ICU providers, how are your units looking? Total COVID & Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated.

Slim wrote:

For those of you who have provided numbers of COVID patients in the ICU, can you also provide information on how many of the patients are:

1. Over the age of 80

2. Obese

3. Smokers

4. A combination of the above three

This is EXACTLY what you don’t see or hear about in the news. You have to go searching for it. In the ICU at our hospital, it’s pretty close to 100% obese, undiagnosed diabetics, or geriatric.

You aren’t seeing any young, fit, reasonably healthy people in here.

EpiRunner wrote:

Slim wrote:

For those of you who have provided numbers of COVID patients in the ICU, can you also provide information on how many of the patients are:

1. Over the age of 80

2. Obese

3. Smokers

4. A combination of the above three

1. Of our 22 in the ICU right now, 8 are over 80.

2. Obese by BMI? 7

3. 4

4. 1 is all three, 4 are 2

So, what you are claiming is you have 7 unvaccinated and 1 vaccinated individual over 80 in the ICU. The vaccination rate for that demographic is roughly 93%. Obviously, it is a small sample size, but that would indicate that vaccines are more than 90 times more effective at preventing admittance to the ICU in that age demographic, which is far greater than any known study out there (for comparison's sake, the rate in the UK is about 6 times, so you are claiming a number more than 15 times that number). So I will ask again, how certain are you that those other 7 individuals are unvaccinated?

Wyco Loco wrote:

Our latest stats (one week after stats from my last post)

83 hospitalized - 3 vaccinated

19 in ICU - 1 vaccinated

14 on Ventilators - 1 vaccinated

Everybody that works at a hospital here is making some bold statements. 80/83 unvaccinated. Lets assume for a second that you are in Wyoming (least vaccinated state in the US). The average vaccination rate for adults and seniors in Wyoming is about 60% (guessing that is most of the hospitalizations). What that would indicate is that vaccinated individuals are 40x less likely to be hospitalized and 27x less likely to be in the ICU in your hospital than the unvaccinated. That basically flies in the face of most any study out there, so I will ask, how certain are you of those figures?

Either the hospitals everyone on the boards here works at are statistical anomalies, or your full of it and these boards are overrun with Pfizer and Moderna share holders.

joed|rt wrote:

EpiRunner wrote:

1. Of our 22 in the ICU right now, 8 are over 80.

2. Obese by BMI? 7

3. 4

4. 1 is all three, 4 are 2

So, what you are claiming is you have 7 unvaccinated and 1 vaccinated individual over 80 in the ICU. The vaccination rate for that demographic is roughly 93%. Obviously, it is a small sample size, but that would indicate that vaccines are more than 90 times more effective at preventing admittance to the ICU in that age demographic, which is far greater than any known study out there (for comparison's sake, the rate in the UK is about 6 times, so you are claiming a number more than 15 times that number). So I will ask again, how certain are you that those other 7 individuals are unvaccinated?

Every study I've seen has that number at 10-22 times, do you have a link to the UK study?

You're looking at a sample size of 8. Even our total ICU population of 22 is way too small to compare in any meaningful way. This is just a snapshot in time.

I posted an example earlier about how small numbers can really skew stats. It's not inconceivable that tomorrow we could have 2 20somethings admitted to ICU tomorrow and then I could claim that 10% of our ICU patients were in their 20s. It would be true, but meaningless.

UK weekly surveillance reports can be found here:

Table 11 will give you the rates for infection, hospitalization and death across different demographics. Some interesting takeaways from the surveillance data:

Case rates are higher in vaccinated populations than in unvaccinated populations in the 18-69 demographics

Death rates are higher in vaccinated populations than unvaccinated populations in the under 18 demographic (even though case rates are more than 4 times greater).

With a sample size of 8 hospitalized individuals over 80, the expectation would be that between 5-6 would be vaccinated in an area where the vaccination rate is 93% in that demographic.

carmine9 wrote:

GWT wrote:

I just listened to a doctor on NPR who said that based on the statistics that we have so far, you're 20 times more likely to die of Covid if you're unvaxed and not boosted, than if you are.

It's crazy that people are still arguing about this stuff.

It's crazy for you to believe that.

What is unvaxxed and not boosted? All those who don't have 3 shots?

The odds of a person who is under age 80 and not sickly dying of Covid is tiny, vaxxed or not.

Stop fear mongering

The odds of a person who is not sickly and under 80 dying of covid are not tiny. I would describe this as not common, but not rare. The simple fact is that you WILL

get infected by the Covid virus. When that occurs, would you prefer to have vaccine-induced antibodies, or no antibodies? As far as how many boosters will you need, probably annual, but maybe twice a year for those of us who are in harm's way being exposed to unmasked, unvaccinated sick people in an indoor setting all day long.

Expectations are meaningless with that small of a sample size. The stats are applicable to populations. The patients in our ICU aren't even representative of the general population for the reasons I explained to you earlier.

Just out of curiosity, since you're convinced that all these hospitals are lying... What's your proposed for us doing that?

Here is a large study of almost 5 million kaiser patients published in the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext#seccestitle80

Raw numbers: During the study period, 4965 over age 64 unvaccinated were hospitalized compared with 99 fully vaccinated.

*************

The age stratified vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 92% (95% CI 88–95) for those aged 16–44 years, and 86% (82–88) for those aged 65 years and older.

*************

joed|rt --Yes, Pfizer funded the study but they were not the investigators. Pharma companies regularly fund researchers through grants because they want to see results of their products but know that what they publish is not viewed as credible as work published by outside investigators. contracts are very tight so that they have no control over the data or publication of the findings.

