No, the number of false positives is X% of the total number of tests.
But that would mean no one knows who is positive and who is negative; just that the actual number is correct.
Not sure how that helps.
Bayes's theorem.
.
Covid-19 Gambles
- Thread starter JohnW2
- Start date
Bayes's theorem.
.
Sponsored Links
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/det...n_uptake_by_vaccination_date_age_demographics
There is not yet solid indication of vaccine hesitancy in younger groups, especially since many will have to rearrange due to 28 day limits. What you may be feeling is the effect of a comparatively slower rate of vaccination.
The data is also not simple to interpret, because of the AZ vaccine split at 40 years also.
There is not yet solid indication of vaccine hesitancy in younger groups, especially since many will have to rearrange due to 28 day limits. What you may be feeling is the effect of a comparatively slower rate of vaccination.
The data is also not simple to interpret, because of the AZ vaccine split at 40 years also.
You know that's simply not true when prevalence is low, and of the same order of magnitude as the actual FPR.
E.g. Prevalence of 1%, FPR 0.5%, would mean that 33% of the positive results are false.
False negatives dominate at high prevalence.
I did see a chart of uptake over time split by age group. I can't find out now, but it did show a clear reduction in uptake rate. Getting pretty flat now in all age groups.
Sponsored Links
Does this make you a 'vaccine sceptic', as well as a 'NPI sceptic'?
In terms of infections, that is nonsense. As for 'transmission', just as with the discussion about masks, to conduct an RCT to determine whether vaccine reduced transmission (by those became infected despite vaccination) would be essentially impossible - and, even if it weren't, such a trial would be seriously frustrated by the fact that only small numbers of vaccinated people get infected.
As I said, if they view it on a personal risk/benefit basis (rather than in relation to 'public health'), then one can understand that as one of the reasons why the may decline Covid vaccination.
Although they would have been far too young to have a say in the matter, I wonder how they (particularly the males) feel about having been given rubella vaccine?
Kind Regards, John
We cannot assume that. The proportions of both those false results is heavily dependent on prevalence. (Bayes)
Do you mean the proportion of positives which are false, or the operational false positive rate?
Last edited:
Ditto with girls and mumps (though mumps nastier than rubella).
Difference is that these vaccinations prevent the disease extremely reliably, and have an established safety record.
Please explain why it's nonsense.
What were the results of the trials in terms of efficacy?
As a well vaccinated person, I shouldn't think so.
Some work better than others. Some are very safe and effective. Some have been withdrawn. Some use novel technology. Some have only emergency use authorization.
Thanks.
I'm familiar with that data, but don't quite see how one can ascertain from it what proportion of under-30s are accepting/declining 'invitations'.
In any event, I was going by what the media have been reporting. There was actually someone interviewed on TV a couple of days ago (unfortunately I forget who) who said that, for the first time in the UK, vaccine supply was exceeding demand, and said that was mainly due to "poor take-up by the 18-29 year-olds" (who are the main group recently being offered/given first doses).
Kind Regards, John
Taking the initial AZ trial as an example ... at all sites, subjects reporting symptoms were tested, and only 'counted' if the tests were positive - so "only evaluated against their ability to reduce symptoms. They were not shown to reduce infections ..." is simply not true - what that aspect of the study evaluated was symptomatic infections, not just the appearance of symptoms.
As for asymptomatic infections, the UK arm of the study undertook weekly tests on all participants throughout the study - so will presumably have picked up most asymptomatic infections. The Brazilian arm did no such routine testing and, although the South African did, they only did so at study visits, so will probably have missed a good few asymptomatic infections.
However, all of the results relate to PCR-positive cases (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic) - so essentially 'infections' (give or take testing errors), not 'just symptoms'.
Kind Regards, John
Last edited:
Yes, but my point was that (in relation to rubella, not mumps, which is different), there is minimal risk to an individual if they contract the disease (yet NO vaccine comes with zero risk), and the only real reason for giving the vaccine is to protect as-yet-not-conceived foetuses - so definitely a 'public health', rather than anything to do with individual benefit, particularly for males, because it's not even they who get pregnant - so they are two steps away from the (not yet conceived) people they are protecting by accepting vaccination.
I have no problem with that (provided people realise that's what's happening) and it seems similar in concept to accepting Covid vaccination 'to protect others', even if can't be justified on a risk/benefit basis for protection of the vaccinated individual themselves. However, I could understand some people 'not accepting' (either rubella or Covid) vaccine (if they were given a choice!) because the risk/benefit was not in their personal interest.
Kind Regards, John
Yes, I think we agree on this. (!)
My point about mumps was that can affect male fertility, so that is clearly not a reason per se for females to take it, but mumps is a horrid experience whoever you are, as I can attest.
Yes, my mistake. You are correct.
In light of this high efficacy, I'm finding it hard to reconcile the current seemingly 50/50 or so split in hospitalizations. Is this to be expected or not?
Anecdotally, I do know a few people who have Covid at the moment, and they've all been vaccinated. And Sajid Javid, of course (but we're not acquainted!).
I suspect there's a correlation with age (younger) ans a) a lesser experience in critical thinking and b) more exposure to things like Facebook and all the conspiracy theories (covid doesn't exist and it's all a con; vaccination will change your DNA; it's actually being done to implant a chip; ...)
And as previously mentioned, a false belief that younger people can't catch it or can't get seriously ill if they do.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
