Covid-19 reports

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Iceland data update.

Over the last 27 days (July 19 though August 14), Iceland has recorded 2,573 new cases of COVID. That represents 0.70% of its 368,792 population. The vaccination status of these cases:

31.40% were unvaccinated (808 cases) -- 25.39% of the population is unvaccinated
. 2.06% were partially vaccinated (53) -- 5.38% of the population is partially vaccinated
66.54% were fully vaccinated (1,712) -- 69.23% of the population is fully vaccinated

The percentage of new cases by vaccination status aligns closely to the vaccination status share of the population.

255,322 people are fully vaccinated. Those 1,712 cases represent 0.67% of that total.
. 19,851 people are partially vaccinated. Those 53 cases represent 0.27% of that total.
. 93,619 people are unvaccinated. Those 808 cases represent 0.86% of that total.

Case data source (see: "Number of vaccinated individuals among domestic infections")
Vaccination numbers source
Iceland total population source
 
The following chart is from the Health Department of the state of Indiana.

Indiana has a fully vaccinated rate of 52%, with more than 75% age 65 and up fully vaccinated.

2.4% of new infection cases have occurred in vaccinated people, as compared to 97.6% in unvaccinated people.

I was going to put up more charts, but there are so many available showing similar results, that I settled on this one due to its simplicity and clarity in showing the data.

Incidentally, my home state of Minnesota has a fully vaccinated rate of 57% (3,0180,700 out of 5,300,000), with another 4% partially vaccinated. Less than 1% of the deaths are occurring among the vaccinated - a little bit better than in Indiana - but the difference is so small that it may be statistically insignificant.
 
ThomasP said:
The following chart is from the Health Department of the state of Indiana.

[edited for brevity]
Click to expand...

The problem with that presentation is that it doesn't show the rate within each vaccination status group; it's just the overall numbers lumped together, and that can be misleading.

The Public Health Agency of Canada did something similar. It presented the following figures on Aug. 13th:

Cases
89.4% = unvaccinated (555,240 cases out of 620,737 total cases)
. 5.3% = not yet protected (32,855 cases out of 620,737 total cases)
. 4.7% = partially protected (29,225 cases out of 620,737 total cases)
. 0.6% = fully protected (3,417 cases out of 620,737 total cases)

Hospitalizations
84.8% = unvaccinated (28,146 hospitalizations out of 33,196 total hospitalizations)
. 7.4% = not yet protected (2,450 hospitalizations out of 33,196 total hospitalizations)
. 7.0% = partially protected (2,340 hospitalizations out of 33,196 total hospitalizations)
. 0.8% = fully protected (260 hospitalizations out of 33,196 total hospitalizations)

Deaths
82.1% = unvaccinated (5,936 deaths out of 7,232 total deaths)
. 8.8% = not yet protected (639 deaths out of 7,232 total deaths)
. 7.8% = partially protected (565 deaths out of 7,232 total deaths)
. 1.3% = fully protected (92 deaths out of 7,232 total deaths)

This would seem to speak highly of vaccinations, wouldn't it?

Notice what this data is not doing: it is not comparing rates within a given vaccination status group. It it not telling us the rate at which unvaccinated persons were hospitalized out of all unvaccinated cases. It is not telling us the rate at which partially protected cases died out of all partially protected cases. It is not comparing like to like.

What happens when you slice the data that way? You get the following results.

Hospitalization Rate by Vaccination Status
5.07% = unvaccinated (28,146 hospitalizations out of 555,240 unvaccinated cases)
7.46% = not yet protected (2,450 hospitalizations out of 32,855 not yet protected cases)
8.01% = partially protected (2,340 hospitalizations out of 29,225 partially protected cases)
7.61% = fully protected (260 hospitalizations out of 3,417 fully protected cases)

Fatality Rate by Vaccination Status
1.07% = unvaccinated (5,936 deaths out of 555,240 unvaccinated cases)
1.94% = not yet protected (639 hospitalizations out of 32,855 not yet protected cases)
1.93% = partially protected (565 hospitalizations out of 29,225 partially protected cases)
2.69% = fully protected (92 hospitalizations out of 3,417 fully protected cases)

Now things look different, don't they?

