So, the latest Public Health England data show....

[Squleamish]

...that the vaccines do indeed seem to substantially reduce risk of hospitalisation and death. Excellent.

But they also show that for those in their 30s and 40s, the case rates were slightly higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated people. For 40-49s, for example it's 1116 cases per 100,000 for double-jabbed, and 880 per 100,000 for unjabbed. Not so excellent.

Combine this with the data showing that when you're infected, your viral load is the same whether unjabbed or jabbed, and the effects on transmission aren't looking great.

So - the vaccines are still a very good idea for individual adults. Get jabbed and you're less likely to need NHS care for Covid, and less likely to die from Covid.
But there's an ever-diminishing case for vaccinations doing anything much at all to reduce transmission or development of variants.

So can we please stop all the fighting, and calling the unjabbed selfish? They might be unwise, but they're only selfish to the extent that people who don't exercise or eat too much are selfish - they may use NHS resources more, but that's it.

(sorry, this pattern is for those in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, by the way. For those 18-30 and 30-40, case rates are greater in unvaccinated than vaccinated)

I have wondered about this as so many people are double vaxxed yet cases are still climbing. As a personal anecdote everyone I work with is double vaxxed and all of them caught covid and seemed to pass it on. I'm unvaccinated and currently have covid, caught from my DPS work mate who is also double vaxxed. Just seems an awfully high number of vaccinated still catching it and passing it on.

I think that you may be misinterpreting some of that data slightly.
"But they also show that for those in their 30s and 40s, the case rates were slightly higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated people. For 40-49s, for example it's 1116 cases per 100,000 for double-jabbed, and 880 per 100,000 for unjabbed. Not so excellent."
The problem with giving just the case rates per 100000 is that you also have to think about the proportion of people jabbed and unjabbed
Think of a parallel like this.
If you looked at the numbers of deaths in car accidents, you would probably find that the rate per hundred thousand was higher for those wearing seatbelts than for those those without. I mean the rate, not the absolute numbers too. So many people wear seatbelts now that there may not even have been 100000 deaths in those who weren't so the number may have been multiplied up to get the 100000 rate.
It doesn't mean that seatbelts don't save lives, just that wearing them is so common that the highest rate of deaths occurred with those who do.

This is a good thread to read about all the caveats to that data, and why interpretation should be heavily hedged -

twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1436016682389184516

For example, changing the denominator of unvaxxed population (from NIMS data to ONS 2020 population data) changes the picture considerably.

This is only 4 weeks data, and data that has lots of issues around it.

Does this mean vaccine passports will be scrapped?

@EducatingArti... no, in my understanding those rates are per 100,000 unvaccinated, and per 100,000 vaccinated. The absolute numbers are given too, and these are much more skewed to the vaccinated, because there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated adults. These numbers represent proportions within each group.

So I'm lucky not to have caught it yet? 54 and double jabbed.

Yes, @PatriciaHolm, there are some additional things to debate about these data, and more questions to iron out over time. But they certainly do not support the idea that we can bash the unvaccinated, which is a popular passtime on here. And they make the idea of vaccine passports increasingly ludicrous.

@ShaneTheThird

I have wondered about this as so many people are double vaxxed yet cases are still climbing. As a personal anecdote everyone I work with is double vaxxed and all of them caught covid and seemed to pass it on. I'm unvaccinated and currently have covid, caught from my DPS work mate who is also double vaxxed. Just seems an awfully high number of vaccinated still catching it and passing it on.

Also anecdotally I'm unvaxed and DH is double jabbed. We both caught Covid. There was a chain of four double jabbed adults who passed it in before it got to me.

I hope you aren't too poorly with it and feel better soon

@ShaneTheThird, I hope you feel better soon x

"Combine this with the data showing that when you're infected, your viral load is the same whether unjabbed or jabbed, and the effects on transmission aren't looking great"
Although this is true, I think they have also shown that people who have been vaccinated have on average a shorter period of time when their viral load is likely to be high enough to be infectious.

Your analogy with smokers and the overweight also breaks down because Covid is infectious and illness from smoking/obesity isn't. You could argue it was selfish to avoid vaccination as you are then more likely to end up on hospital where you could infect staff and other patients. Infectious diseases also put more strain on hospitals than non- infectious ones as there is a need to keep separate Covid and non Covid areas.

[quote Squleamish]@EducatingArti... no, in my understanding those rates are per 100,000 unvaccinated, and per 100,000 vaccinated. The absolute numbers are given too, and these are much more skewed to the vaccinated, because there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated adults. These numbers represent proportions within each group.[/quote]
I thin there are problems with actually comparing even rates though once you have such a small number of people unvaccinated. The environments are different. People in jobs where they are more likely to meet higher levels of infection ( health care, teaching, bus driving etc) are more likely to be vaccinated as they are at higher risk, so you aren't comparing like with like.

