“You are parrotong(sp) what you have been fed by authorities” - Right - they’re authorities because they’re the top relevant medical experts and scientists involved. Reading a twitter thread doesn’t make you an authority. See the difference? What you are doing is parroting (spelling matters) typical antivax conjecture.
What you gave is, as previously mentioned, anecdotes. You could provide a million of them, they’re still anecdotes.
Exposure to the field of statistics? Would you like to talk to the experts involved with VAERS and the like so you can actually get educated about what they find significant?
They are authorities, because they are authorities. Good one. I am really convinced now.
Forget twitter. Mind reading something from the authorities? Check table 2, page number 13, of 41st week review of vaccination by PHE. Last two columns specifically. It states, statistically, that if you are over 30, and vaccinated, you are more likely to to get covid positive than if you are unvaccinated.
And remember, I am not yet referring you to any “antivax conjecture”.
That was interesting, thanks. So table 2 has to looked at together with table 3 and 4. But the same information shown much more clearly in figure 2 on pages 17 and 18.
And page 12 is a fairly good summary, there’s not much I could add to that. Do you agree with page 12 or is there another way of looking at it?
Table 2, 3 and 4 are about different aspects. Table 2 deals with cases testing positive without going into severity of disease while Table 3 and 4 deal only with data about severe cases and terminal ones. Figure 2 makes bar charts of parts of these tables, which maybe clarifying for some.
While it puts the maths right, Page 12 is outright misleading about possible causes. The interpretations therein are carefully worded to guide the uninitiated reader to look away from the vaccines themselves as cause of anything bad.
Another pertinent aspect is that only table 2 (and corresponding figure on page 17) has data relevant to the spread of the virus itself and how vaccination is affecting it; and it does appear that covid is spreading faster in the vaccinated, at least for higher age groups.
While Table 3 and 4 may hint that vaccines are reducing serious illness and deaths, the virus has already proven that it mutates and faster spreading of it will ultimately accelerate mutations and Table 3 and 4 will progressively look worse with passage of time.
yes i agree with most of that. i think most people who are interested in this stuff, and are scientifically literate, will be familiar with those problems, and are still pro vaccine. just a couple of things.
what’s a better interpretation than page 12? it sounded fine to me.
this is real world data, not a randomised trial. there are lots of confounding factors. this kind of record is no substitute for a rigorous research study.
Literacy doesn’t make people any less opinionated. Nor do opinions affect truth. Opinions only affect individual and collective decisions. For instance, if Titanic is sinking, no amount of opinions or voting against the fact of sinking will make any difference to the fact that it is sinking. Opinions only affect what people will do while it is sinking. Similarly, what people think about vaccines doesn’t affect vaccines’ actual impact.
To put my position on record:
I am okay with vaccines as long as people are not coerced into getting vaccinated. Vaccination must be voluntary.
Everyone opting to get vaccinated must be made aware that covid vaccines are still not fully tested, despite millions or billions of vaccines already administered.
Pretending that ill effects of vaccines aren’t there isn’t just ethically wrong, it is criminally dangerous. Let people make intelligent, informed choice, rather than behaving like sheep.
Now, as for the two specific points you raised:
If one removes the pro-vaccine disclaimers, page 12 does get the summary of the math right. That is all there should be on that page.
There are prior concerns here: why vaccines have been hurriedly unleashed on the world, without conducting necessary randomised trials? why are we pretending that all is well while real world data is showing otherwise, and randomised trial data isn’t there?
There is much to be skeptical about, but we are collectively grasping on straws. Not the finest hour of mankind.
I agree, but would go even further. Coersion in general can be dangerous in an epidemic. If everyone is forced to do the same thing (like take a vaccine or work from home or wear a mask or anything) and then it turns out there’s a problem with doing that, 100% of people have that problem and your society is in big trouble. For example if working from home causes obesity in 5% of people, then you have a medical emergency coming up. And the problem could be anything, you can’t predict these things. Every action has unknown unintended consequences. If there is no coercion and people all react in slightly different but mostly sensible ways, you get the same important behavioural change but without the making your society fragile.