It turns out the unvaccinated have the lowest rate of hospitalization and death of the four vaccination status groups. A greater share of the not yet protected, partially protected, and fully protected cases are being hospitalized and dying as compared to the rate among unvaccinated cases.

When looking at the rates within each status group, the differences are not nearly as large as in the original presentation. Indeed, the differences are small, just a few percentage points at most, although the unvaccinated group did fare the best.

Does the Indiana data you mentioned show the numbers for each vaccination status group? What do the rate numbers for each status group reveal? I would argue if it does not provide the full numerical data to allow such group rate calculation then the Indiana presentation is misleading. (The PHAC data does provide the numerical values, but one does have to do the status group rate calculations oneself.)

Source: Public Health Agency of Canada (see Figure 5 for the original presentation data; see Table 2 for the full numerical data)

Definitions
Not yet protected = <14 days after first dose
Partially protected = 14+ days after first dose to <14 days after second dose
Fully protected = 14+ days after second dose
 
Last edited:
Hey 33k in the air,

re "Now things look different, don't they?"

No. They do not look different.

The chart I posted is quite clear and straightforward in the way it presents the data.

In the state of Indiana in the year 2021 prior to 13 August, there have been 285,248 new cases of COVID-19
Out of the 285,248 cases there have been 16,548 hospitalizations
Out of the 16,548 hospitalizations there have been 5,787 deaths

Out of the 285,248 new cases:____278,508 occurred in the unvaccinated 48%, while_6,740 occurred in the vaccinated 52%.
Out of the 16,548 hospitalizations:__16,322 occurred in the unvaccinated 48%, while__ 226 occurred in the vaccinated 52%.
Out of the 5,787 deaths:____________5,709 occurred in the unvaccinated 48%, while___ 78 occurred in the vaccinated 52%.

The data in the chart shows that:

If you are vaccinated you are ~45x less likely to catch COVID-19.

When you add in the fact that If you do not catch COVID-19 you will not be hospitalized or die from COVID-19 (Duh!) you get:

If you are vaccinated you are - at a minimum ~45x less likely be hospitalized due to COVID-19.

If you are vaccinated you are - at a minimum ~45x less likely to die from COVID-19.

If you apply the values in the chart on a per capita basis, the advantage skews even higher for the vaccinated in the areas of hospitalizations and deaths.

Yes there are other factors that can be included, some of which will change the 45x factor for different groups, but the simple fact is that if you are vaccinated you are significantly less likely to catch COVID-19 and therefor significantly less likely to be hospitalized and/or die.
 
Last edited:
Italy report, 16th August, weekly change, from monday to monday
cases 4,444,338 +43,721, deaths 128,456 +214, recovered 4,187,186, +30,066, active cases 128,696, +13,841, tests 55,801,186, +575,901, people tested 31,753,974, +342,876, vaccines administered 73,956,498, +1,930,871, people full vaccinated 35,652,402, +1,007,763.
fatality rate 2.9% (=)
mortality rate 2,130 per million (+4)
positive rate 14% (=)
vaccines on population 1,226,130 per million (+32,012)
people full vaccinated 591,084 per million (+16,708)
test rate this week 9,548 per million (-615)
positive rate this week 12.8% (+1.4)
new case rate this week 725 per million (+27)
new vaccines this week 32,012 per million (-16,756)
people full vaccinated this week 16,708 per million (-14,023)
 
Italy
All-case fatality rate by age group. National data published Aug. 13th; covers up through Aug. 11th.