You also need to find out the proportion of those unvaccinated who have had actual Covid, compared with those who are vaccinated.

Data from PHE indicates you are 96% less likely to be hospitalised with Delta variant.

So the fact so many are vaccinated means there are ITU beds for those that need vaccinated or unvaccinated.

If we all had decided not to get vaccinated we would all be utterly screwed right now.

So perhaps the unvaccinated can thank the vaccinated instead. Can look at things in many ways.

It doesnt sound good but
1 older than 40 had varying amounts using AZ and we know it is less effective at stopping symptoms. What would england rates llook like if all had used pfizer. Probably a minimum of 20% lower cases.
2 how many non vaxxed are actually not in the country (i suspect high) of even dead or dont exist at all. So i would be interested in when these people were last seen at a GP etc.
3 unvaxxed some are deniers or dont give a crap about covid etc so do you really think they are getting tested. ?
4 maybe they are more likely to have already had it because they then felt they didnt need to get vax and they were less careful at the beginning.
5 some people with health conditions mean they may be more likely to catch it.

I wonder if it links to behavior as well. I know 2 people ( from different households) who are unvaccinated on the grounds that they are not sure that vaccine is safe. However both of them WFH and usually don’t go to pubs/ festivals/ events etc. In the current circumstances being unvaccinated they are even more careful so obviously have very few contacts. Whereas a lot of vaccinated people chose vaccinations because they knew that they won’t be able WFH, avoid school runs or visits to elderly parents. So they do all these and of course at some point they meet someone with Covid just because they are generally more active.

But which group are most likely to test? If the numbers were per 100,000 tests that’d be like with like. Per 100,000 people on the other hand… covid deniers are unlikely to test; those who believe it won’t happen to them are less likely to test; presumably those who got vaccinated to protect a vulnerable relative/ group are more likely to do pre visit LFTs and so on

twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1436016682389184516?s=19
James Ward has some interesting thoughts here.

The death rate chart of vaxxed and unvaxxed adults is reassuring re the beneficial effect of vaccination.

Interesting the difference between 30 somethings and 40 somethings. I wonder if that comes down to AZ not blocking infection as well? 99% of 40 somethings got AZ.

You also need to find out the proportion of those unvaccinated who have had actual Covid, compared with those who are vaccinated

This is true, but then that would mean the unvaccinated who have had covid are safer to be around that the vaccinated.

The problem with the denominator argument is that whilst it's very persuasive, it means that the percentage of people vaccinated in the country is much higher than the headline figures, and that means it's providing significantly less damping of virus spread than expected.

Unfortunately the twitter doesn't show the adjustments made, but the unvac rate for 40-49 year olds went from ~850 to ~2000, or suggesting that the unvaccinated population in the age group is less than half the size, the coronavirus data page has about 80% vaccinated, if that 20% is actually proportional the adjustment, then that means coverage is already over 90%.

90% vaccination coverage with a 95% effective vaccine should be over even Delta's ability to keep R above 1, yet we still are, even before the immunity from infection people are included. So if it's right, the vaccine must be less effective.

@ParadiseLaundry

Does this mean vaccine passports will be scrapped?

No. It means people need to stop 🍒 picking numbers with faux wide-eyed innocence thinking we're all daft.

@EducatingArti

I think that you may be misinterpreting some of that data slightly. "But they also show that for those in their 30s and 40s, the case rates were slightly higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated people. For 40-49s, for example it's 1116 cases per 100,000 for double-jabbed, and 880 per 100,000 for unjabbed. Not so excellent." The problem with giving just the case rates per 100000 is that you also have to think about the proportion of people jabbed and unjabbed Think of a parallel like this. If you looked at the numbers of deaths in car accidents, you would probably find that the rate per hundred thousand was higher for those wearing seatbelts than for those those without. I mean the rate, not the absolute numbers too. So many people wear seatbelts now that there may not even have been 100000 deaths in those who weren't so the number may have been multiplied up to get the 100000 rate. It doesn't mean that seatbelts don't save lives, just that wearing them is so common that the highest rate of deaths occurred with those who do.

Excellent analogy

@Squleamish

Yes, *@PatriciaHolm*, there are some additional things to debate about these data, and more questions to iron out over time. But they certainly do not support the idea that we can bash the unvaccinated, which is a popular passtime on here. And they make the idea of vaccine passports increasingly ludicrous.

Yawn

@Squleamish

(sorry, this pattern is for those in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, by the way. For those 18-30 and 30-40, case rates are greater in unvaccinated than vaccinated)

Aren't you assuming a causality here though? It could be the unvaccinated are greater risk takers and ALSO not adhering to guidance more than others.