So your theory is that this represents spread through the young population who haven't been allowed vaccines yet. And given the strong age clustering (20 somethings most closely socialize with 20 somethings), the 50% vaccinated doesn't really act stop R.

Makes sense and seems the most plausible. Still pretty crazy numbers though in summer. Even places with low vaccination rates have dropped to near zero, just from the effect of summer, like they did last year. I've been out to packed clubs a few times around here (southern European country) even though no one is vaccinated; covid has simply died off in the summer; vaccinations are basically irrelevant to what we're seeing Europe right now compared to summer.

Winter will be the test as you say. I feel pretty good about having a pretty normal life through autumn and winter and think there's a decent change vaccs will keep it under control, at least in the West.

Anti vaxxers are irrelevant despite all your moralizing. They are actually net good for stopping the spread of covid, because once >60%-70% or so of the population has been vaccinated, it is far better for vaccines to go to other countries than it is to do the last 30%-40%. I'll let David Sklansky elaborate. You should be thanking anti-vaxxers, and flagellating yourself for your own selfishness in getting a vaccine if you're young, because anti vaxxers are actually helping reduce the odds of new strains coming about compared to you.

I agree that anti-vaxxers are an irrelevant demographic, other than what their relative cost to the health care system will eventually become, but part of a society is accepting these things at times. That seems to be something you agree with in principle, though if you need to consult with David Sklansky to be sure - I completely understand.

All the best.

That is some of the worst analysis I have ever seen. The way you quoted it made me think it actually came from the PHE document, whereas it's actually someone cherry picking some numbers from it to sound frightening so it's not surprising it's complete bunk. What you bolded and the last sentence are especially ridiculous as they are deliberately making it sound like people are more likely to die if vaccinated, when the reality is people are far less likely to be hospitalised in the first place if vaccinated.

Even ignoring the deliberate mischaracterisations the analysis is fundamentally flawed because it is making claims that are not remotely justified statistically due to the small sample size. If you look at outcomes other than just death the severity beyond just hospital admittance seems to be very similar regardless of vaccination status. Outcomes being similar once hospitalised and the disproportionate number of deaths just being an outlier due to small sample size is far more plausible than the idea that being vaccinated makes you more susceptible.

Isn't that usually the case though? The new variants spread rapidly through the young before they reach the old, just because the young are far more socially active. We saw this all through the pandemic and discussed this before: why death rates are so low initially then explode is partly because of young person propagation first (pre-vaccine). The antibody data is poisoned by vaccines now, but for example Belgium had 3x the infections in the young vs the old after the first wave (this time last year).

It's even worse than that though. Here's two month old data from the NHS:
70% of the population are immune two months ago and we're getting R = 1.6 at the start of summer with some distancing still in place. For comparison, covid died out last year in summer in Europe as an R = 2.6+ virus with <10% immunity in the population and zero vaccinations.

I think you and Monterey are not appreciating the above and downplaying the extraordinary nature of what the Indian variant is doing here.

Monterey's theory is the best explanation for the moment, but even that doesn't capture how crazy this Indian spread is.
You're being both stupid and disingenuous here, which is normal for moralizers I guess. Doesn't change the fact that your worldview based on your moralizing is idiotic, and the actual practical effect is the opposite of what you claim. Over-vaccinating a particular country (above 70% or so) does far more damage and has a fatter negative tail than the anti vaxxers right now and for well over another year until we've vaccinated >70% of the world. Your own theory for the spread through the young in the UK (just expand that to the world) should make that obvious to you if your dimwit/bible belt level of moralizing wasn't getting in the way of clear thinking.

All the best.

I understand the need for people of your type to vent like that, but I do appreciate you were able to do it without consulting David Sklansky beforehand. Good for you!

Seems you enjoy role playing a math guy at times, but the macro stats you talk about often fail when you go down to the more micro communities that exist. Some religious communities here in Canada have pretty much a 0% vaccination rate, and you have posted that when you go clubbing that pretty much everyone is un-vaccinated. Now, that does make sense from a social perspective. Likely the people you hang out with that tolerate you share many of your beliefs, so when a bunch of you are in the club it is not quite the situation that 3 of you are vaccinated and the fourth is doing their part for humanity by not having a vaccine. In the end you can applaud each other for your noble non vaccination approach to each other within your cluster, but realistically the 100% vaccinated bunch of geezers in the senior home miles away that are sleeping after the early bird special and watching "Golden Girls" are not really impacting your group, just as you are not impacting them.