0-9 years: . . . 0.006% .(14 deaths out of 243,051 cases)
10-19 years: . 0.004% .(17 deaths out of 446,197 cases)
20-29 years: . 0.01% - (69 deaths out of 542,190 cases)
30-39 years: . 0.05% - (261 deaths out of 552,178 cases)
40-49 years: . 0.16% - (1,135 deaths out of 702,230 cases)
50-59 years: . 0.60% - (4,552 deaths out of 754,959 cases)
60-69 years: . 2.76% - (13,151 deaths out of 477,178 cases)
70-79 years: . 9.32% - (32,177 deaths out of 345,418 cases)
80-89 years: 20.00% - (51,417 deaths out of 257,125 cases)
90+ years: . .27.90% - (24,681 deaths out of 88,462 cases)

There is a large, noticeable difference in outcome between the under-60 and 60+ age groups.

Data Source (See Table 1 on page 12 of the report PDF)
 
Well, we're back in lockdown. Three weeks out form the airshow.
One case of Delta in the country on Tuesday morning, and now up to 10 as at yesterday. One was a high school teacher, one visited a casino, one had a big night out on Friday... its not looking good.
 

That reaction to one case seems insane to me. There's some 18 months of data from around the world illustrating the actual level of risk, and which groups are most at risk (e.g. see the Italian data in post #287), yet New Zealand authorities still seem to think COVID is some sort of Ebola-Black Death-Spanish Flu combination.
 
Well, two days later, and we're at more than 20 cases...
Regarding those comparisons - more transmissible than Ebola, higher fatality rate than the Spanish Flu, and worse long-term effects than either. So, it kind of is.
We've had cases within managed isolation facilities of it being transmitted between rooms with doors opposite each other in the corridor open at the same time for a matter of seconds.

Looking at the Australian data, which is a hell of a lot more relevant for us than Italy's, shows that those most likely to contract Covid are in the 20-40 age bracket. But they then go and pass it on to older people.

You seem to think that it's only about fatality rate. We like to try to prevent suffering and misery if we can. I know, we're old-fashioned like that.

Oh, and our hospitals don't profit from having maximum occupancy, so we try to avoid it.
 
ThomasP said:
Hey 33k in the air,

In your opinion, how many of which groups would have to be at risk of and/or suffer severe injury or death in order to make New Zealand's actions (and similar preventive actions of other countries) not insane?
Click to expand...

Let me respond with a question of my own: do you make the same calculation in regards to any other cause of death? Do you express similar concern over, say, heart disease or cancer deaths?

If New Zealand authorities were willing to be as draconian with the public about cancer as it is COVID, it would outlaw smoking, ban all tobacco products, and prohibit the use of any chemical even remotely suspected of being carcinogenic. Such measures could prevent many of the 35,934 cases of cancer and the 10,508 cancer deaths which occurred in the country in 2020.

If you are willing to restrict the rights of 5 million New Zealand citizens in order to prevent even one death from COVID, then surely you would be willing to restrict the rights of citizens in order to prevent even one death from cancer.

Or do the lives lost to cancer not matter? Are they not deserving of strict government intervention?
 
gumbyk said:
You seem to think that it's only about fatality rate. We like to try to prevent suffering and misery if we can. I know, we're old-fashioned like that.
Click to expand...

Do you demand similar government effort to prevent the suffering from, say, cancer?

The fact that you aren't championing massive government intervention to prevent suffering from cancer, even though the government certainly could, suggests you are willing to tolerate some degree of suffering and deaths but not others. In which case, I ask: how do you draw that line?

Why are COVID deaths deserving of being prevented by the most heavy-handed government intrusions possible, yet cancer deaths or heart disease deaths or diabetes deaths or influenza deaths are not deserving of the same level of government intrusion?
 
gumbyk said:
Looking at the Australian data, which is a hell of a lot more relevant for us than Italy's, shows that those most likely to contract Covid are in the 20-40 age bracket. But they then go and pass it on to older people.
Click to expand...

Hence why you shield and protect older people, especially those in long-term care facilities. You have them restrict their interactions with others while letting the rest of the population go about its business. Focused protection, which is exactly what all the pre-2020, long-standing influenza pandemic response plans called for. Focused protection causes the least amount of disruption to the society as a whole. But, for some reason, all those pre-2020 pandemic response plans were thrown out the window in favour of restrictions on the entire population, including those at little to no risk.

