Thanks for informing us about the situation in Norway. The OOO is a curious incident indeed.
One remark: the two figures (73% of the OOO participants infected) and the RKI figure (70%) can not be compared (apart from the fact that both point to the vaccination being ineffective in terms of prohibiting infections).
The 73% are an estimate of your probability of becoming infected, given
- you are vaccinated
- you are 30-50yo
- you come into contact with the virus (coming from another vaccinated person) and
- the environment is pro-infection (indoors, longer time period, presumably lots of talking, laughing, drinking, maybe singing)
The 70% are the proportion of vaccinated people in a certain population of infected persons with symptoms. They are an estimate of the probability of drawing a vaccinated person when the sample available are all infected 60+ year-old people with symptoms in Germany. That probability depends on the vaccination rate: if the vaccination rate is zero, the probability is zero as well; if the vaccination rate is one; the probability is one as well; the 70% are an estimate corresponding to the current vaccination rate of about 86%. If the estimate is good (which I doubt, due to the RKI's data problems) it means that the vaccination still has some effectiveness against infection with symptoms. A placebo would lead to a probability of around 86% (not considering the placebo effect).
thanks for the additional information. I'm aware of the apples-and-oranges comparison, and the main reason for doing runs a bit like this: I don't trust any of these official numbers, but they are a kind of 'lower boundary' of what the powers-that-be are willing (must) concede.
Hence, if the Barnstable incident showed, irrespective of age cohorts involved, that the 'vaccines' don't prevent infection or transmission, the Oslo Omicron Outbreak confirms this in yet another way: by 'now', it means, to me at least, that fading 'vaccince efficacy' has reached the younger, more resilient (30-50yo) age cohorts.
Thus, if an institution such as the RKI (has to) admit that 'breakthrough infections' among seniors (60+ yo) are, this is ± the territory of the OOO incident.
None of these numbers 'mean' anything, or at least too much, but they show at least that a) the powers-that-be can't hide these facts lest b) people become (entirely) distrustful of 'official numbers' and/or 'accounts'.
OK, I understand your point. I just prefer my argumentation to be watertight, and point to errors and omissions on the other side - and boy, there are many of those in Germany. By now, everybody knows that the vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission. The fight now is about the actual rates. The good thing about small-scale incidents like OOO is that it is difficult to hide anything. At the population level this is totally different. I am thinking about analyzing the RKI data a bit further and putting this on substack.
Real-life answer: Well, still the vaccines reducre the probability of infection and transmission, and they are absolutely EXCELLENT against severe outcome, and the unvaccinated are clogging the ICUs and are taking away space for the vaccinated, which don't need the space but might need the space, and the unvaccinated endanger the vaccinated because the vaccines are so excellent, and you're a Nazi if you say otherwise. And Omicron!
Thanks for informing us about the situation in Norway. The OOO is a curious incident indeed.
One remark: the two figures (73% of the OOO participants infected) and the RKI figure (70%) can not be compared (apart from the fact that both point to the vaccination being ineffective in terms of prohibiting infections).
The 73% are an estimate of your probability of becoming infected, given
- you are vaccinated
- you are 30-50yo
- you come into contact with the virus (coming from another vaccinated person) and
- the environment is pro-infection (indoors, longer time period, presumably lots of talking, laughing, drinking, maybe singing)
The 70% are the proportion of vaccinated people in a certain population of infected persons with symptoms. They are an estimate of the probability of drawing a vaccinated person when the sample available are all infected 60+ year-old people with symptoms in Germany. That probability depends on the vaccination rate: if the vaccination rate is zero, the probability is zero as well; if the vaccination rate is one; the probability is one as well; the 70% are an estimate corresponding to the current vaccination rate of about 86%. If the estimate is good (which I doubt, due to the RKI's data problems) it means that the vaccination still has some effectiveness against infection with symptoms. A placebo would lead to a probability of around 86% (not considering the placebo effect).
Hi cm27874,
thanks for the additional information. I'm aware of the apples-and-oranges comparison, and the main reason for doing runs a bit like this: I don't trust any of these official numbers, but they are a kind of 'lower boundary' of what the powers-that-be are willing (must) concede.
Hence, if the Barnstable incident showed, irrespective of age cohorts involved, that the 'vaccines' don't prevent infection or transmission, the Oslo Omicron Outbreak confirms this in yet another way: by 'now', it means, to me at least, that fading 'vaccince efficacy' has reached the younger, more resilient (30-50yo) age cohorts.
Thus, if an institution such as the RKI (has to) admit that 'breakthrough infections' among seniors (60+ yo) are, this is ± the territory of the OOO incident.
None of these numbers 'mean' anything, or at least too much, but they show at least that a) the powers-that-be can't hide these facts lest b) people become (entirely) distrustful of 'official numbers' and/or 'accounts'.
What say you?
OK, I understand your point. I just prefer my argumentation to be watertight, and point to errors and omissions on the other side - and boy, there are many of those in Germany. By now, everybody knows that the vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission. The fight now is about the actual rates. The good thing about small-scale incidents like OOO is that it is difficult to hide anything. At the population level this is totally different. I am thinking about analyzing the RKI data a bit further and putting this on substack.
"By now, everybody knows"?
In that case, how can they possibly justify mandates?
Common-sense answer: they can't.
Real-life answer: Well, still the vaccines reducre the probability of infection and transmission, and they are absolutely EXCELLENT against severe outcome, and the unvaccinated are clogging the ICUs and are taking away space for the vaccinated, which don't need the space but might need the space, and the unvaccinated endanger the vaccinated because the vaccines are so excellent, and you're a Nazi if you say otherwise. And Omicron!
Insane, but I've actually had people make "real-life" arguments like that.