Then, you’re leaving the responsibility to individuals, not taking it on yourself. If as president you force everyone to take a vaccine and that vaccine causes 1% of people to die, you are personally responsible for those deaths. If you make it optional, and most people take it, and some of them die, they are individually responsible.
But politicians think they are smarter than most people, which they are not. Most unusually stupid people think they are unusually intelligent. That leads to politicians having this arrogance that they can, and should, make personal decisions for other people.
2 and 3. The people who say that are just ignorant. The details of vaccine risks are online. You can understand them better than the average politician. They cause heart attacks, and other stuff I forget, in some tiny fraction of people. But in the case of covid, getting vaccinated is much safer than not.
page 12 does get the summary of the math right
Okay.
That’s the kind of question with no real answer. You can say, evil money and power and corruption, or because of dire emergency, or because vaccines are the best most effective remedy, or because of foolish short-sighted politicians and group think. All these answers are correct. You can argue which one is more correct, you can argue than forever and never convince anyone. Some people do!
Is being contrarian a good or a bad thing? Sounds like you think it’s a bad thing.
I used to think it’s neither. Some people naturally go with the crowd, some go against it. Going against it doesn’t make you a free thinker, it’s just a different tendency.
But now I think that being a contrarian starts off that way, as just a neutral natural tendency. But it forces you to frequently think deeply about things, because you keep getting in arguments. If you agree with most people you never have to think deeply about anything.
So now I think contrarians are crucial to society, and we should all try to be contradict our natures by engaging seriously (not condescendingly) with them. It foces us to also think deeply about things.
Having a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good thing. It leads to asking questions and hopefully getting answers when applied EQUALLY to both sides of the argument.
The issue here is that you are looking for AFFIRMATION rather than INFORMATION.
The body of evidence is clear, there’s really nothing for one to be skeptical of at this point. It’s like calling a flat earther a skeptic. You can title it what you want, but it’s delusion.
Lol!
Even if you are supporting vaccination, you need to be aware that the body of evidence is incomplete without phase-4 data, and long term studies of after effects. The CDC once took 27 years to decide that a particular vaccine was making the subjects more susceptible to another serious disease.
These quotes come immediately before and after the cited graph in the report, I’ve shortened them for clarity and brevity:
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups … The vaccination status of cases … is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation.
it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated … This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups … thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.
Interpretation of the case rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated population is particularly susceptible to changes in denominators
and should be interpreted with extra caution.
Because the elderly and the chronically sick are the most likely to get vaccinated, and the young and healthy are the least likely to get vaccinated, it distorts the numbers to look like getting the vaccine increases your chance of contracting covid.
The report you cited is overflowing with warnings not to misinterpret the data, but you missed all the warnings. Ironically, your own argument is an excellent example why we need authorities to interpret findings for the general public, and why those authorities are deserving of more trust than any stranger on social media.
Of course it is not the most appropriate way to assess vaccine effectiveness. The most appropriate way is isolate the vector (which hasn’t been done till date), then administer it to test subjects (good luck finding willing test subjects), both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and then check the covid positive rates for these test subjects. And then there have to be replication studies to verify results, etc. You’ll need no less than a dictator to get this done.
This is a generalised conjecture which can be refuted by one single appropriate example. As it happens, an appropriate example exists. Waterford, Ireland which has nearly 100% vaccination rate, became a covid positive hotbed soon after vaccination reached high percentage ( check here ).
As it happens, the denominators in the tables have been uniquely specified and rates given in proportion to them. If the PHE have not made any mistakes in making the table, it is highly unlikely that my interpretations have erred on this count.
As for your own interpretation about difference in vaccination rate by age and illness distorting rates of covid contraction, that cannot be addressed without more comprehensive data. But there are distortions from other side as well. For instance, those more likely to contract covid may also be taking more social distancing precautions and maintaining stricter personal hygeine, etc.
Antivaxxer arguments are so incredibly sad.
“You are parrotong(sp) what you have been fed by authorities” - Right - they’re authorities because they’re the top relevant medical experts and scientists involved. Reading a twitter thread doesn’t make you an authority. See the difference? What you are doing is parroting (spelling matters) typical antivax conjecture.
