bobmac
Major Champion
I agree, but the risk of catching the virus from an unvaccinated person and being hospitalized is much greater.
Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?
- Thread starter drdel
- Start date
I agree, but the risk of catching the virus from an unvaccinated person and being hospitalized is much greater.
D
Deleted member 18121
Guest
I tested positive this morning and so is my wife... I'm tripled jabbed, my wife is triple jabbed and I've been working from home this week so haven't been out since last Saturday when I played golf.
D
Deleted member 18121
Guest
I'm sorry but that's not the case. Who you catch it from doesn't make you more or less likely to be hospitalised..... Supposedly being unvaccinated makes you more likely to be hospitalised if you catch it versus a triple jabbed person .
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Yes, true with the slight variation being( as I understand Ethan explained quite a while ago now), that catching the virus from an unvaccinated person is more likely to give you a bigger viral load?
Maybe I misunderstood that, but that's how I took it.
However, Bob, being jabbed does not stop you being infected- it doesn't put a "force field" around you stopping the germs getting to you.
So anyone infected can pass it on to anyone around them.
But when the germs do enter the respiratory tract of someone who has been jabbed,he has some means to fight those germs. A lot more than an unvaccinated person can do.
Mmm, we’re not experts and rely on what we read and how we, sometimes subconsciously, interpret it.
I’m inclined to disagree with your first point. It’s also about viral load. An unvaccinated person is more likely to carry/pass on a greater viral load.
D
Deleted member 18121
Guest
You could well be right, there's so much information overload at the moment it's difficult to know who/what to believe as the story changes depending on which expert you listen to.
Ive got an unvaccinated mate (who I've not seen for 18 months) who caught it 3 weeks ago, he said it was so mild he wouldn't have known he had it without the tests.
My current symptoms are less than a hangover, so pretty much following the route that it really does affect people differently person to person.
My cousin was tested on admission into A&E for fall. She died of Covid 2 days later. She didn’t even know she had it on the Monday but died of it on the Wednesday night. There doesn’t seem much rhyme nor reason but I’d rather err on the side of caution.
bobmac
Major Champion
So a triple jabbed person is less likely to be hospitalised?
Funnily enough, I knew that.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Think elections; how does a party win an election when 60+% of the voters voted against them?
Let's invent some numbers to try & make this clearer. Take a population of 100 million, 90% of whom are fully vaccinated, the remaining 10% being completely unvaccinated. And let's say we have 1 million in hospital. And we'll use the 70% figure for vaccinated hospitalisations.
If 70% of the 1 million hospitalised patients are vaccinated, that's 700,000 out of the 90 million vaccinated population in hospital, or 0.78% of the vaccinated population.
The remaining 30% are unvaccinated, that's 300,000 out of 10 million, or 3% of the unvaccinated population.
So you're approximately 4 times more likely to be hospitalised if you are unvaccinated on a very simple scenario.
I believe you're right; the vaccine is working.
Factor in that the fully vaccinated are more likely to be older, so more likely to have underlying health conditions or simply more frail, I'd argue that the vaccine is helping them by reducing the severity of the virus. Some of the vaccinated in hospital may not yet be fully vaccinated, whereas the unvaccinated are always fully unvaccinated. And I'm sure there are many other metrics that will skew the figures in favour of it being safer to be vaccinated.
D
Deleted member 18121
Guest
I'm just a guy on a forum.... I can only base my opinions from what I read that others say, the number 1 thing though is not to rely on 1 source.... ie I never take as gospel what I read on BBC or sky news as their reputation doesn't fill me with confidence.
But from what I was reading yesterday, 36% of covid hospitalisations are unvaccinated people. 64% of hospitalisations are jabbed.
So make of that what you want.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
We are not letting MiL visit her lad in hospital…at 91 the truth is they’d probably not wish her to risk being there in any case…the hospital has closed all its restaurants and cafes to visitors - they are staff only. Clearly they want to minimise the exposure to the public of all nursing and medical staff to in turn minimise the risk of them picking up and taking virus infection back into the wards and teams. How it is. Bit difficult for my Mrs as she has to visit her brother alone and without my support, but more difficult for my MiL as she is so worried - but for the best.
theoneandonly
Blackballed
It's the antivaxxers goto stat of choice ?
