- About Railpage
- Railpage Australia™
- Help For Beginners
- Locations
- News

- Australian Railway News
- New South Wales
- Sydney Suburban
- Victoria
- Melbourne suburban
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Tasmania
- Western Australia
- NT
- ACT
- Operators
- Locomotives and Rolling Stock
- Signalling and Infrastructure
- Sightings
- General
- Australian Rail Employment
- Trams and Light Rail

- Simulator Forums
- MSTS General Discussions
- MSTS Routes
- MSTS 3D
- Trainz General Discussions
- MetroMSTS Projects
- MS Train Simulator X
- Open Rails
- BVE Trainsim
- Train Simulator

- Model Railways
- Model Railways - General Discussions

- Special Interest Groups
- Australian Miniature Railways
- Gheringhap Loop
- Railway Archaeology
- Railway Photography
- Radio and Scanning Discussions
- RTSA
- Other Transport
- The Bogies

- Railway Preservation and Tourism
- Preservation and Tourist Railways

- International Railway News
- International Discussion

- General Forums
- The Lounge
- Test Forum
- Armchair Operators
- Archived Threads

Did you read this?Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. MannieBut you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.Facile.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100kI feel like this is pretty explicit, but if you need me to, I guess I can go over it again.vaccinatedpeople.

And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100kunvaccinatedpeople.You're right!!

This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

You know in Australia right now you have near 100% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of Australia, and a near 0% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of China don't you? That doesn't mean it will be safer for you to live in China. It just means that a person in China is more likely to be infected by another Chinese resident than by a resident of Australia.

Before there was a vaccine, there was 100% chance new infections came from the unvaccinated, as the number of vaccinated people rises, (assuming it's ahead of population growth) the number of unvaccinated people must correspondingly shrink.

I trust you understand this, we are probably talking first year primary school concepts here. My niece understands subtraction and the concept of needing to shift bigger numbers to down to smaller numbers so that you can work the difference out.

If we grant Mytrone's wet dream and the population gets to 100% vaccinated there will be a 100% chance that a vaccinated person passed the virus on (which we expect to happen), and we will know with absolute certainty, assuming we are sure we've killed (or at least covertly vaccinated) all the anti vaccination people that there is 0% chance that new infection came from an unvaccinated person.

Why do the numbers of infected people 'look bigger' (but noticeably not 'more than double') in the UK for vaccinated persons? Because the UK is fortunate enough to have vastly more of its population vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Consider a Sydney Swans vs Collingwood game, if you're a neutral person and you go to that game at the MCG, and you take a randomly assigned seat, you'll have a much higher chance of sitting next to a person wearing black than red. Go to that game in Sydney, and with another randomly assigned seat you'll most likely be sitting next to a person wearing red.

Same two teams, just a different proportion of each - the viral infection numbers work similarly.

In that UK cohort of 40-49 year olds, the vaccinated person rate is 4 to 1. If the vaccines were doing no job, then the number of vaccinated people with a Covid infection would be **4 times** that of the unvaccinated number, that the vaccinated people having a Covid infection is less than double shows the vaccines are doing a very commendable job.

Edited 28 Oct 2021 22:16, 2 months ago, edited by Aaron

Did you read this?Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. MannieBut you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.Facile.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100kI feel like this is pretty explicit, but if you need me to, I guess I can go over it again.vaccinatedpeople.

And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100kunvaccinatedpeople.You're right!!

This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

You know in Australia right now you have near 100% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of Australia, and a near 0% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of China don't you? That doesn't mean it will be safer for you to live in China. It just means that a person in China is more likely to be infected by another Chinese resident than by a resident of Australia.

Before there was a vaccine, there was 100% chance new infections came from the unvaccinated, as the number of vaccinated people rises, (assuming it's ahead of population growth) the number of unvaccinated people must correspondingly shrink.

I trust you understand this, we are probably talking first year primary school concepts here. My niece understands subtraction and the concept of needing to shift bigger numbers to down to smaller numbers so that you can work the difference out.

If we grant Mytrone's wet dream and the population gets to 100% vaccinated there will be a 100% chance that a vaccinated person passed the virus on (which we expect to happen), and we will know with absolute certainty, assuming we are sure we've killed (or at least covertly vaccinated) all the anti vaccination people that there is 0% chance that new infection came from an unvaccinated person.

Why do the numbers of infected people 'look bigger' (but noticeably not 'more than double') in the UK for vaccinated persons? Because the UK is fortunate enough to have vastly more of it's population vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Consider a Sydney Swans vs Collingwood game, if you're a neutral person and you go to that game at the MCG, and you take a randomly assigned seat, you'll have a much higher chance of sitting next to a person wearing black than red. Go to that game in Sydney, and with another randomly assigned seat you'll most likely be sitting next to a person wearing red.

Same two teams, just a different proportion of each - the viral infection numbers work similarly.

In that UK cohort of 40-49 year olds, the vaccinated person rate is 4 to 1. If the vaccines were doing no job, then the number of vaccinated people with a Covid infection would be **4 times** that of the unvaccinated number, that the vaccinated people having a Covid infection is less than double shows the vaccines are doing a very commendable job.

Edited 28 Oct 2021 22:16, 2 months ago, edited by Aaron

Did you read this?Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. MannieBut you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.Facile.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100kI feel like this is pretty explicit, but if you need me to, I guess I can go over it again.vaccinatedpeople.

And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100kunvaccinatedpeople.You're right!!

This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.

You know in Australia right now you have near 100% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of Australia, and a near 0% chance of catching the virus from a current resident of China don't you? That doesn't mean it will be safer for you to live in China. It just means that a person in China is more likely to be infected by another Chinese resident than by a resident of Australia.

Before there was a vaccine, there was 100% chance new infections came from the unvaccinated, as the number of vaccinated people rises, (assuming it's ahead of population growth) the number of unvaccinated people must correspondingly shrink.

I trust you understand this, we are probably talking first year primary school concepts here. My niece understands subtraction and the concept of needing to shift bigger numbers to down to smaller numbers so that you can work the difference out.

If we grant Mytrone's wet dream and the population gets to 100% vaccinated there will be a 100% chance that a vaccinated person passed the virus on (which we expect to happen), and we will know with absolute certainty, assuming we are sure we've killed (or at least covertly vaccinated) all the anti vaccination people that there is 0% chance that new infection came from an unvaccinated person.

Why are the numbers of infected people 'look bigger' (but noticeably not 'more than double') in the UK for vaccinated persons? Because the UK is fortunate enough to have vastly more of it's population vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Consider a Sydney Swans vs Collingwood game, if you're a neutral person and you go to that game at the MCG, and you take a randomly assigned seat, you'll have a much higher chance of sitting next to a person wearing black than red. Go to that game in Sydney, and with another randomly assigned seat you'll most likely be sitting next to a person wearing red.

Same two teams, just a different proportion of each - the viral infection numbers work similarly.

In that UK cohort of 40-49 year olds, the vaccinated person rate is 4 to 1. If the vaccines were doing no job, then the number of vaccinated people with a Covid infection would be **4 times** that of the unvaccinated number, that the vaccinated people having a Covid infection is less than double shows the vaccines are doing a very commendable job.

**About this website**

Railpage version 3.10.0.0037

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest is © 2003-2022 Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd.

You can syndicate our news using one of the RSS feeds.

**Stats for nerds**

Gen time: 0.4405s | RAM: 5.92kb