The Coronavirus Thread

[Scot Dutchy]

Of course not. RIVM reports the percentage of the Dutch population over the age of 18. The world in data site reports the percentage in terms of total national populations. Apples and oranges.

Where does it state that?

Since you are at a loss as to work it out, let me explain. Your link states:

...more than 10.1 million were second vaccinations.

So, at least 10.1 million of the Netherland's total population has been fully vaccinated. That's 59%. If you add a few 100,000 Janssen doses you might get to 62 or 63% at most, which is nowhere near the 75.7% mark. Not that RIVM itself claims that figure to be a percentage of the total Dutch population anyway. It explicitly says 75.7% of the Dutch population over the age of 18 is fully vaccinated.

By the way, RIVM uses the expression "fully vaccinated". Looks like it does not accept your assertion that "fully vaccinated" is subjective.

Does the world data include 12-18 year old group and babies? What is "fully vaccinated" for the RIVM is not the definition "fully vaccinated" for the world data which is entirely subjective as there is no definition. Is the World Data supplied with a truck load of salt? It still quotes figures for third world countries which we know are false.

[Hermit]

Of course not. RIVM reports the percentage of the Dutch population over the age of 18. The world in data site reports the percentage in terms of total national populations. Apples and oranges.

Where does it state that?

Since you are at a loss as to work it out, let me explain. Your link states:

...more than 10.1 million were second vaccinations.

So, at least 10.1 million of the Netherland's total population has been fully vaccinated. That's 59%. If you add a few 100,000 Janssen doses you might get to 62 or 63% at most, which is nowhere near the 75.7% mark. Not that RIVM itself claims that figure to be a percentage of the total Dutch population anyway. It explicitly says 75.7% of the Dutch population over the age of 18 is fully vaccinated.

By the way, RIVM uses the expression "fully vaccinated". Looks like it does not accept your assertion that "fully vaccinated" is subjective.

Does the world data include 12-18 year old group and babies?

Yes. According to World Population Review the Netherlands has 973,100 people in that age bracket. RIVM reports 78%, which amounts to 759,000 of them as fully vaccinated. Assuming now my guess that Jansson's vaccine was not included among RIVM's reported 10.1 million fully vaccinated adults was wrong, adding this bracket brings the percentage of fully vaccinated total Dutch population up to 63.4%, which is close enough to the data quoted by the site I linked to earlier. Your claim of 75.7% is nowhere near it.

It doesn't really matter which way you twist and squirm. RIVM's data do not support your contention.

What is "fully vaccinated" for the RIVM is not the definition "fully vaccinated" for the world data which is entirely subjective as there is no definition.

The matter of definitions is a red herring. Use the numbers given by RIVM and Our World in Data if you wish to make some sort of an argument.

ETA: Summary

RIVM reports that 10.1 million adults are fully vaccinated.
It also reports that 78% of its younger population bracket, which amounts to 759,000 out of 973,100 people, is also fully vaccinated.
So, according to RIVM 10.86 million of the total Dutch population of 17.13 million is fully vaccinated.
Result: According to RIVM 63.4% of all people in the Netherlands is fully vaccinated.

[Tero]

[Scot Dutchy]

Talk about making presumptions. Once again you are trying to prove an orange is square. You cant assume anything with data but of course you do. The World Data is a dodgy as a Nigerian Aunty. More fool you if you accept it. Where are the details?
It is the government site that states that percentage which is a proper way of looking at it not the subjective approach of World Data which is not accepted by most scientists. They are still quoting data from the third world which has been proven to be false.
Definitions a red herring??? It is all about definitions or did you never do maths?
Does World Data use the whole population? Why? You are not vaccinating babies and under 12's.

[Hermit]

Talk about making presumptions. Once again you are trying to prove an orange is square. You cant assume anything with data but of course you do. The World Data is a dodgy as a Nigerian Aunty. More fool you if you accept it. Where are the details?
It is the government site that states that percentage which is a proper way of looking at it not the subjective approach of World Data which is not accepted by most scientists. They are still quoting data from the third world which has been proven to be false.
Definitions a red herring??? It is all about definitions or did you never do maths?
Does World Data use the whole population? Why? You are not vaccinating babies and under 12's.

I give you the summary again:

RIVM reports that 10.1 million adults are fully vaccinated.
It also reports that 78% of its younger population bracket, which amounts to 759,000 out of 973,100 people, is also fully vaccinated.
So, according to RIVM 10.86 million of the total Dutch population of 17.13 million is fully vaccinated.
Result: According to RIVM 63.4% of all people in the Netherlands is fully vaccinated.

[rainbow]

It still quotes figures for third world countries which we know are false.

Dutch racism is the best racism.

[Scot Dutchy]

Talk about making presumptions. Once again you are trying to prove an orange is square. You cant assume anything with data but of course you do. The World Data is a dodgy as a Nigerian Aunty. More fool you if you accept it. Where are the details?
It is the government site that states that percentage which is a proper way of looking at it not the subjective approach of World Data which is not accepted by most scientists. They are still quoting data from the third world which has been proven to be false.
Definitions a red herring??? It is all about definitions or did you never do maths?
Does World Data use the whole population? Why? You are not vaccinating babies and under 12's.

I give you the summary again:

RIVM reports that 10.1 million adults are fully vaccinated.
It also reports that 78% of its younger population bracket, which amounts to 759,000 out of 973,100 people, is also fully vaccinated.
So, according to RIVM 10.86 million of the total Dutch population of 17.13 million is fully vaccinated.
Result: According to RIVM 63.4% of all people in the Netherlands is fully vaccinated.

