EDIT: It’s a bit more nuanced, as politely pointed out by u/zera130
Omdat er bijna niemand overblijft die geen vaccin heeft gekregen. En de vaccins werken maar voor een 1 seizoen
I don’t understand why they still show numbers this way, if you dont say how many in total there are for each group there is no way to understand if or not vaccins or boosters help. And People not understanding this info is missing will misunderstand the graph.
Not sure what are the numbers but I am gonna give you an example what might be happening in a general sense:
Imagine you have a population of 1000 people who got infected.
900 are vaccinated, 100 aren’t.
The rate for hospitalization of non-vaccinated is 50% so 50 people.
The ratio for hospitalization for vaccinated is 10% so 90 people.
And people will say: heeeeey looks like vaccination is BAD, it’s almost the double of people in the hospital!
When it’s just a matter of numbers.
Edit:
In fact you can make the same observation about absolute numbers the other way around and do another graph that feels pretty different: 810 vaxed people were okay (900-90), non vax “only” 50 people (100-50) are okay.
Edit 2:
Now bare with me cause I am figuring out this while I am writing.
So imagine in this scenario my total population is 1.000.000 people. Of which 1000 got infected and all the rest the same as I wrote before.
Now I do a graph saying hospitalizations per 100.000.
So we had before 90 vax hospitalizations, 50 non vax, total in that month for 1.000.000 habitants in my country.
Now my graph is gonna show 9 vax hospitalizations for 100.000. And 5 for non vax hospitalizations. The rate and assumptions between vax and non vax don’t change.
The per 100.000 just helps making the graph with less zeros in the Y axis I guess and gives some perspective over how hospitalizations are high or not compared to the total population (as “are we all fucked? Or is this controlled?”).
Correct me if I am wrong people, better for me to learn now if I have been reading those graphs wrong or my basic math sucks than later.
Short: higher average age/presence of diseases in vaccinated group.
Slightly longer: ‘Fully vaccinated’ means they had a booster. If you compare those people against the non- or incomplete vaccinated group you’d see a couple of differences.
– Higher average age of the fully vaccinated group
– Higher presence of diseases/risk factors
So all this is really saying is: “people at risk are more at risk”
We’re still talking about that? What is it, 2020?
Er staat bij dat de tijd tussen vaccinatie en ziekenhuisopname niet bekend is.
De 65 plussers waaren als eerst gevacineerd eerder vorig jaar, en wij weten allemaal dat de bescherming van de vaccin daalt met de tijd, voeg dan ook nog Omikron erbij warvoor de vaccins ampers effect hebben en dan krijg je een hoger aantal 65+ ‘sers die in de ziekenhuis belanden.
Je ziet wel dat diegenen die een boosterprik hadden gekregen veel minder in de ziekenhuis belanden dan die die enkel de oorspronkelijke vaccinatie schema hebben gevolgd.
And here we go again…
Regardless if vaccines are causing hospitalizations or not (the chart needs more accompanying data) I think we can all agree that the vaccine has done a pretty shitty job so far.
Numbers are down yes, but we can thank group immunity for that, the vaccine didn’t account for sh*t
Let the downvotes come
People returning from Vakanties maybe?
Noob
The people who are hospitalised with the vaccine are people who would have not even been able to reach the hospital without the vaccine. The vaccine gives them a chance to fight, because these are mostly people with underlying conditions which makes COVID-19 an even bigger danger. Without the vaccine these people would have been gone already.
If you re really in bad shape fysically, you will take all doses
if you dont understand this simple thing your iq must be low af
After reading the responses, it seems like there is a misunderstanding because of the title of the graph: “Number of new hospital admissions per 100 000 ; per vaccination group and age group”
The two parts are separate with the first referring to the general data ( new hospital admission per 100 000 *inhabitant) and the second referring to the partition ( per vaccination group and age group).
But most people read it as : “Number of new hospital per 100 000 per vaccination group and age group”
Which is ambiguous as to whether the 100 000 refer to the general population or the vaccination group. Although in the latter case it probably would not be written like that as to not be ambiguous with a more regular approach
(something like: “Number of new hospital admission per 100 000 of each vaccination group and age group”)
16 comments
does someone know more about the reason?
because there are way more people that are vaccinated? Close to 80% of the population.