The virus does not care, it will just infect what it can, so if hundreds of un-vaccinated people go clubbing and the virus is dancing among them then many more will disco on home with the virus. Odds are based on the demographic that most will have mild or moderate cases, but a chunk will get sick and maybe a couple will croak. Assuming this happens 6 months from now I doubt the death of an un-vaccinated person will generate much sympathy as that was their choice, so the irony is that the vaccinated part of society will be the ones saying nothing should shut down due to the choices of a minority, and I do not foresee any more shut downs happening unless a variant happens that hits kids like the earlier versions hit the elderly.

Just the math of the situation in the end, and time will see how things play out. I have been generally accurate in predictions like this, but to be fair I do get things wrong at times. Recently I debated a poster (who posts much like you) who believed the UFO stories last month were a huge psy op and were going to be a major event. I suggested it was a nothingburger and by August no one would even remember it. I was wrong on that as we are in mid June and already nobody remembers it. Thus, while I think we will see a lot of the societal reactions and math that I posted about in December/January, I may be wrong on that. Perhaps it will happen sooner.

Anyway, thanks for the chat. This is a pretty comical thread, so I did appreciate some of the entertainment value it provided, even with a serious topic. I also know someone like you inherently needs to have the last word, so feel free to have fun with it in any way you like. I will try to remember to check for it in December or so when I check back to see what the new logic is of Covid at that time from this thread.

All the best.

Has no one at the CDC watched Tropic Thunder before?

Well, I should have bolded the whole sentence as it explains that the numbers are only for hospitalized patients, not the general population. My mistake. I assumed most people would read the whole sentence.
However the statistic is correct for that particular sample of 33,000 patients. Is it too small of a sample size? Maybe. Seems like a resonably large sample to me, but I'm not a statistics expert.

Is it just an outlier? Who knows? Time will tell I guess.

I want everyone to note that this again, as he has done before, is Tooth arguing getting the vaccine is good but prioritizing some other regions before the 'anti-vaxxers' is more important for now.

An argument I would not disagree with. But also note the 'necessary' follow to that is that once the other 'priority areas' are vaxx'd then it would be prudent for the anti vaxxers to get their shot by Tooths own logic.

So unlike most of you he is NOT arguing against the efficacy for younger people, just that there are higher priorities.

This tells us everything we need to know about the delta variant.

Anecdote: I have seen so many teenagers hanging around doing stuff - more than I have ever seen since I was that age. For example, whenever its warm, you can find a big group of them swimming in the river, which I have never seen in my area. This group really is socialising a lot and are unvaccinated, which explains the red/purple lines.

Incidentally, the red/purple line going up is almost certainly a positive. Having a highly infectious but non-lethal variant rip through a population during the summer for whom the virus is low risk but the vaccine probably has a high risk:reward is almost certainly a good thing for protecting everyone during the winter.

The other lines demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccine, and why we hopefully won't see a spike in deaths as a result of the variant.

Well, you settled the "stupid or disingenuous" possibilities conclusively with "stupid". That's progress in our discussion at least. I'll explain more in detail (with pictures) so you can understand what has eluded you.

This is exactly my point at a global level. When R<1 in a country, it's batshit crazy to not vaccinate the rest of the world first before going hateful ape (as you are) on the 30% holdout, or making kids take it.

Yes, but not for the reasons your hate of non-vaxxers and general ignorance of the world have made you assume. The country I am in is small and poorer and cannot get any vaccine except inadequate quantities of the ultra-crappy Chinese one. That is partly because of highly irrational moralizing people like you in countries with 60+% vaccination rates who try to push that to 100% by vaccinating people who don't need it/for whom its net harmful (children) and creating vaccine bigotry in places like the USA (no vacc, no entry). Since supply is limited, you're actually creating two things with this stupidity:

1. More suffering, death and longer closures overseas (again, for no net gain locally)
2. Increased ability for new variants to arise in and rip through these very large scale unvaccinated populations (see: India)

It's just dumb with no upside. It's fear and mob-level moralizing intersecting with selfish nationalism. Never a pretty sight, and it's directly increasing the odds of future vaccine-evading variants that make a mess for everyone.
Hilariously and stupidly, you've missed the fact that I'm not at all an anti vaxxer, I love the vaccines and think they're a miracle for people 30+). You should probably get some therapy for the level of weirdo hate you have toward anti-vaxxers; I'm not fond of them either but I'm not weird about it and they're actually a net positive at the moment if you look at the situation practically rather than through the hate-filled lens that you do. It's also a lock that it's you and your anti vaxxer moralizing that people have to tolerate; I think people tolerate my lamenting that I can't get a vaccine because I'm a foreigner in a country that doesn't even have enough for its old citizens because of selfish hateful rich country nationalists like you.

