michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,447
Likes: 2,902
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 8, 2021 13:07:41 GMT
I thought this was pretty good:- https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/raxc31/oc_us_covid19_deaths_by_vaccine_status/ I'm getting fed up with sources in the media who keep treating us like idiots by not taking into account what the proportion of the population is vaccinated. The kind of stats where they say 95% of cases at this hospital were from unvaccinated people.... Surely all we need is a very simple Venn diagram splitting the population into two non-intersecting cohorts (to use a fashionable term): Those vaccinated and those not. Then in each bubble draw another sub-bubble showing what percentage of that cohort went to hospital (or died depending on what you are showing. I would like to see an aniimation of that changing over time particularly if you made the bubble sizes proportionate to number of people they represent. P.S. Not an attack on your RM - it was still a pretty graph to watch and certainly better than 1 line stupid stats trotted out in the media.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,639
Likes: 5,036
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2021 13:07:58 GMT
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 1,856
|
Post by archie on Dec 8, 2021 13:09:45 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,639
Likes: 5,036
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2021 13:12:08 GMT
I thought this was pretty good:- https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/raxc31/oc_us_covid19_deaths_by_vaccine_status/ I'm getting fed up with sources in the media who keep treating us like idiots by not taking into account what the proportion of the population is vaccinated. The kind of stats where they say 95% of cases at this hospital were from unvaccinated people.... Surely all we need is a very simple Venn diagram splitting the population into two non-intersecting cohorts (to use a fashionable term): Those vaccinated and those not. Then in each bubble draw another sub-bubble showing what percentage of that cohort went to hospital (or died depending on what you are showing. I would like to see an aniimation of that changing over time particularly if you made the bubble sizes proportionate to number of people they represent. Umm, that's exactly what those graphs show. Deaths per 100k people in each category. Let's take a still from just after the peak... So... From 100k unvacc'd, 16.62 died. From 100k J&J vacc'd, 2.17 died. From 100k Pfizer vacc'd, 1.39 died. From 100k Moderna vacc'd, 0.79 died. From 100k across the whole population, 1.15 died. So death rate amongst J&J vacc'd people is ~3x Moderna vacc'd, but death rate amongst unvacc is ~8x J&J vacc'd. Death rate amongst unvacc'd is ~15x pop'n as a whole. At least, that's how I'm reading it...
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2021 13:13:23 GMT
Or you could have just spun a coin, from all the anecdotes I keep hearing about their accuracy. (To be fair, I haven't checked the latest figures). I think this statement is itself inaccurate. They clearly are not as accurate as PCR tests of course. There was a lot of noise about how accurate they were, and frankly still is but seems to be quite often come from the sceptic/anti-vax/anti mask side. (I had someone say the same thing the other day, and that they were 'being phased out' which is papable nonsense. But in more recent times better analysis was done which confirmed they are pretty good, especially as a first line test/defence. I found this historic BBC article (October): Covid: Lateral flow tests more accurate than first thought, study finds
Core pieces from there being: When the researchers used a new formula for calculating the rapid test's accuracy, they found LFTs were more than 80% effective at detecting any level of Covid-19 infection and likely to be more than 90% effective at detecting who is most infectious when they use the test
"It is most likely that if someone's LFT is negative but their PCR is positive, then this is because they are not at peak transmissible stage," he said.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2021 13:16:57 GMT
I thought this was pretty good:- https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/raxc31/oc_us_covid19_deaths_by_vaccine_status/ I'm getting fed up with sources in the media who keep treating us like idiots by not taking into account what the proportion of the population is vaccinated. The kind of stats where they say 95% of cases at this hospital were from unvaccinated people.... Surely all we need is a very simple Venn diagram splitting the population into two non-intersecting cohorts (to use a fashionable term): Those vaccinated and those not. Then in each bubble draw another sub-bubble showing what percentage of that cohort went to hospital (or died depending on what you are showing. I would like to see an aniimation of that changing over time particularly if you made the bubble sizes proportionate to number of people they represent. P.S. Not an attack on your RM - it was still a pretty graph to watch and certainly better than 1 line stupid stats trotted out in the media. Sorry, comment not understood. This shows the death rate per 100k of EACH of the population groups. The proportion of the population which fall into each category is irrelevant (unless to small to be statistcally significvant). Or to put it another way, this shows precisely the type of information you say you want as it is unaffected by the number/%age of people who are vaccinated/unvaccinated.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 1,856
|
Post by archie on Dec 8, 2021 13:17:07 GMT
The jab is after 3 months but can be booked after 2 months.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,639
Likes: 5,036
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2021 13:18:09 GMT
The jab is after 3 months but can be booked after 2 months. Ah, gotcha...
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,447
Likes: 2,902
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 8, 2021 13:28:15 GMT
I'm getting fed up with sources in the media who keep treating us like idiots by not taking into account what the proportion of the population is vaccinated. The kind of stats where they say 95% of cases at this hospital were from unvaccinated people.... Surely all we need is a very simple Venn diagram splitting the population into two non-intersecting cohorts (to use a fashionable term): Those vaccinated and those not. Then in each bubble draw another sub-bubble showing what percentage of that cohort went to hospital (or died depending on what you are showing. I would like to see an aniimation of that changing over time particularly if you made the bubble sizes proportionate to number of people they represent. Umm, that's exactly what those graphs show. Deaths per 100k people in each category. Let's take a still from just after the peak... So... From 100k unvacc'd, 16.62 died. From 100k J&J vacc'd, 2.17 died. From 100k Pfizer vacc'd, 1.39 died. From 100k Moderna vacc'd, 0.79 died. From 100k across the whole population, 1.15 died. So death rate amongst J&J vacc'd people is ~3x Moderna vacc'd, but death rate amongst unvacc is ~8x J&J vacc'd. Death rate amongst unvacc'd is ~15x pop'n as a whole. At least, that's how I'm reading it... Yes quite right I should take a bit longer to understand what I'm seeing next time....