​
[source](https://covid-vaccinatie.be/nl)
​
EDIT: It’s a bit more nuanced, as politely pointed out by u/zera130
Omdat er bijna niemand overblijft die geen vaccin heeft gekregen. En de vaccins werken maar voor een 1 seizoen
I don’t understand why they still show numbers this way, if you dont say how many in total there are for each group there is no way to understand if or not vaccins or boosters help. And People not understanding this info is missing will misunderstand the graph.
Not sure what are the numbers but I am gonna give you an example what might be happening in a general sense:
Imagine you have a population of 1000 people who got infected.
900 are vaccinated, 100 aren’t.
The rate for hospitalization of non-vaccinated is 50% so 50 people.
The ratio for hospitalization for vaccinated is 10% so 90 people.
And people will say: heeeeey looks like vaccination is BAD, it’s almost the double of people in the hospital!
When it’s just a matter of numbers.
Edit:
In fact you can make the same observation about absolute numbers the other way around and do another graph that feels pretty different: 810 vaxed people were okay (900-90), non vax “only” 50 people (100-50) are okay.
Edit 2:
Now bare with me cause I am figuring out this while I am writing.
So imagine in this scenario my total population is 1.000.000 people. Of which 1000 got infected and all the rest the same as I wrote before.
Now I do a graph saying hospitalizations per 100.000.
So we had before 90 vax hospitalizations, 50 non vax, total in that month for 1.000.000 habitants in my country.
Now my graph is gonna show 9 vax hospitalizations for 100.000. And 5 for non vax hospitalizations. The rate and assumptions between vax and non vax don’t change.
The per 100.000 just helps making the graph with less zeros in the Y axis I guess and gives some perspective over how hospitalizations are high or not compared to the total population (as “are we all fucked? Or is this controlled?”).
Correct me if I am wrong people, better for me to learn now if I have been reading those graphs wrong or my basic math sucks than later.
Short: higher average age/presence of diseases in vaccinated group.
Slightly longer: ‘Fully vaccinated’ means they had a booster. If you compare those people against the non- or incomplete vaccinated group you’d see a couple of differences.
– Higher average age of the fully vaccinated group
– Higher presence of diseases/risk factors
So all this is really saying is: “people at risk are more at risk”
We’re still talking about that? What is it, 2020?
Er staat bij dat de tijd tussen vaccinatie en ziekenhuisopname niet bekend is.
De 65 plussers waaren als eerst gevacineerd eerder vorig jaar, en wij weten allemaal dat de bescherming van de vaccin daalt met de tijd, voeg dan ook nog Omikron erbij warvoor de vaccins ampers effect hebben en dan krijg je een hoger aantal 65+ ‘sers die in de ziekenhuis belanden.
Je ziet wel dat diegenen die een boosterprik hadden gekregen veel minder in de ziekenhuis belanden dan die die enkel de oorspronkelijke vaccinatie schema hebben gevolgd.
And here we go again…
Regardless if vaccines are causing hospitalizations or not (the chart needs more accompanying data) I think we can all agree that the vaccine has done a pretty shitty job so far.
Numbers are down yes, but we can thank group immunity for that, the vaccine didn’t account for sh*t
Let the downvotes come
People returning from Vakanties maybe?
Noob
The people who are hospitalised with the vaccine are people who would have not even been able to reach the hospital without the vaccine. The vaccine gives them a chance to fight, because these are mostly people with underlying conditions which makes COVID-19 an even bigger danger. Without the vaccine these people would have been gone already.
If you re really in bad shape fysically, you will take all doses
if you dont understand this simple thing your iq must be low af
After reading the responses, it seems like there is a misunderstanding because of the title of the graph: “Number of new hospital admissions per 100 000 ; per vaccination group and age group”
The two parts are separate with the first referring to the general data ( new hospital admission per 100 000 *inhabitant) and the second referring to the partition ( per vaccination group and age group).
But most people read it as : “Number of new hospital per 100 000 per vaccination group and age group”
Which is ambiguous as to whether the 100 000 refer to the general population or the vaccination group. Although in the latter case it probably would not be written like that as to not be ambiguous with a more regular approach
(something like: “Number of new hospital admission per 100 000 of each vaccination group and age group”)