Covid-19 Discussion
Has the wisdom and courage to realize that the cure has now become worse than the disease. It's time to open up. Stop moving the ball.
Hospital systems have not been overwhelmed.
Ventilators are not in shortage.
Treatments are being developed.
There is no cure or vaccine. This is not going away for four years.
The devastation of the cure:
Suicide rates picking up.
Massive economic devastation which causes depression, anxiety, obesity, again increase in suicide rates and directly impacts poorer economic areas.
Alcohol sales up 51%.
Domestic Abuse on the uprise
Child abuse on the uprise.
Hospitals that do not have COVID related issues are forced to lay off doctors and nurses as there are not enough patients to economically support it, meaning they won't have the staff to deal with COVID outbreaks.
Michael Avenatti gets released from prison
We all did our part. We sheltered (here in Pennsylvania for 5 weeks already).
Open the office buildings. Open the hair saloons. Get rid of stupid mask laws.
Continue to monitor outbreaks and in areas hospital systems become threatened, reenact tougher guidelines.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!
And stop shaming people that want common sense solutions. Waiting for a vaccine is stupid and unpractical.
As for the claims that it ruins the claims of effectiveness, that's also horse crap.
Vaccines obviously don't start working instantly, so you have to account for the time it takes good then to become effective. There are various proposed ways to account for it, all of which are reasonable, but none of which are good enough to not completely throw out every study ever done according to that ridiculous blog author.
Just more pathetic attempts to poison the well.
It is noteworthy, though, that no matt
Fyi here's that ridiculous blog author. He sounds a lot more qualified than you to talk about the subject.
https://www.normanfenton.com
Probability, Risk and Statistics | Norman Fenton
Norman Fenton is an emeritus professor of risk at Queen Mary University of London and the director of Agena Ltd. He is a world leading expert on risk assessment and statistics with a focus on Bayesian probability and forensic evidence.
About
I’m a mathematician by training with current focus on quantifying risk and uncertainty using causal, probabilistic models that combine data and knowledge (Bayesian networks). I have published 7 books and over 400 peer reviewed articles.
Zero evidence of causation presented, just fabricated correlations and a ridiculous claim that the vaccine caused 17M deaths. There were also shortages of toilet paper during the vaccine rollout. Perhaps I'll write a study showing how toilet paper shortages caused 17M deaths.
How do you know the correlations are fabricated? Have you looked at the source data?
They look pretty well correlated to me. As explained in the study there is enough correlation across multiple countries to indicate a very strong signal of causation. Sure it's not proof, but the signal is flashing red.
Detailed mortality and vaccination data for Chile and Peru allow resolution by age and by dose number. It is unlikely that the observed peaks in all-cause mortality in JanuaryFebruary 2022 (and additionally in: July-August 2021, Chile; July-August 2022, Peru), in each of both countries and in each elderly age group, could be due to any cause other than the temporally associated rapid COVID-19-vaccine-booster-dose rollouts.
Likewise, it is unlikely that the transitions to regimes of high ACM, coincident with the rollout and sustained administration of COVID-19 vaccines, in all 17 SouthernHemisphere and equatorial-latitude countries, could be due to any cause other than the vaccines.
Synchronicity between the many peaks in ACM (in 17 countries, on 4 continents, in all elderly age groups, at different times) and associated rapid booster rollouts allows this firm conclusion regarding causality, and accurate quantification of COVID-19-vaccine toxicity.
How do you know the correlations are not fabricated? Have you not looked at the source data?
Fyi here's that ridiculous blog author. He sounds a lot more qualified than you to talk about the subject.
Yes, we've discussed multiple times in the past how you don't know know how to assess qualifications to speak on medical subjects.
But, as usual, the BJ special. A lone wolf non-medically qualified blog author who's spotted what all those pesky doctors around the globe have gotten wrong.
Yes, we've discussed multiple times in the past how you don't know know how to assess qualifications to speak on medical subjects.
But, as usual, the BJ special. A lone wolf non-medically qualified blog author who's spotted what all those pesky doctors around the globe have gotten wrong.
It's not a medical subject. It's a data manipulation subject of which that particular author is eminently qualified to talk about.
How do you know the correlations are fabricated? Have you looked at the source data?
They look pretty well correlated to me. As explained in the study there is enough correlation across multiple countries to indicate a very strong signal of causation. Sure it's not proof, but the signal is flashing red.
How do you know that the correlation of toilet paper shortages occurring during this same period aren't what's behind the 17M deaths?
How do you know that the correlation of toilet paper shortages occurring during this same period aren't what's behind the 17M deaths?
Well, you will have to show me a study with links to legitimate data that shows that correlation first. Then I might consider it. Otherwise you are just jerking off.
It's not a medical subject. It's a data manipulation subject of which that particular author is eminently qualified to talk about.