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,334
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 8, 2021 13:28:32 GMT
To me the instructions seem rather complicated anyway. I wonder how many people do them exactly according to the instructions, and how important the timings, etc, are in getting the 'correct' answer.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2021 13:41:19 GMT
The jab is after 3 months but can be booked after 2 months. Otherwise its not called 'a booster', its called 'an overdose'
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 8, 2021 13:58:41 GMT
Or you could have just spun a coin, from all the anecdotes I keep hearing about their accuracy. (To be fair, I haven't checked the latest figures). I think this statement is itself inaccurate. They clearly are not as accurate as PCR tests of course. There was a lot of noise about how accurate they were, and frankly still is but seems to be quite often come from the sceptic/anti-vax/anti mask side. (I had someone say the same thing the other day, and that they were 'being phased out' which is papable nonsense. But in more recent times better analysis was done which confirmed they are pretty good, especially as a first line test/defence. I found this historic BBC article (October): Covid: Lateral flow tests more accurate than first thought, study finds
Core pieces from there being: When the researchers used a new formula for calculating the rapid test's accuracy, they found LFTs were more than 80% effective at detecting any level of Covid-19 infection and likely to be more than 90% effective at detecting who is most infectious when they use the test
"It is most likely that if someone's LFT is negative but their PCR is positive, then this is because they are not at peak transmissible stage," he said.You are right of course, and my post was facetious and flippant, and by no means scientific. I thought that was clear, but... Earlier in the year, estimates of the accuracy went as low as 58%, which felt almost as useless as spinning a coin. The danger is for those receiving a negative to assume they are in fact negative, but registerme has cleared that up above. I do know of a group - all responsible PhD professionals - who all took LFTs before meeting up - all negative. The very next day, one felt poorly and took a PCR which gave a positive. Make of that what you will.
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 245
Likes: 201
|
Post by daveb on Dec 8, 2021 15:28:46 GMT
A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Dylan A Mistry 1 , Jenny Y Wang 2 , Mika-Erik Moeser 2 , Thomas Starkey 3 , Lennard Y W Lee
Results: Twenty-four papers were identified involving over 26,000 test results. Sensitivity from individual studies ranged from 37.7% (95% CI 30.6-45.5) to 99.2% (95% CI 95.5-99.9) and specificity from 92.4% (95% CI 87.5-95.5) to 100.0% (95% CI 99.7-100.0). Operation of the test by a trained professional or by the test subject with self-swabbing produced comparable results. Conclusions: This systematic review identified that the performance of lateral flow devices is heterogeneous and dependent on the manufacturer. Some perform with high specificity but a great range of sensitivities were shown (38.32-99.19%). Test performance does not appear dependent on the operator. Potentially, LFDs could support the scaling up of mass testing to aid track and trace methodology and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 with the additional benefit of providing individuals with the results in a much shorter time frame.
What I found particularly interesting is they say it depends more on who made the kit than who took the sample.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2021 15:38:44 GMT
I think this statement is itself inaccurate. They clearly are not as accurate as PCR tests of course. There was a lot of noise about how accurate they were, and frankly still is but seems to be quite often come from the sceptic/anti-vax/anti mask side. (I had someone say the same thing the other day, and that they were 'being phased out' which is papable nonsense. But in more recent times better analysis was done which confirmed they are pretty good, especially as a first line test/defence. I found this historic BBC article (October): Covid: Lateral flow tests more accurate than first thought, study finds
Core pieces from there being: When the researchers used a new formula for calculating the rapid test's accuracy, they found LFTs were more than 80% effective at detecting any level of Covid-19 infection and likely to be more than 90% effective at detecting who is most infectious when they use the test
"It is most likely that if someone's LFT is negative but their PCR is positive, then this is because they are not at peak transmissible stage," he said.You are right of course, and my post was facetious and flippant, and by no means scientific. I thought that was clear, but... Earlier in the year, estimates of the accuracy went as low as 58%, which felt almost as useless as spinning a coin. The danger is for those receiving a negative to assume they are in fact negative, but registerme has cleared that up above. I do know of a group - all responsible PhD professionals - who all took LFTs before meeting up - all negative. The very next day, one felt poorly and took a PCR which gave a positive. Make of that what you will. i took it as being vey much a caveated comment if not entirely facetious, so all I was doing was providing input for general consideration. On the second point. I guess very little that can be derived from a single data point. It might be that they fell into the 20% of non-infectious not picked up, or the <10% of infectious that wasn't picked up. It could be that he had previously had covid and not felt any symptoms from it, picked up a cold, and then did a PCR that picked up the genetic remnants of a prior infection (ok, bit outlandish but....). As a fan of statistics bernythedolt, perhaps it would be an interesting exercise to turn the handle based on an ONS community infection level of say 1:60, group size of x, LFT efficacy of y, and figure out what the chances are of any single group of that size having at least one person infected but not picked up by an LFT test. And then from that, how many groups of same size you would need to know of from which the probably of at least one having that experience was say 50%. Me, I'm off to have a cup of tea and get the Xmas decs down out the loft
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 8, 2021 15:43:49 GMT
....
What I found particularly interesting is they say it depends more on who made the kit than who took the sample.
I guess we didn't ought to be surprised by that, though we did ought to be surprised if that relates to kits certified for use by e.g. the UK, US or other comparable western bodies. I didn't immediately spot where the kits in question were coming from.
|
|