In regards to vaccinations, get those aged 80+ first, then those 70-79. Doing this will remove the vast majority of those at risk. (More than five out of every six COVID deaths in Canada were aged 70 or older.) After that, one could add the 60-69 age bracket.

Below 60, and especially below 50, the risk of dying from COVID is less than that from other mundane causes no one gives a second thought to. And since no one panics over the greater number of deaths from traffic accidents for these age groups, for example, there seems no reason to panic over COVID deaths in those same age groups. It's simply another low level risk among many others that people accept every day.
 
Hey 33k in the air,

As up-thread, you again appear to be trying to rebut my post, but your response has nothing to do with my question.

So I repeat:

In your opinion, how many of which groups would have to be at risk of and/or suffer severe injury or death in order to make New Zealand's actions (and similar preventive actions of other countries) not insane?
 
Back to data.

British Columbia
Weekly epidemiological report published August 18. Covers Jan. 15, 2020, through August 7, 2021.

Case Rate by Age Group

0-9 years: . . 1.87% .(8,809 cases out of 470,017 people in the age group)
10-19 years: 3.14% .(16,619 / 529,387)
20-29 years: 5.03% .(35,189 / 699,476)
30-39 years: 3.78% .(28,356 / 750,054)
40-49 years: 3.44% .(22,328 / 648,377)
50-59 years: 2.64% .(18,816 / 711,930)
60-69 years: 1.76% .(12,115 / 686,889)
70-79 years: 1.36% .(6,203 / 454,855)
80-89 years: 1.75% .(3,382 / 193,351)
90+ years: . .2.89% .(1,526 / 52,885)

Hospitalization Rate by Age Group

0-9 years: . . . 1.10% .(97 hospitalizations out of 8,809 cases)
10-19 years: . 0.43% .(71 / 16,619)
20-29 years: . 1.23% .(432 / 35,189)
30-39 years: . 2.94% .(833 / 28,356)
40-49 years: . 4.11% .(918 / 22,328)
50-59 years: . 6.77% .(1,273 / 18,816)
60-69 years: 12.77% .(1,547 / 12,115)
70-79 years: 24.81% .(1,539 / 6,203)
80-89 years: 33.21% .(1,123 / 3,382)
90+ years: . .25.95% .(396 / 1,526)

ICU Admission Rate by Age Group

0-9 years: . . 0.09% .(8 ICU admissions out of 8,809 cases)
10-19 years: 0.09% .(15 / 16,619)
20-29 years: 0.13% .(47 / 35,189)
30-39 years: 0.56% .(159 / 28,356)
40-49 years: 0.89% .(198 / 22,328)
50-59 years: 1.92% .(361 / 18,816)
60-69 years: 3.87% .(469 / 12,115)
70-79 years: 7.17% .(445 / 6,203)
80-89 years: 4.88% .(165 / 3,382)
90+ years: . .1.11% .(17 / 1,526)

Fatality Rate by Age Group

0-9 years: . . . 0.02% .(2 deaths out of 8,809 cases)
10-19 years: . 0.00% .(0 / 16,619)
20-29 years: . 0.01% .(2 / 35,189)
30-39 years: . 0.06% .(16 / 28,356)
40-49 years: . 0.12% .(27 / 22,328)
50-59 years: . 0.39% .(73 / 18,816)
60-69 years: . 1.45% .(176 / 12,115)
70-79 years: . 6.08% .(377 / 6,203)
80-89 years: 18.48% .(625 / 3,382)
90+ years: . .31.45% .(480 / 1,526)

Data source (See Table 4 on page 9 of the report PDF)
 
U.K. Technical Briefing 21
Published August 20th.