Again, your hateful stupidity is causing you to miss what's happening in the world. Summer has wiped out the virus in most of Europe just like it did last year. For example, here is >50% vaccinated USA vs 20% vaccinated Bulgaria and Montenegro (the two lowest in Europe for vaccs) who also have the crappy low efficacy Chinese vaccine:



They're doing better than the USA. The effect of temperate summer is even greater than the effect of mass vaccination. There is zero chance of this unvaccinated population catching covid, because covid is dead here - less than 20 people a day in the entire country catch it and dropping - and R<1 despite the lack of vaccinations and all the clubs open and mass unrestricted socializing.

Incidentally, this another reason why it's incredibly stupid to be pushing vaccs above 60% in the temperature summer. They're absolutely pointless right now once you've vaccinated the old, because as you can see, the temperate summer is more powerful than the vaccine at killing covid spread. It should be going to countries that are struggling, getting their R below 1 faster to drop the odds of new variants arising globally. It's basic strategy.
You realize this is weirdo level hate you have, right? And you realize it's more minorities (in the US) who avoiding the vaccine from a general mistrust of authority? Do minorities deserve to die for this stupidity, in your eyes?

Ah yes, you have a great track record (100%!) arguing with UFO conspiracy theorists, so this should naturally transfer to your predictions on covid/whether your hate moralizing toward anti-vaxxers should become a societal standard? I'm laughing bro.

However much you dislike their politics or attitudes, anti-vaxxers are, in practical effect, a very good thing for the world right now and will be for at least another year. They're better human beings than you are on this issue.

You're just crazy wrong on this. 40-59 has an R of about 1.3 in summer fully vaccinated. Even over 60s are > 1!!!! And they have a very low R generally. Can you not see the data? Just incredible. 20-39 (already very well vaccinated) have the highest rates.

This has always soared through young adults as the 20-39 are the casual sex/international travelers/bar hopping/most-external-close-cotact/most social/health worker demographic. I actually see nothing in that graphic that indicates the vaccine is working at 80% rates on the Indian strain, and strong evidence that it's working very poorly far below 80% - at least as far as infections are concerned. Hopefully it's successful at preventing death and I believe it is, but it's not preventing infection.

It's scary that you say you're a scientist. How can you read data so horribly wrong, or jump to (wrong) conclusions so quickly? Have you even compared the spread rates to the spread rates by age of the initial or other new strains?

The initial break out of Delta was in specific communities that have a much lower vaccination rate by age compared to the national average.

The significant majority of people 20-39 have not been double jabbed, there is a big difference in effectiveness between single jab and double jabbed +2 week uptake time.

Yes, and more frequently lived in multi-generational households.

The vaccine isn't 100% effective at preventing infection, but it should stop you dying. This is what's important here.

For example, Elrazor, here is a heatmap of Florida, wave 2 (first wave is irrelevant as there wasn't much testing):



Notice how the early spread is heavily (overwhelmingly) concentrated in the 20-39 demographic, then the 40-59 demographic before finally spreading to the old a month or more later. If we were to plot that out pre-vaccine, it would look very much like the UK infection graph above. The early infection soars through the very socially active age groups before spreading to other age groups.

Which means you suck as a scientist/data analyst. But we already knew that. Perhaps you do too now since this is so glaring a screw up from you.

Comparing the nearest data point in the last wave. (wave increasing not decreasing)

Oct 4 CPM 143 June 19 CPM 131
DPM 0.76 DPM 0.16
ICU 5.44 ICU 3.06
Hosp 45.02 Hosp 18.09

Wow those are awful stats for a population that's 70+% vaccinated.

Dude it came out of areas that have a large Indian community - which makes sense since it came from India. The three major source hotspots of this variant are Bolton (3x the national average of Indians), Blackburn and Darwin:

You trying to link this to vaccine rates rather than origin/communities ties from the country with the frigging delta variant makes you as poor as data analysis as Elrazor is.

