Just over half of the 40+ are vaccinated in GP, so if what you say is true then half of the admissions would be vaccinated.
View attachment 1203518

And what % are within 14 days of their 1st or 2nd dose?

 

[Paulsie]

Be better to get the rest of the 75% outstanding data as anti-vaxxers are already going in on the '25%' on Twitter.

PS and you don't think it's irresponsible / selective reporting?

 

[R13...]

And what % are within 14 days of their 1st or 2nd dose?

I don't know - doesn't matter as if you got the shot you're counted as vaccinated or partial. Which doesn't support your claim that it is because most haven't been vaccinated.

 

[Paulsie]

I don't know - doesn't matter as if you got the shot you're counted as vaccinated or partial. Which doesn't support your claim that it is because most haven't been vaccinated.

No, within 14 days of your 1st shot you're counted as unvaccinated. After 1st shot, you're not counted as fully vaccinated.

Due to temporarily lowered immunity, you are more susceptible to infection. As a result, cases within 14 days of vaccination are still reported as unvaccinated.

As always, there should be no absolute statement made based on partial data available.

 

[flytek]

Have you considered that the vaccines may be much better at preventing infection than just having a prior infection? That would explain both sets of data.

Yes I suppose the few remaining without vaccination or prior infection could be being hospitalised 3 times faster than the vaccinated and prior infected.

 

[noxibox]

Whatever happened to antitrust laws around the world??

Neoliberalism.

Regulations and laws created to protect diversity were removed or crippled.

 

[Geoff.D]

That wouldn't be a miracle. The whole purpose of the vaccines is to do a better job than being naturally infected whilst also reducing your chance of death/hospitalization in the process.

By a better job, you presumably mean reducing the risks associated with acquiring immunity naturally?

If so I agree, but in the end, it IS only our own immune system that fights off the infection, NOT the vaccines.

 

[twr]

I read somewhere that sa are now adding positive antigen tests the the total number of cases per day.

Please enlighten me ,I thought an antigen can show a positive for a cov_19 ,but can also pick up any small other cold or flu as long as you have a high viral load?
I think the uk is also doing this?

If this is true our number will allways be up as people will allways have colds etc with positive antigen tests, or does an antigen differentiate what you have?

 

[Priapus]

I read somewhere that sa are now adding positive antigen tests the the total number of cases per day.

Please enlighten me ,I thought an antigen can show a positive for a cov_19 ,but can also pick up any small other cold or flu as long as you have a high viral load?
I think the uk is also doing this?

If this is true our number will allways be up as people will allways have colds etc with positive antigen tests, or does an antigen differentiate what you have?

Do you have a source?

"I read somewhere" isn't helpful.

 

[Geoff.D]

Do you have a source?

"I read somewhere" isn't helpful.

Read all about it on the NICD website. And no I am not doing the dirty work for anybody anymore.

 

[Daveogg]

I read somewhere that sa are now adding positive antigen tests the the total number of cases per day.

Please enlighten me ,I thought an antigen can show a positive for a cov_19 ,but can also pick up any small other cold or flu as long as you have a high viral load?
I think the uk is also doing this?

If this is true our number will allways be up as people will allways have colds etc with positive antigen tests, or does an antigen differentiate what you have?

The lateral flow antigen tests answers a binary positive / negative for a specific virus. In this case for SARS CoV2. FAlse positives are possible but unlikely.

"The False positive rate varied from <0.1% to 0.3% on all the LDS using PCR negative saliva samples (see Supplementary Table 1). More extensive testing was performed on the Innova LFD, for which we had a sufficient supply of kits available for wider testing at the time. Device specificity was determined through an analysis of 6954. The percentage of false-positives ranged from 0.00 to 0.49%, with an overall specificity of 99.68%. The false-positive rate was centre-dependent (p = 0.014, Fisher’s exact test). These evaluations noted that where there were challenges in interpreting the results when the test result was “weak” (i.e. the test line was very faint)"

DEFINE_ME

www.thelancet.com