Boosted adults are ~30-40X less likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated. It's not that crazy. It's a small number (83) too so easily skewed by a bit of noise. Just a patient or 2 in the other direction and the numbers look 'right' to you.

truthy1 wrote:

joed|rt --Yes, Pfizer funded the study but they were not the investigators. Pharma companies regularly fund researchers through grants because they want to see results of their products but know that what they publish is not viewed as credible as work published by outside investigators. contracts are very tight so that they have no control over the data or publication of the findings.

This is the only way this could work, I'll add. The only alternatives for funding trials are:

1) The company runs them internally (obviously bad incentives there)

2) The government runs the trials (most trials fail so this would be a big waste of $$$)

truthy1 wrote:

Here is a large study of almost 5 million kaiser patients published in the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext#seccestitle80

Raw numbers: During the study period, 4965 over age 64 unvaccinated were hospitalized compared with 99 fully vaccinated.

*************

The age stratified vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 92% (95% CI 88–95) for those aged 16–44 years, and 86% (82–88) for those aged 65 years and older.

*************

joed|rt --Yes, Pfizer funded the study but they were not the investigators. Pharma companies regularly fund researchers through grants because they want to see results of their products but know that what they publish is not viewed as credible as work published by outside investigators. contracts are very tight so that they have no control over the data or publication of the findings.

I'd suggest you look at the dates of your study. I have already said that the vaccines were very effective against the initial virus. The tale is completely different when you look at data from the past few months. Omicron is in its infancy, but it is cruising right past vaccines. How severe those infections will end up being remains to be determined.

EpiRunner wrote:

Expectations are meaningless with that small of a sample size. The stats are applicable to populations. The patients in our ICU aren't even representative of the general population for the reasons I explained to you earlier.

Just out of curiosity, since you're convinced that all these hospitals are lying... What's your proposed for us doing that?

Joe has been telling us for months that the vaccines are 'about' to stop working. I suspect they are getting a bit frustrated that their premonitions don't seem to be true.

EpiRunner wrote:

Expectations are meaningless with that small of a sample size. The stats are applicable to populations. The patients in our ICU aren't even representative of the general population for the reasons I explained to you earlier.

Just out of curiosity, since you're convinced that all these hospitals are lying... What's your proposed for us doing that?

Mostly I feel the accounting is poor as my vaccination status is not in my EHR (I checked on the state database that is supposed to have it), so I am guessing others are experiencing the same thing. When you read studies from Israel and the UK that contradicts the data one sees in the US, it implies there is either worse tracking in the US or subversion of data. A lot of hospital administrators want to paint a grimmer picture than actually exists (can you explain this video?)

Motivations can range from political to ideological to profit. Obviously if COVID cases are higher, it can mean fewer more profitable procedures like joint replacements. By scaring the public into increased vaccinations, they can maintain profitability. By testing every individual for COVID that comes into the hospital regardless of reason for hospitalization, they can collect more CARES act funds.

Wow he literally says "the doctors are faking it for money."

So all across the country at independent hospitals, doctors have all coordinated to fabricate vaccinated/unvaccinated ratios and.... nobody has blown the whistle? All doctors are that corrupt? It's a borderline moon-landing level conspiracy in terms of the number of people involved.

Instead of trying to make sense of raw, confounded rates from the UK, check out table 3 here for vaccine efficacies against hospitalzation for 2 and 3 doses:

https://khub.net/documents/135939561/338928724/Effectiveness+of+BNT162b2+COVID-19+booster+vaccine.pdf/330374ad-970c-42bb-8461-7c1ec57c403b?t=1639651397520

For Pfizer its 93% with 2 doses up to 98.8% (!!) for 14 days after a booster.

I have not read through all the posts on this thread, but how many of the individuals in the ICU are those that have previously had COVID and are also without the vaccine? Honest question, as it seems this should be a part of the discussion.

So based on your sample size of one, you're calling into question our entire national hospital system?

And help me with your logic on our reason for lying...COVID cases are high, which leads to high hospitizations (even though you're saying that we're lying about that), so hospitals are losing money on elective surgeries. That's true. Hospitals are losing money.

So we scare the public into vaccination to maintain profitability...How do we profit from vaccination?

And then we test everyone we admit...not because we want to make sure we're not rooming someone COVID negative with someone who is asymptomatic, but because we want an extra $7000 per patient? The two hospitals in our system admit 5-8 COVID patients per day, so you're talking about participating in this grand conspiracy for $40-$50,000 per day?! Our revenue is over $3,200,000 per day. You're out of your mind if you think anyone is going to go through all that trouble for $50,000.

oregon oldtimer wrote:

I have not read through all the posts on this thread, but how many of the individuals in the ICU are those that have previously had COVID and are also without the vaccine? Honest question, as it seems this should be a part of the discussion.

Good question, I'm off til Monday but I'll look into it then.

Obviously we'll only know if they were actually diagnosed, we have no way of knowing if someone was previously infected but not diagnosed.

While I don't have exact numbers handy (off of the top of my head, none of our current ICU cases are reinfections), I do know that besides the very elderly and very young, reinfection typically does not require critical care. National data tells us that while protection against severe disease is not quite as strong as vaccination, and isn't as long lasting, infection definitely provides some protection.

oregon oldtimer wrote:

I have not read through all the posts on this thread, but how many of the individuals in the ICU are those that have previously had COVID and are also without the vaccine? Honest question, as it seems this should be a part of the discussion.

CDC stopped tracking reinfections in March.