Overall Delta variant cases by vaccination status
52.86% = unvaccinated (183,131 out of 346,459 total Delta variant cases)
25.96% = partially unvaccinated (89,956 / 346,459)
21.18% = fully vaccinated (73,372 / 346,459)

Overall Delta variant deaths by vaccination status
33.25% = unvaccinated (390 out of 1,173 total Delta variant deaths)
..8.87% = partially vaccinated (104 / 1,173)
57.89% = fully vaccinated (679 / 1,173)

Overall Delta variant emergency care visit rate
4.49% = unvaccinated (8,219 EC visits out of 183,131 unvaccinated cases)
3.18% = partially vaccinated (2,858 EC visits out of 89,956 partially vaccinated cases)
4.04% = fully vaccinated (2,964 EC visits out of 73,372 fully vaccinated cases)

Overall Delta variant emergency care visit requiring an overnight stay rate
1.24% = unvaccinated (2,270 EC overnight visits out of 183,131 unvaccinated cases)
0.64% = partially vaccinated (573 EC overnight visits out of 89,956 partially vaccinated cases)
1.68% = fully vaccinated (1,236 EC visits out of 73,372 fully vaccinated cases)

Overall Delta variant fatality rate
0.21% = unvaccinated (390 deaths out of 183,131 unvaccinated cases)
0.12% = partially vaccinated (104 deaths out of 89,956 partially vaccinated cases)
0.93% = fully vaccinated (679 deaths out of 73,372 fully vaccinated cases)

Data source (See Table 5 on pages 22-23 of the report PDF)

Note: As always with COVID, age makes a major difference in outcome. A subsequent post will break down the hospitalization and fatality rates into the two age groups the briefing uses (those under 50 and those 50 or older).
 
33k in the air said:
If you are willing to restrict the rights of 5 million New Zealand citizens in order to prevent even one death from COVID, then surely you would be willing to restrict the rights of citizens in order to prevent even one death from cancer.
Click to expand...

To be clear, the majority of the New Zealand public thinks this is an appropriate means of dealing with the virus.

Your views are typical of the "freedom" lobby who think that the preservation of rights and freedoms comes without consequence. There's no freedom when your population is being ravaged by a pandemic the government has done little to stem. Comparing the rates of heart disease and cancer with COVID is silly. Neither heart disease and cancer have as swift and immediate impact on the nation's health or the economy. COVID spreads like wildfire and anyone who can't make the distinction between why COVID is treated with such strict measures compared to other illnesses that rank among national health statistics is delusional or has been living on another planet for the last two years.

The reason why we in New Zealand have enjoyed a quality of life resembling pre-COVID times is simply because of the savagery the virus has on the populations of countries around the world that have not enacted the same measures. In the past year we have been enjoying public events, not worrying about the impacts of COVID and thinking that it's a thing that happens overseas, but this is a stern warning that it's not over and governments that don't act will have continue to suffer high death tolls and infection rates.

Populations where these measures are put in place understand the long-term implications if they are not. Those who don't suffer needless and tragic loss for the sake of "freedom".
 
You missed the point - it's not only about the fatality rate. We realize that we have finite hospital facilities, and if our ICU's a full because of covid, then other people who would normally have survived something like a heart attack end up dead.

That, and our crazy Socialist leaning population don't like to see people suffer.

For what it's worth, we've had close to 6 months now with no restrictions at all, besides the requirement to wear masks on public transport.

The problem most countries has was that they expected that their out-dated influenza pandemic responses were going to be adequate, but they weren't, despite the WHO warning ofr over a decade that one of the biggest risks the world faced was exactly what we have seen.

You don't seem to realize that Covid has made it into New Zealand twice, and both times we've eliminated it. Not just controlled it like every other country, but been able to completely stamp it out, and continue with our lives relatively normally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
silencers: 1968 US Army report
Replies
0
Views
443
Joe Broady
J
Bert Kinzey from Detail and Scale in hospital with COVID
Replies
11
Views
976
Donivanp
A
Cars named after (or same as) WW2 and 1950s aircraft?
7 8 9
Replies
166
Views
8K
GrauGeist
R.I.P. Roy Cross 1924-2024....
Replies
11
Views
944
Engineman
E
The 1934 precursor to the Osprey
Replies
3
Views
723
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register