It came in through Indians traveling to the UK and mixing/returning to their local communities. It spread in Indian communities and then out into the wider community, so the Indian communities and their surroundings are weeks to months ahead of everyone else and of course have far higher rates. That's your cause for the differential by area, not vaccine rates. My God man. Learn to think and analyze data.

And even fewer of 0-19 have been jabbed, right? Yet they have lower rates. Most 40-59 have been jabbed, yet they have an R of about 1.4 regardless - in summer.

Your data analysis here is terrible - wishful thinking and a complete failure to look at the multiple factors causing these numbers (or even basic comparison with baseline pre-vaccine early spread numbers by age).

Yes and these communities have lower vaccine uptake compared to the UK average as do those specific areas you mention because they are also poorer, which is another indicator of below trend vaccine uptake.

Also the country is not close to 70% FULLY vaccinated, equating all stages of vaccination under one rubric, just ****s sake can you go five minutes without calling other people names without making glaring errors yourself?

Grow the **** up.

The UK is 45% vaccinated. I CBA to wade through the rest of your **** when you can't even be bothered to check the most basic facts upon which you are basing your entire argument.

El Razor,
You got completely owned (self owned really), nice cowardly out sir. The first dose is very protective and the UK has a long wait before getting the second one (good strategy). You're not counting immunity from prior infection either, which puts it well over 80% now (see below). First dose + prior infection is also more protective than no infection + second dose. Read the science, man. So again even on this you just plain suck on the analysis.

So which is the dominant factor here?

1. The Indian variant has spread most through Indian communities and surrounds at a higher rate because they have far more ties to Indian travelers, and thus were seeded earlier and more broadly?

2. The Indian variant has spread most through Indian communities and surrounds at a higher rate because they're less vaccinated than the UK average?

It's overwhelmingly (1), no?

Sure, you are correct if "fully" means second dose run to completion (which is largely irrelevant anyway). But here is the data for immunity in the UK from over 2 months ago:

UK Government Office of National Statistics: April 11 (more than two months ago)

So covid is managing to spread at a high rate through a population that is 70% immune as of now (again, this is from 2.3 months ago), in summer conditions as well.

This doesn't give you pause?

You an Elrazor are both clowns on the analysis here.

The claim for fully protected by vaccine is ~60% protection from infection. Lower for one jab. R0 for delta is estimated around 6.

~zero under 55's would have been fully protected. I'm 55, had my jabs close to asap, and am still a week away from max protection. Most younger people are awaiting or have recently had their 1st jab.

The data seems highly plausible under these assumptions doesn't it?

1. Initial outbreak in those specific higher levels of ethnic minority high poverty index communities accounts for much of the R we see in older age groups and is why we see those curves drop off once Delta spread is established nationally.

2. Its already public knowledge that singe jab is much less effective v Delta than second jab + incubation period. Single jab is much less effective v Delta than Alpha (kent). Distinguishing between one jab and two is a must and lumping both states together under the term Vaccinated, is terrible methodology.

3. Wat? Some level of antibodies = full immunity=NOPE. The idea that someone can test positive to antibodies and a positive test bestows full scale immunity is just totally fallacious. Let us also bring attention to the word Estimated.


This is the most baffling statement. Where have I indicated I am not concerned by Delta?

The Delta variant is scary as ****.

This is going to be so tedious.

Tooth has based his perspective on clearly false assumption about the level of vaccinations in certain age groups in the UK, having called people names etc, he now cant in anyway row back from the conclusions made via those false assumptions, so much more name calling is inevitable.

Is this specifically against delta? It's a lot lower than what I've read

I've read 5, but still crazy high, sure.

Where the hell are you getting this data from??

This is from the Office of National Statistic's last report (the 9th of June) showing single vaccination rates and double vaccination rates in the UK. The statement above is just crazy wrong:



As of one month ago, 85% of 35 to 49 year olds had received one dose (which is supposed very protective), and 32% and rapidly climbing had had the (largely irrelevant) second vaccination. Is this data wrong? You guys are from the UK, what the **** is going on that you have takes such as ~zero under 55's would have been fully protected. I'm so confused right now.

I read raw data before I start holding forth, sir. See above for said data. That's why I'm nearly always correct on the analysis. Perhaps I'm reading the government data incorrectly - I have no clue how chez is saying things like "~zero under 55s are fully protected" given this data so something must be amiss - but it says what it says and you can read it above.