Where does the RIVM state those percentages?
Also they are only gestimations. So another load of crap. Along with your assumptions we are dealing with fairy data.

[Scot Dutchy]

It still quotes figures for third world countries which we know are false.

Dutch racism is the best racism.

Go and get those chips removed from your shoulders. WTF has that got to do with racism. Even first world countries cant get right.

[rainbow]

It still quotes figures for third world countries which we know are false.

Dutch racism is the best racism.

Go and get those chips removed from your shoulders. WTF has that got to do with racism. Even first world countries cant get right.

Yes, B'wana.

[Scot Dutchy]

Victorious over Covid, Australia and New Zealand grapple with vaccine rollout

Australia’s glacially slow delivery of jabs derided as a ‘farce’, while in New Zealand only 4.5% of eligible people have been vaccinated

They were held up as Covid success stories, two countries at the bottom of the world that kept outbreaks under control and deaths low as the pandemic swept the rest of the globe.

Daily life in cities including Sydney and Auckland now feels largely back to pre-pandemic normal – restaurants are full, theatres are open, masks are scarce and offices are busy. A degree of international travel is also a reality thanks to the new “trans-Tasman travel bubble” – a two-way quarantine-free corridor between the neighbours.

But despite the victories won over Covid in the past year, Australia and New Zealand are struggling with another beast: vaccine rollouts.

Australia’s glacial pace of delivery – blamed on a series of mistakes by the government and overseas supply delays – has prompted estimates that the country won’t return to normal levels of international travel until 2024. New Zealand – which started to vaccinate in February – has to date administered a first dose to just 4.5% of eligible people.

By comparison, the US and England, whose pandemic responses have been roundly condemned, have administered a first vaccine dose to half and 60% of their populations respectively. In the US, that amounts to 131.2 million people. In the UK, to 32 million. Vaccinations are more urgent for both those nations – Australia and New Zealand have smaller populations and health systems that aren’t under pressure from treating cases.

Australia’s strategy abandoned

In Australia, the government initially adopted a wait-and-see approach to immunisation. With cases low, the plan was to make sure vaccines being used in the UK and US were safe and effective. While the country had invested in multiple vaccines including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax and University of Queensland vaccines, only the first two are available to date. The University of Queensland vaccine plans were scrapped after its jab was found to result in false positive HIV tests in some patients, and the Novavax clinical trial data is still being gathered and analysed. This means Australia has been forced to rely on just two vaccines, and one of those, Pfizer, is in particularly short supply

But in mid-April, in the wake of news that the AstraZeneca vaccine was linked to blood clots in rare cases, the prime minister, Scott Morrison, abandoned the country’s vaccine strategy and admitted that most Australians might not be vaccinated by the end of the year.

A balls up is a mild description.

[Hermit]

Talk about making presumptions. Once again you are trying to prove an orange is square. You cant assume anything with data but of course you do. The World Data is a dodgy as a Nigerian Aunty. More fool you if you accept it. Where are the details?
It is the government site that states that percentage which is a proper way of looking at it not the subjective approach of World Data which is not accepted by most scientists. They are still quoting data from the third world which has been proven to be false.
Definitions a red herring??? It is all about definitions or did you never do maths?
Does World Data use the whole population? Why? You are not vaccinating babies and under 12's.

I give you the summary again:

RIVM reports that 10.1 million adults are fully vaccinated.
It also reports that 78% of its younger population bracket, which amounts to 759,000 out of 973,100 people, is also fully vaccinated.
So, according to RIVM 10.86 million of the total Dutch population of 17.13 million is fully vaccinated.
Result: According to RIVM 63.4% of all people in the Netherlands is fully vaccinated.

Where does the RIVM state those percentages?

The ones I coloured red are in the link you provided earlier. The rest of the data are from links I provided earlier. The calculations follow from those data.

Also they are only gestimations. So another load of crap. Along with your assumptions we are dealing with fairy data.

Your original claim, implying that 75.7% of the Dutch population is fully vaccinated, does not even amount to a guesstimate. It is a misreading of what the RIVM page you linked to actually says. I used the data contained in the RIVM page you linked to, and along with pretty accurate population figures calculated that 63.4% of all people in the Netherlands is fully vaccinated. You can quibble about fractions if you find better data, but in the end the result is not a load of crap.

[Scot Dutchy]

I read later the RIVM data was estimates so its crap but that is true also of World Data. When you start with crap it will never get better. I did not realise the RIVM data guestimates.

[Hermit]

I read later the RIVM data was estimates

Got a link?

I'd like to know how much elasticity there is. Estimates with a 5% range are obviously not garbage. Even ones with a 10% range are useful. 50%? Not bloody likely. Such estimates would be a waste of time playing with most of the time.

[Scot Dutchy]

I read later the RIVM data was estimates

Got a link?

I'd like to know how much elasticity there is. Estimates with a 5% range are obviously not garbage. Even ones with a 10% range are useful. 50%? Not bloody likely. Such estimates would be a waste of time playing with most of the time.

It was deep in the documentation. They changed the methodology on April 23rd as well. Anyway I dont trust the data as it is not absolute. When you start using guestimates the foundations are wobbly. Too many governments use them as absolutes.

[Hermit]

OK. No link.