Jump to content
Blueray

COVID-19: Phase 2 Heightened Alert 16 May to 13 June

BabyBlade

One step forward two steps back (the sweeter Phase 3 ☹️😞)

 

Message added by BabyBlade

Recommended Posts

6th Gear
1 hour ago, Heartlander said:

I thought already well known now that getting vaccinated is not able to prevent being infected, but just not getting the severe symptoms thus saving the life potentially? 

So what did "95%" effectiveness mean during clinical trial

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged (edited)
57 minutes ago, yishunite said:

So what did "95%" effectiveness mean during clinical trial

So what did 100% effectiveness mean?

This has been laid out very clearly in the article below. I wonder why the doctors among us never clarify this critical term from beginning. So much misunderstanding could have been avoided:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

 

What does 95% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy really mean?

Piero Olliaro

 Published:February 17, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00075-X

PlumX Metrics

 

It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo). It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased. It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine—a general misconception of vaccine protection also found in a Lancet Infectious Diseases Editoria

 

 

Edited by Heartlander
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6th Gear

Still keep seeing this kind of selfish behaviour, very pek chek.

 

Case 63600 is a 59 year-old male Singaporean who works as a music teacher at Yamaha Music School. He developed a fever on 16 May but did not seek medical treatment until 21 May when he went to a GP clinic, and was tested for COVID-19. His antigen rapid test (ART) came back positive on the same day, and he was immediately isolated. A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test administered on the same day came back positive for COVID-19 infection. His serology test result is negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6th Gear
13 minutes ago, Heartlander said:

So what did 100% effectiveness mean?

This has been laid out very clearly in the article below. I wonder why the doctors among us never clarify this critical term from beginning. So much misunderstanding could have been avoided:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

 

What does 95% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy really mean?

Piero Olliaro

 Published:February 17, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00075-X

PlumX Metrics

 

It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer1, 2 and Moderna3 vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo). It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0·05% of vaccinated people would get diseased. It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine—a general misconception of vaccine protection also found in a Lancet Infectious Diseases Editoria

 

 

Why you never add this part:

"Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

IOW 95% suppose to mean 1 in 20 vaccinated individuals would get the disease compared to 20 of 20 unvaccinated when all 20 of each are exposed equally... tio boh?

Why our vaccinated and unvaccinated getting infected at nearly same ratio as found in the overall population

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6th Gear
1 hour ago, Voodooman said:

If you tell them you just did a swab test, they won't vaccinate you. 

Not quite true.
I work as a front-liner where I am routinely tested. When I was vaccinated 5 months ago, it also coincided with one of my regular swab dates. I was swabbed and then vaccinated on the same day.

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
3 minutes ago, yishunite said:

Why you never add this part:

"Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months)."

IOW 95% suppose to mean 1 in 20 vaccinated individuals would get the disease compared to 20 of 20 unvaccinated when all 20 of each are exposed equally... tio boh?

Why our vaccinated and unvaccinated getting infected at nearly same ratio as found in the overall population

Ok i never read the whole article. Just caught hold of some definition of 95% effectiveness and posted the article. 

What i am trying to bring forth is this clarification that we should not  be surprised that a small number of those  vaccinated would still get infected, as the vaccines are not 100% effective against the virus. And 95% effective does not mean 95% will not get the virus, but that those vaccinated will still have 0.05% chance of getting it. Correct me if my understanding is wrong. 

 

 

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supersonic
2 hours ago, Sporkypiggy said:

 And our education should have prepared the new graduates to ride the wave.

To say that we lack of local talent to ride the wave is to slap ourselves to say that we have not learned a single thing for the past 50 odd years. And our education is a total flop?

I sure see lots and lots of our locals riding around on bikes, ebikes, motorcycles. The new wave of food delivery. Well done Sg Education System!

  • Haha! 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5th Gear

That explains the lower unlinked community cases yesterday. 

