I have a question (and please pardon me as I don't speak German and am relying on an evil corporation to translate your very interesting article).
Regarding this statement, "Impfung einen Schutz vor dem schwersten Verlauf, dann müsste sich eigentlich der Anteil der 3-fach Geimpften unter den Todesfällen relativ zum Anteil der 3-fach Geimpften im Krankenhaus signifikant reduzieren." If the Google translate is correct then it sounds like you're saying that if the booster works it would result in a lower proportion of hospitalized people going on to die...
Assuming I understood that right, I'm not so sure that's true. My first point is that a real vaccine is supposed to prevent you from contracting the disease at all, so when we get to talking about hospitalizations and deaths we're already pretty far along. But my more important point is that doesn't hospitalization essentially indicate a heightened probability that the person has contracted a severe version of the disease that is likely to be life-threatening? To be honest once you reach that state I wouldn't expect any vaccine to change my likelihood of death. It should prevent hospitalization if it's effective.
But in Germany, politicians are debating over mandatory vaccination. The last line of defense is the prevention of severe disease and death. The politicians say if they prevent severe cases, then they prevent overflowing hospitals. That is why they have to vaccinate everybody over 18.
The vaccination should prevent the progression of severe cases to death, if it is effective at all. The whole data is problematic because you never know if someone is just positive for Covid-19, but for example with a broken leg in hospital.
First, they said the vaccination prevents infection with nearly 95% certainty. But it doesn't.
Then they said it prevents transmission, and you only get a mild case. But that's false.
Now they are saying it prevents severe cases and death. If this was the case, then less hospitalized people would end up dying because the vaccination prevents progression to a deadly case.
At any rate if this new narrative is true, the vaccines should prevent progression to deadly cases, whether that is by preventing hospitalisation or by precenting progression in the hospital.
I have a question (and please pardon me as I don't speak German and am relying on an evil corporation to translate your very interesting article).
Regarding this statement, "Impfung einen Schutz vor dem schwersten Verlauf, dann müsste sich eigentlich der Anteil der 3-fach Geimpften unter den Todesfällen relativ zum Anteil der 3-fach Geimpften im Krankenhaus signifikant reduzieren." If the Google translate is correct then it sounds like you're saying that if the booster works it would result in a lower proportion of hospitalized people going on to die...
Assuming I understood that right, I'm not so sure that's true. My first point is that a real vaccine is supposed to prevent you from contracting the disease at all, so when we get to talking about hospitalizations and deaths we're already pretty far along. But my more important point is that doesn't hospitalization essentially indicate a heightened probability that the person has contracted a severe version of the disease that is likely to be life-threatening? To be honest once you reach that state I wouldn't expect any vaccine to change my likelihood of death. It should prevent hospitalization if it's effective.
Yes, of course.
But in Germany, politicians are debating over mandatory vaccination. The last line of defense is the prevention of severe disease and death. The politicians say if they prevent severe cases, then they prevent overflowing hospitals. That is why they have to vaccinate everybody over 18.
The vaccination should prevent the progression of severe cases to death, if it is effective at all. The whole data is problematic because you never know if someone is just positive for Covid-19, but for example with a broken leg in hospital.
First, they said the vaccination prevents infection with nearly 95% certainty. But it doesn't.
Then they said it prevents transmission, and you only get a mild case. But that's false.
Now they are saying it prevents severe cases and death. If this was the case, then less hospitalized people would end up dying because the vaccination prevents progression to a deadly case.
At any rate if this new narrative is true, the vaccines should prevent progression to deadly cases, whether that is by preventing hospitalisation or by precenting progression in the hospital.
I wrote something on the new severe disease narrative a fee days back: https://noline.substack.com/p/buh-muh-severe-disease
How is the debate going in Germany (is it even a debate at all)?
Vaccine is effective.
Somebody disagrees? Banned or fired.
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/andreas-schofbeck-german-insurance?s=r