5 ms·

In .nl it is more like 75% of admissions are non-vaccinated, and slightly higher for intensive care.

• aqme28 5y ago
  And the goal of a good vaccination rollout is for 0% of admissions to be non-vaccinated. It seems like NL is doing well.
  • pjc50 5y ago
    The more successful the rollout, the more the ratio goes up - this is counterintuitive, but happens because the number of unvaccinated people around that could possibly catch it in the first place becomes comparatively tiny.
    • aqme28 5y ago
      I think we might be getting our negatives confused. A perfectly successful rollout sees 100% of people vaccinated, so 100% of admissions are vaccinated, so 0% of admissions are non-vaccinated.
      • xwdv 5y ago
        So basically you're saying that wherever hospital admissions are 95% unvaccinated people the vaccine rollout hasn't worked.
        • AnonymousPlanet 5y ago
          From "A => B" does not follow "(not A) => (not B)" edit: swapped A and B by mistake, see comment below
          • TrianguloY 5y ago
            Hmm, logically speaking, yes, yes it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)
            • AnonymousPlanet 5y ago
              Haha, you're right! I mistyped. The left side should have been "(not A) => (not B)"
        • jleyank 5y ago
          No, it’s working but vaccination has not been completed. And, depending on the location, it doesn’t look like it’s going to complete.
          • xwdv 5y ago
            Ok, so what you’re saying is vaccine rollout is working if it’s 0% or 100%. So what’s the failure mode? 50% I guess?
            • aqme28 5y ago
              Can’t something just be in process before claiming it’s a success or failure?
• an9n 5y ago
  Does that mean 75% of people that are hospitalised specifically due to effects of Coronavirus were unvaccinated? Or does it mean that 75% of people that were hospitalised for any cause, and that then subsequently tested positive, were found to be unvaccinated? There's a big difference between the two. It would still be interesting if it were the latter, as that might indicate vaccination was somehow protecting the vaccinated against hospitalisation for causes that weren't immediately identifiable as being related to Coronavirus. I mean, it could be the case that the unvaccinated were suffering cognitive effects of infection that made them more likely to be in car crashes, for example.
  • Beldin 5y ago
    > Does that mean 75% of people that are hospitalised specifically due to effects of Coronavirus were unvaccinated? Yes, it means exactly this.