4 cases from JEM / Westgate detected yesterday through the special testing operation for those who worked in or visited JEM / Westgate in the last 2 weeks. 

https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/22-new-cases-of-locally-transmitted-covid-19-infection_23_May_2021

JEM/ Westgate cluster

Detected through surveillance:

Case 63597 is a 39 year-old female Malaysia national who is employed by Eng Leng Contractors Pte Ltd as a cleaner at Westgate shopping mall. She is asymptomatic, and was detected when she was tested for COVID-19 on 21 May as part of our testing operations for those who worked in or visited JEM and Westgate. Her test result came back positive for COVID-19 infection on 22 May. She has tested preliminarily positive for the B.1.617 variant, and is pending further confirmatory tests. Her serology test result is pending.

Case 63600 is a 59 year-old male Singaporean who works as a music teacher at Yamaha Music School. He developed a fever on 16 May but did not seek medical treatment until 21 May when he went to a GP clinic, and was tested for COVID-19. His antigen rapid test (ART) came back positive on the same day, and he was immediately isolated. A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test administered on the same day came back positive for COVID-19 infection. His serology test result is negative.

Case 63606 is a 31 year-old male India national who works as a delivery truck driver at YHI Corporation Pte Ltd. He is asymptomatic, and was detected when he was tested for COVID-19 on 21 May as part of our testing operations for those who worked in or visited JEM and Westgate. His test result came back positive for COVID-19 infection on 22 May. His serology test result is pending.

Case 63607 is a 44 year-old male India national who works at BlackRock Advisors Singapore Pte Ltd. He is asymptomatic, and was detected when he was tested for COVID-19 on 21 May as part of our testing operations for those who worked in or visited JEM and Westgate. His test result came back positive for COVID-19 infection on 22 May. He has tested preliminarily positive for the B.1.617 variant, and is pending further confirmatory tests. His serology test result is pending.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypersonic
On 5/22/2021 at 9:05 AM, Carbon82 said:

And these are the facts, or will CNA be issued a POFMA for publishing things which are not proven by Singapore?!

Alghabra said Canada had seen "a significant reduction" in coronavirus infections among arriving airline passengers since Ottawa first announced the bans on Apr 22 as the number of cases in India soared.

"These ongoing measures will remain in place to help protect Canadians and to manage the elevated risk of imported cases of COVID-19 and variants of concern," he told a briefing.

Scary thing is if other countries now ban us because we have 1617

can impact economy 

  • Praise 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twincharged

Many like to talk or even quote statistics / probability / etc.

Unfortunately, they failed to realize that whether if risk is 5% or 95%, if are infected or die, you suddenly become the 100%, no buts no ifs.

  • Haha! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supersonic (edited)
17 minutes ago, RadX said:

Instead of a sincere apology, they go through such a convoluted route to cover their backside. It's like throwing against a wall and see what sticks. Damn disappointing. This clearly shows they think lowly of Singaporeans...

Edited by Weez911
  • Praise 12
  • Haha! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
14 minutes ago, Ash2017 said:

Many like to talk or even quote statistics / probability / etc.

Unfortunately, they failed to realize that whether if risk is 5% or 95%, if are infected or die, you suddenly become the 100%, no buts no ifs.

image.png.f47f767345ab87a323bd824c902f1c16.png

  • Haha! 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
On 5/19/2021 at 10:27 AM, yishunite said:

Thank goodness we spent millions and millions on TraceTogether tokens and force everyone to use so there will be no unlink cases!!!

I would have preferred it to be like the military expenditure where millions are spend so that we don’t have to go to war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3 minutes ago, Weez911 said:

Instead of a sincere apology, they go through such a convoluted route to cover their backside. It's like throwing against a wall and see what sticks. Damn disappointing. This clearly shows they think lowly of Singaporeans...

if u can't convince, confuse.

 

So no details of country?  means from MArs? Area 51?

  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypersonic
29 minutes ago, RadX said:

I thought they say the incoming ones won’t affect the community? 
 

Anyone still got that news article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supersonic (edited)
15 minutes ago, Weez911 said:

Instead of a sincere apology, they go through such a convoluted route to cover their backside. It's like throwing against a wall and see what sticks. Damn disappointing. This clearly shows they think lowly of Singaporeans...

one family cause the explosion of cases in spore north south east west clusters? mai ki siao la ... :secret-laugh:

Edited by Wt_know
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×