Conspiracy theories
- Thread starter gorgeousgeorgeEFC
- Start date
- Status
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Keep up the good work, mate.
“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
Marie Curie
You could be the bloatmeister to his tobemeister.
I have seen you make this point a few times, and wonder how deep you have drilled the data.
How do those figures compare to other countries I know in Western Australia (and Australia as a whole), the numbers are very different. Which of those is the more typical result? What is the data from other countries? Data from England is too small a sample size to make a global conclusion.
How many from each group have died WITH covid rather than FROM covid? What underlying health issues have been present and contributed to each fatality? which leads to the next question.
Does age play a factor? I would assume the elderly have a higher rate of vaccination than the young - does that skew the result in any way? What is the breakdown by age and vax status?
It is now known that a booster is required to protect against Omicron strains. How many of the vaccinated fatalities were due to this strain, and how many were vaccinated against it (ie - a booster shot) Should those figures be reported separately?
These are the types of questions which need to be asked and answered before any conclusions on what the data is telling us can be reached. And I'm sure an epidemiologist would be able to come with a much better list of questions than I can.
I made the point previously that applying scientific process is difficult. Despite what you said before, that is not headpatting, it is just pointing out a fact. You can't take one set of figures and apply a universal conclusion to it. Any scientist or statistician could tell you that.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
UK Gov stats calculated for each month, by vaccine status, total and by age group, for deaths involving COVID-19, England, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022.
Happy to discuss
He links an article in The Daily Sceptic, which discusses a study recently presented to the AHA
The study clearly states that it is a "First Step" This means that conclusions should not be drawn.
The study relates to the spike protein from the virus. No mention is made of tests or results on vaccine spike proteins.
The author of the article has obviously heard something about spike proteins in vaccines so has just assumed the results would be the same
The author has jumped to a conclusion based on incomplete information. (He probably doesn't understand scientific method)
Basically, the article (and subsequent tweet) is not interesting, it is jumping to alarmist conclusions which should not be reached, and would not be reached by anyone with a modicum of scientific understanding.
Lads. Put him on ignore ffs
He's a moron.
davids
Player Valuation: £70m
War in Ukraine,high fuel prices,rising price of food etc etc? Everton failing to replace Richarlison?
Lobster Johnson
Player Valuation: £35m
When scientists look at data, they normally want a small set where the population size isn't weighted.
Unless you have reviewed all the data, or at least a large proportion of it, how do you know you are not making your judgements on data which may well be an outlier? By limiting your analysis to one cohort, your analysis is meaningless.
True, but that does not mean we should discard previous data. In fact both of them should be reviewed together to determine any trends which may be missed by reviewing only a small portion of the data.
You keep saying it should be sensational news. Why should a rudimentary analysis of a very small amount of data which has no other data points taken into consideration before forming a conclusion be sensational news?
That is true. Until an opinion is presented from that data. Too many people think they know what the data means, but really don't. That is why credentials can be considered important. That is not elitism, that is scientific process.
I don't believe you are telling lies, but when your analysis and opinions are based on a very small amount of data, with no further analysis or validation on even that small subset of data and what relevant information is missing, then it is likely that your conclusions are mistaken.
scratchnsurf
Player Valuation: £40m
Haven't we got a Covid thread?
I used to like this one.
I used to like this one.
I suspect this will be like talking to a brick wall but...
The effectiveness diminishes over time we advertised and known about.
Here are some examples:
A pre-print 6 month data here:
Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine
Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval...
Vaccine Efficacy: A Biostatistician's Primer
Patients will be clamoring for advice from their clinicians about coronavirus vaccines when they're rolled out. Natalie Dean provides a quick refresher on how to understand and interpret the data.
www.medscape.com
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
I noted you seemed to have a nearly 10 month absence from the Covid thread in current affairs, maybe you'd have seen more discussions on the efficacy and reduction had you been involved in those conversations.
You will of course, I hope, concede that we couldn't know with any degree of certainty the effectiveness of vaccine against new variants. And, the data would be clearer after 6-12 months of vaccination due to the availability of a much larger data pool.
As for your second point, I'm not sure why you're so shocked that people who are greater risk of doing from Covid, are still at greater risk from Covid once they've been vaccinated. The vaccine doesn't eliminate risk, it reduces it. Which was most definitely widely known. You can stop your pearl clutching.
As for the last point - that's obvious isn't it? That if something reduces your chance of death, but you are at much greater risk from that thing, across 95% of the population you're still more likely to die from it.
Is that a difficult or controversial point to make?
The davek of anti vaxxers, christ 
Why does that matter?
- Status