Is this happening to people who have been vaccinated, or unvaccinated? Or both?
It's gotten so bad that the military was called in to restore peace.
The doctors there were on a news segment, completely burnt out and in tears, saying that 0% of their COVID patients are vaccinated and they're overrun.
So I believe this metric.
Similarly, I had a fever + 4 days of 20 hours of sleep after receiving the second Pfizer-Biontech dose.
I mean, you don't want anyone left behind. But if you're forced to leave someone behind, the question becomes "who?". If you have one emergency bed and in comes a drunk driver from an accident, shortly followed by the pregnant woman he ran over, I'm not a big fan of "first come, first served".
If and when doctors are forced into heinous choices, I'd think such considerations should play a role - for society allocating scarce resources, at the very least.
I may personally agree with the exact situation you describe, but relying on "common sense" breaks fast at scale. If the doctor(s) making the call are devout adherents of some religious sect, would you prefer that they prioritize the drunken driver above the pregnant woman who needs an abortion of the child that was conceived out of bedlock?
Or denying care to the heroin addict ODing?
IMO, completely removing moral judgment from the medical evaluation process is a net positive.
This doesn't have to mean "first come, first serve", and I assume it doesn't in most places.
Sorry for being sceptical, but I've seen similar claims propagated on twitter "hospital so full, that gunshot victims are turned away". It was untrue both on accounts of being full and there being any gunshot victims.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-managed-build-enti...
> During April 4–July 17, a total of 569,142 (92%) COVID-19 cases, 34,972 (92%) hospitalizations, and 6,132 (91%) COVID-19–associated deaths were reported among persons not fully vaccinated,
In the same period
> Full vaccination coverage increased from 19% to 54% https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm
https://www.trouw.nl/zorg/wie-zijn-de-gevaccineerden-die-toc...
Dutch obviously.
Without a doubt, most of the approved COVID-19 vaccines are extremely effective at preventing hospitalization/death due to SARS-CoV-2 infections, this has been shown time and time again across the world.
Of course, that is why I was asking.
The US are at 66.6 and 57.6, but there are huge disparities between states, while vermont is at 70,8% full vax WV is at 41.
Loosely translated from : https://www.rivm.nl/covid-19-vaccinatie/cijfers-vaccinatiepr...
( Dutch CDC )
Estimated single jab rate for 18+ : 87,1%, 83,5% 2 jabs.
12+, 84,9% one jab, 81,4% 2 jabs.
This is countrywide.
I don't know if the difference comes from "our world in data" using older data, or because they also count children under 12.
Source: https://www.rivm.nl/covid-19-vaccinatie/cijfers-vaccinatiepr...
With enough samples we can start for the next differentiator, if one exists.
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen/corona-krankenhaus-in...
https://klinikum-darmstadt.de/aktuelles-news/ungeimpfte-coro...
https://www.dkgev.de/dkg/presse/details/mehr-als-90-prozent-...
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/corona-fast-nur-ungeimp...
How many among patients hospitalized for covid in ICU and not-ICU are vaccinated ?
edit: swapped A and B by mistake, see comment below
So what’s the failure mode? 50% I guess?
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.
Yes, it means exactly this.
Jokes aside, the study seems more like a Coronavirus can cause long term damage to parts of brain. Vaccinated people would likely end up with less likelyhood of this happening (by a big factor) compared to unvaccinated.
Nevertheless this does not seem to be a big deal that you should worry about.
This seems to be related to the severe cases of the infection. However it's not certain in milder cases, that is it may still be the case. Also the neural damage may be reversible (observed for hamsters).
Obviously, the key here is to survive it first.
Vaccination, when effective, is supposed to reduce the chance of a severe case of the infection.
I remember at the start of the year, when the vaccines first came out. A doctor shared some lung X-rays of infected, presumably hospitalised, patients. The vaccinated ones were far healthier.
The concept you describe makes me think of Russians.
Picard, his head down, his palm covering his face.
For people that have received the vaccine in the last 6 months ("within date") the per-capita infection rate is an order of magnitude lower (per capita of ~1-4 vs ~15-30) than both the expired vaccinated and unvaccinated.
But when you look at ICU cases, the expired vaccinations are closer to the within-date vaccinations.
So keeping up to date on vaccine means you don't get infected at all. But having even an expired vaccine means you'll have a milder case.
The efficacy of the vaccine indicates how well the vaccine has taught the body to make antibodies for the virus.
Thus, those vaccinated have a better chance of fighting the infection. That is why there are higher survival rates among those infected but vaccinated.
Since even vaccinated people can be infected, and since infection has a higher spread via inhalation and exhalation, wearing a mask keeps the virus out to a high extent, and helps keep the virus in as well (preventing the virus from spreading around via the infected person's exhalation).
Asymptomatic infection, and presymptomatic infection, are both forms of infection. However, yes, they differ from symptomatic infection in terms of severity, no doubt due to lesser viral load.
The distinction I would personally make is exposed vs infected. Being exposed to a virus doesn't mean you'll get infected, where infection is quantifiable tested with a PCR test.
It's impossible for me to know for certain, people who are that high risk do still die post-vaccination. And obviously not all of them die when catching Covid even if they haven't been vaccinated. But I do credit the vaccination for potentially saving her life. She was in intensive care for a single day and never had to be put on a ventilator. It was only briefly touch-and-go, within 24 hours we knew that she was going to live.
Not catching Covid is great, we're all hoping for that. But when my family got the news that she was stable, that felt really good. It's not even just about stabilizing; there was a brief period where she wasn't lucid, and then it became obvious that she was getting more lucid and was going to recover and that she was recognizing people again.
Reducing severity really matters. You're still playing a statistical game, nothing is certain, but... when someone you care about is in the hospital, statistics become important to you.
I don't think that's a long term option at this point, unless you continue to quarantine yourself for the rest of your life.
(Rich) countries are already rolling out third doses, at least for the most vulnerable. Longer term, we'll have revised vaccines, even more effective against Delta.
Maybe you're right, we can't avoid catching COVID long term. But if that's the case, hopefully its severity is (even further) attenuated by then, due to further vaccination.
I know of a few people who can't be older than their ?late fifties? or early sixties? that caught COVID. It was horrendous for them, despite them having the fortune to be double vaccinated.
Since I'm safely isolated, I haven't gotten any tests to confirm if my shots worked. I will eventually.