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
There are so many other factors to consider, especially age. Almost all the jabbed will be old and vulnerable, majority of the Un-jabbed young and less vulnerable
This article in a less than unbiased website quotes a Public Health Scotland report but I think a lot of it is cherry picked to suit its agenda…….
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/09/d...y-data-shows-9-in-10-covid-deaths-vaccinated/
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Mrs BiM tested positive on a LFT last Sunday. PCR was ordered & posted back from a priority postbox on Tuesday. Having had no result, she has rung them today. Yes the test is in the system; no, we cannot tell you the result, we have to refer it to the investigation team who have 72 hours to respond. AND IF YOUR TEST IS POSITIVE, YOUR 10 DAY ISOLATION PERIOD BEGINS FROM WHEN WE NOTIFY YOU OF THE RESULT!!!
How utterly ridiculous. Since the positive LFT, Mrs BiM has lived in the bedroom, popping out only to shower & use the bathroom. Meals have been delivered to the door. And when she gets the result, which we can't think will be anything other than positive, she is then expected to start a further 10 day isolation period because of their incompetence? What an absolute farce.
How utterly ridiculous. Since the positive LFT, Mrs BiM has lived in the bedroom, popping out only to shower & use the bathroom. Meals have been delivered to the door. And when she gets the result, which we can't think will be anything other than positive, she is then expected to start a further 10 day isolation period because of their incompetence? What an absolute farce.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
In your shoes I'd be doing a LFT on day 6 and 7 and, if negative, re-entering the outside world. Surely it's from symptoms and/or positive LFT leading to a PCR rather than when you are informed of the latter's result. Crazy! Mind you when we had it last year David had the app and I didn't and his date of release from isolation was different to mine.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Well, this is what I would make of it:
64% (your figure, I didn't check) of hospitalisations come from 82.2% (latest gov.uk figure) of the population (those that have had 2 vax). Lets call that a ratio of 0.78
36% come from 17.8% (100 - above). ratio 2.02.
So you have a 2.02/0.78 = 2.6 x the chance of hospitalisation if you have not been vaxxed.
And that is overlooking the fact that the vaccinated population is more likely to be older, at greater risk of being tipped over into an admission compared to the unvaccinated and younger people less likely to be admitted. The true underlying effect is probably more like 4 or 5:1.
The margin is also wider for ICU admissions.
You can choose to make something else, but it would be interesting if you told us what that was.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Test and Trace reached agreement with Covid's agent that it would not start replicating or infecting anybody else until the result came back, to create a level playing field.
The advice is wrong. The period begins from the first of the tests, in this case the LFT, and can be stopped after 7 days if 2 negative LFTs are obtained 24 hours apart on or after days 6 and 7 (which looks like tomorrow and next day), otherwise 10 days.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
She is Amanda, but the woman on the phone, although admitting that Mrs BiM's argument made more sense, that being that the test result applies from the date the sample was taken, not the date the result is provided. Unfortunately she is still testing positive but the line is getting fainter.
Bad enough spending Christmas Day apart in the same house, but if their rules do apply, by the time they get to tell us, a 10 day isolation period will rule her out of the home games against Brighton, Liverpool, Spurs & Chesterfield, and the New Year's Eve do at the golf club. Happy New Year.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
RE: the bit in bold. I don't think they've got that correct. When I tested positive the isolation started from the day that symptoms began, which was the day before I took the PCR test. Government guidelines are from the day that symptoms started or from the day of the positive PCR test if you were asymptomatic. Assuming the test comes back positive then your other half tested positive on the day of the test not 5 days later when they give you the result.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Cheerful on here today.
Once did a 4 week course on psychological warfare, reading this thread proved that it really works.
Once did a 4 week course on psychological warfare, reading this thread proved that it really works.