No. It's a medical subject. For instance, he doesn't discuss the initial trial data which does not make that distinction, and in fact, demonstrates quite clearly in the data that the vaccine takes about 2 weeks to become effective. No being medically trained, he doesn't understand why that might be the case, so he dismisses that it is something that *must* be accounted for. Maybe you don't know this, but the initial trial data *did not* label those who were vaccinated less than 14 days as "unvaccinated." They tracked them very closely, and the data did not begin to show separation between the two cohorts until after about 2 weeks from vaccination.
He then lists lots of papers that attempt to account for it and dismissrs *all of them* because they accounted for it.
He offers no ways to account for it that would be superior to any of the ways in any of the papers, presumably because he doesn't understand that it has to be.
The alternative, of course, is that he's just another grifter.
You could, of course, show us all how he suggests we account for this issue. I'm sure he must have told us somewhere in there, right?
But please, tell us again how the effectiveness of vaccines is not a medical subject.
They only did with COVID, normally you only compare control groups.
If the decision to vaccinate is endogenous you lose all statistical power, because you don't end up with a cohort of vaccinated people that is the same random sample of the population that the unvaccinated people are.
Example: people who refuse the vaccine might very well be more extrovert and disregard all other distancing rules (imagine you think they work).
If you check the two groups, the differences in infection rates could de
I noticed that when you discuss actual epistemological problems with what happened , you don't get answers ITT, I wonder why.
It's easier to pile on BJ random claims I guess.
I noticed that when you discuss actual epistemological problems with what happened , you don't get answers ITT, I wonder why.
It's easier to pile on BJ random claims I guess.
Sorry. I missed it. Here's your response. You're wrong. They did during COVID. They applied a placebo instead of a vaccine to one cohort and compared the two. Not sure how you don't know this.
Hope that helped!
Sorry. I missed it. Here's your response. You're wrong. They did during COVID. They applied a placebo instead of a vaccine to one cohort and compared the two. Not sure how you don't know this.
Hope that helped!
And then they interrupted that well before time was due because of "ethical reasons", so we don't have any long term efficacy data.
The phase 3 placebo trials were conducted correctly , there was no statistically significant different in deaths (because covid kills so little even among the unvaccinated, that they didn't have enough deaths in the placebo group either), and they tested mostly people who have nothing to fear from covid, very few elders or otherwise very bad health individuals.
The efficacy to reduce infections was shown, but we have 0 data on what happens if you never vaccinate for 4 years vs somone who took 1, or 2, or 3 or 4 doses, there are no control groups standing to this day, so no claim of efficacy after the phase 3 trial is actually scientifical.
We have observational claims available but given the very strong differences among the groups and the selecting biases , we have no clue how to quantify efficacy, or even if there is any efficacy in boosters for example. They don't do RCT for them, they didn't do a proper one for children (embarassing low sample size).
The phase 3 trial placebo group should be unvaccinated to this day to be able to have good data, do you understand this part?
We have no information about long term protection from a RCT for example.
And then they interrupted that well before time was due because of "ethical reasons", so we don't have any long term efficacy data.
What does "well before time" mean here? They reached their endpoints, which are the typical endpoints for vaccine trials. They weren't ended early.
Phase 4 is for monitoring long term efficacy. Yes the placebo and blinding are removed because there's no reason to keep them.
The phase 3 trial placebo group should be unvaccinated to this day to be able to have good data, do you understand this part?
To have data that is nearly useless, they would have to withhold a working vaccine from people, yes I understand that. I think I'm comfortable with the decision.
We have enough indications that protection is not permanent and boosters are needed for longevity and to cover new, emerging strains. That's really all that's necessary for "long term."
I really have no idea what you're getting at. It's the main reason I usually don't respond to you. A solid page of near gibberish littered with factual inaccuracies and frequent misconceptions with no clear point being argued isn't my favorite use of time. That's why I usually just ignore your posts. Someone else will be along to help you, I guess.
As for BJ, yes, it's effortless fun to dunk on him, repeatedly. Even though I don't really want to be participating here right now, I couldn't resist. I'll turn it back over to the usual crowd now.
We have enough indications that protection is not permanent and boosters are needed to for longevity and to cover new, emerging strains. That's really all that's necessary for "long term."
We don't have any data on booster efficacy through RCT. And we shouldn't suppose every booster works the same as that's absolutely not a given. Ie in this moment we could be inoculating useless boosters or we could be failing to inoculate exceptionally useful boosters by not pushing them enough, we have no clue, because proper science has been abandoned for "ethical reasons".
I really have no idea what you're getting at. It's the main reason I usually don't respond to you. A solid page of best gibberish littered with factual inaccuracies and frequent misconceptions with no clear point being argued isn't my favorite use of time. That's why I usually just ignore your posts. Someone else will be along to help you, I guess.
That we have destroyed our ability to conduct proper scientifical research by abandoning the concept of the indispensability of properly built control groups for the long term.
Just do a search about placebo ethics covid vaccine to realize what i mean. The "discourse" now is about how we shouldn't in the future even have placebo groups because we deny the possibility of vaccination to some people in a future pandemic if we do.
And we gave a great help to antivaxers that can now claim, with reason, we have no way to assess potential long term side effects of the vaccine, nor if efficacy becomes negative long term.
