The legend of vaccine protection against serious covid forms is called into question!

[SixK]

the inverse of the representativeness of the non-vaccinated and triple dose groups (I don't know if this is the right expression)
is the following :
60 / 000 = 000 for unvaccinated
60 / 000 = 000 for triple doses

therefore for the same number of people in hospital between vaccinated and unvaccinated, reported as 100 or 000 million, the unvaccinated represent 10 times more.

If you take the figures present under the curve, we are not very far from that:
1087.83 / 156.49 = 6.9
41.77 / 4.74 = 8.8
5 / 0.74 = 6.75

Can I say anything?

I do not know. I don't understand your calculation.
you do: "total population" divided by "vax population" and "total population" divided by "non-vax population".
But I don't see where it leads.

It seems to me that you have to do:
"number of vax population hospitals" divided by "total vax population" X 100000
and "number of hospitals among the non-vax population" divided by "total non-vax population" X 100000
(and brought back by age group, because if the average age is not the same in the 2 groups, it's bias!)

Maybe my calculation is wrong,
it doesn't matter, even taking your calculation, (1*100000/5000000 and 1*100000/30000000)
for 1 non-vaxx case and 1 vaxx case, there is the same ratio of 6 reported to 100000 or 10M.

[pedrodelavega]

I do not know. I don't understand your calculation.
you do: "total population" divided by "vax population" and "total population" divided by "non-vax population".
But I don't see where it leads.
It seems to me that you have to do:
"number of vax population hospitals" divided by "total vax population" X 100000
and "number of hospitals among the non-vax population" divided by "total non-vax population" X 100000
(and brought back by age group, because if the average age is not the same in the 2 groups, it's bias!)

Maybe my calculation is wrong,
it doesn't matter, even taking your calculation, (1*100000/5000000 and 1*100000/30000000)
for 1 non-vaxx case and 1 vaxx case, there is the same ratio of 6 reported to 100000 or 10M.

Well, it is precisely this difference in ratio that shows the effectiveness against hospital/sheaves.
Now you just have to replace your theoretical "1 case" with the actual number of hospital cases and you get the actual incidence rates.

It's exactly the same logic as: "is there more lung cancer among smokers or non-smokers?"
You take the number of lung cancer cases of smokers divided by the total number of smokers (x100000)
and the number of lung cancer cases of non-smokers divided by the total number of non-smokers (x100000)

And you get comparable incidence rates which give you an indication.

[Obamot]

The guy still dares to talk about "efficiency" 

I can not believe!

For the first time since the beginning of the crisis, the quarantine is entirely abolished. The large number of infections makes the measure obsolete, explains the government. All quarantines ordered by the cantons will be lifted on Thursday.

https://www.bluewin.ch/fr/infos/economi ... 71476.html

[izentrop]

It's exactly the same logic as: "is there more lung cancer among smokers or non-smokers?"
You take the number of lung cancer cases of smokers divided by the total number of smokers (x100000)
and the number of lung cancer cases of non-smokers divided by the total number of non-smokers (x100000)

And you get comparable incidence rates which give you an indication.

I may not have understood everything...
What matters is to use a common basis of comparison for the index.
The basis of 100000, 10 Mio, 10 or 100, depends on the highlighting of the phenomenon that we want to compare.
100000 is good for covid cases, for mortality 10 Mio is more suitable

Here they used the percentage

smoking is the main risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 9 out of 10 cancers in men (87%) and 7 out of 10 cancers in women (70%) (Kulhánová I, 2020). Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 10 to 15 times compared to a non-smoker. The risk of developing lung cancer increases with the amount of tobacco consumed but especially the duration of tobacco consumption. It decreases when you stop smoking but remains high compared to people who have never smoked (Peto R, 2000).

https://www.cancer-environnement.fr/83- ... A9r%C3%A9s

The DREES in its last report took the non-vaccinated as a basis, that's not bad either. I can't find the pdf address anymore.

[Obamot]

blah-blah-blah

I have to tell you in which language that vaccination does not work

It's dead there!

[Janic]

relative risk not real risk, it is the difference between probability and reality on the ground.

[pedrodelavega]

I may not have understood everything...
What matters is to use a common basis of comparison for the index.
The basis of 100000, 10 Mio, 10 or 100, depends on the highlighting of the phenomenon that we want to compare.
100000 is good for covid cases, for mortality 10 Mio is more suitable

It doesn't matter: whether we're talking in percentages, in cases/Mio, in cases per 100000, it doesn't change anything, the comparison ratios are the same.
The whole thing is just to bring 2 populations to equal size (common denominator, we could not be more basic in fact )

[Janic]

It doesn't matter: whether we're talking in percentages, in cases/Mio, in cases per 100000, it doesn't change anything, the comparison ratios are the same.
The whole thing is just to bring 2 populations to equal size (common denominator, we could not be more basic in fact )

not quite for populations of non-specialists who are content with images provided in the form of graphics oriented according to whether those who make them are pro or no vaxx!

[izentrop]

I may not have understood everything...
What matters is to use a common basis of comparison for the index.
The basis of 100000, 10 Mio, 10 or 100, depends on the highlighting of the phenomenon that we want to compare.
100000 is good for covid cases, for mortality 10 Mio is more suitable

It doesn't matter: whether we're talking in percentages, in cases/Mio, in cases per 100000, it doesn't change anything, the comparison ratios are the same.
The whole thing is just to bring 2 populations to equal size (common denominator, we could not be more basic in fact )

We agree, but we need concrete examples to represent it...

Janic, it is no less concrete and real but more representative than the raw figures that you like.

The latest DREES report https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr ... 0Drees.pdf

[Janic]

izyMENTROP

Janic, it is no less concrete and real but more representative than the raw figures that you like.

Oh good? Can you tell me what numbers I like?