Not sure you realize observational data for Omicron are of negative efficacy of vaccination.
That we have destroyed our ability to conduct proper scientifical research by abandoning the concept of the indispensability of properly built control groups for the long term.
Just do a search about placebo ethics covid vaccine to realize what i mean. The "discourse" now is about how we shouldn't in the future even have placebo groups because we deny the possibility of vaccination to some people in a future pandemic if we do.
And we gave a great help to antivaxers that can now claim, with reason,
See what I mean about littered with factual inaccuracies?
Jfc. Someone else deal with this s***
Well, you will have to show me a study with links to legitimate data that shows that correlation first. Then I might consider it. Otherwise you are just jerking off.
Why do you need a study that shows there was a toilet paper shortage correlated to the pandemic? It was widely observed and reported by everyone in this country while the pandemic was happening. Once the pandemic started to subside so did the shortages. There's your correlation.
If you're instead asking to show you a study that shows a causal correlation between the toilet paper shortage and those deaths, then that's the right question to ask. Before I answer it though, please first share a study that shows a causal correlation between vaccines and the deaths.
Why do you need a study that shows there was a toilet paper shortage correlated to the pandemic? It was widely observed and reported by everyone in this country while the pandemic was happening. Once the pandemic started to subside so did the shortages. There's your correlation.
If you're instead asking to show you a study that shows a causal correlation between the toilet paper shortage and those deaths, then that's the right question to ask. Before I answer it though, please first share a study
Actually the shortages ended when we went back to normal life, even when cases were very high again later on there was no toilet paper shortage anymore.
That we have destroyed our ability to conduct proper scientifical research by abandoning the concept of the indispensability of properly built control groups for the long term.
Just do a search about placebo ethics covid vaccine to realize what i mean. The "discourse" now is about how we shouldn't in the future even have placebo groups because we deny the possibility of vaccination to some people in a future pandemic if we do.
And we gave a great help to antivaxers that can now claim, with reason,
Last time I checked only approximately 80% of the USA population has been vaccinated. That means there are approximately 68 million candidates for a control group.
Last time I checked only approximately 80% of the USA population has been vaccinated. That means there are approximately 68 million candidates for a control group.
That's not how a control group works 🤐
It has to be a random sample group, not a group that is selfselected.
For example if people in better health avoided the vaccine (not claiming that's what happened, just giving an example) then efficacy would actually be underestimated.
Bloomberg: Largest Covid Vaccine Study Y...
Study referenced by Bloomberg article:
COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of ...
That's not how a control group works 🤐
It has to be a random sample group, not a group that is selfselected.
For example if people in better health avoided the vaccine (not claiming that's what happened, just giving an example) then efficacy would actually be underestimated.
Who said the group would be self-selected? A simple questionnaire as to the reasons they didn't get vaccinated would give researchers the information they need to control the selection of the group.
Who said the group would be self-selected? A simple questionnaire as to the reasons they didn't get vaccinated would give researchers the information they need to control the selection of the group.
There are too many things to control for, and there are no ways to control for some of them.
While you might with some complexity be able to control for pre-vaccine health conditions (to gauge if the unvaccinated had better, worse, or similar health conditions as the vaccinated), and you could be able to control for income and education fairly easily, you can't control for purported efficacy of NPIs *because we don't know if there is any to control for, and if it exists, how big it is*, nor for extroversy.
So you have this almost certainly very strong correlation between refusing the vaccine, and refusing to wear masks and/or distancing less than people who took all the doses right? *how do you control for that*.
And plausibly people who refused the vaccine are also more extrovert (not the same as refusal to social distancing during lockdowns), so went back to fully normal lives (when legally allowed) sooner than the vaccinated and so on.
If any of those behaviours have any relationship with risk of infection and severity of infection (Remember some of the claims about NPIs were about reduced viral loads if you get infected wearing masks for example) then how do you control for them?
Just to explain how hard it is to build a proper RCT , please remember than moderna phase 3 trial results were considered not very trustable by several experts because the side effects were so common (pain, fatigue, fever and the like) after inoculation, that people could know if they were in the placebo group or not too easily, destroying the scientifical validity of all the results.
That's because you want the placebo (or treated) group to not be behaviorally affected at all, if knowledge that you got the vaccine could reduce efforts to distance from others (for ex), then that invalidates results.
And you propose to use people who CHOSE not to vaccinate as a control group? really please read more about why control groups are build and how, and why they are crucial to determine causality of any treatment and quantify it.
There are too many things to control for, and there are no ways to control for some of them.
While you might with some complexity be able to control for pre-vaccine health conditions (to gauge if the unvaccinated had better, worse, or similar health conditions as the vaccinated), and you could be able to control for income and education fairly easily, you can't control for purported efficacy of NPIs *because we don't know if there is any to control for, and if it exists, how big it is*, nor for e
There are 68 million people in the unvaccinated group - plenty for researchers to select whatever cohort subgroup they need, unpolluted by the confounders you describe.