What you gave is, as previously mentioned, anecdotes. You could provide a million of them, they’re still anecdotes.
Exposure to the field of statistics? Would you like to talk to the experts involved with VAERS and the like so you can actually get educated about what they find significant?
They are authorities, because they are authorities. Good one. I am really convinced now.
Forget twitter. Mind reading something from the authorities? Check table 2, page number 13, of 41st week review of vaccination by PHE. Last two columns specifically. It states, statistically, that if you are over 30, and vaccinated, you are more likely to to get covid positive than if you are unvaccinated.
And remember, I am not yet referring you to any “antivax conjecture”.
post a link to your source. if you haven’t misunderstood it, that would be very interesting.
Can be accessed from here.
That was interesting, thanks. So table 2 has to looked at together with table 3 and 4. But the same information shown much more clearly in figure 2 on pages 17 and 18.
And page 12 is a fairly good summary, there’s not much I could add to that. Do you agree with page 12 or is there another way of looking at it?
Table 2, 3 and 4 are about different aspects. Table 2 deals with cases testing positive without going into severity of disease while Table 3 and 4 deal only with data about severe cases and terminal ones. Figure 2 makes bar charts of parts of these tables, which maybe clarifying for some.
While it puts the maths right, Page 12 is outright misleading about possible causes. The interpretations therein are carefully worded to guide the uninitiated reader to look away from the vaccines themselves as cause of anything bad.
Another pertinent aspect is that only table 2 (and corresponding figure on page 17) has data relevant to the spread of the virus itself and how vaccination is affecting it; and it does appear that covid is spreading faster in the vaccinated, at least for higher age groups.
While Table 3 and 4 may hint that vaccines are reducing serious illness and deaths, the virus has already proven that it mutates and faster spreading of it will ultimately accelerate mutations and Table 3 and 4 will progressively look worse with passage of time.
yes i agree with most of that. i think most people who are interested in this stuff, and are scientifically literate, will be familiar with those problems, and are still pro vaccine. just a couple of things.
what’s a better interpretation than page 12? it sounded fine to me.
this is real world data, not a randomised trial. there are lots of confounding factors. this kind of record is no substitute for a rigorous research study.
Literacy doesn’t make people any less opinionated. Nor do opinions affect truth. Opinions only affect individual and collective decisions. For instance, if Titanic is sinking, no amount of opinions or voting against the fact of sinking will make any difference to the fact that it is sinking. Opinions only affect what people will do while it is sinking. Similarly, what people think about vaccines doesn’t affect vaccines’ actual impact.
To put my position on record:
Now, as for the two specific points you raised:
There is much to be skeptical about, but we are collectively grasping on straws. Not the finest hour of mankind.
Then, you’re leaving the responsibility to individuals, not taking it on yourself. If as president you force everyone to take a vaccine and that vaccine causes 1% of people to die, you are personally responsible for those deaths. If you make it optional, and most people take it, and some of them die, they are individually responsible.
But politicians think they are smarter than most people, which they are not. Most unusually stupid people think they are unusually intelligent. That leads to politicians having this arrogance that they can, and should, make personal decisions for other people.
2 and 3. The people who say that are just ignorant. The details of vaccine risks are online. You can understand them better than the average politician. They cause heart attacks, and other stuff I forget, in some tiny fraction of people. But in the case of covid, getting vaccinated is much safer than not.
That’s the kind of question with no real answer. You can say, evil money and power and corruption, or because of dire emergency, or because vaccines are the best most effective remedy, or because of foolish short-sighted politicians and group think. All these answers are correct. You can argue which one is more correct, you can argue than forever and never convince anyone. Some people do!
And yet another problem with antivaxxers - refusal to read unless it fits their narrative.
Sorry, try again.
“Narrative” doesn’t come from anti-establishment folks like me. Our job is to point to holes in the narrative. Ontology 101.
And I don’t need to “try” anything, including vaccines. You can take your jab. Or jabs. Mix and match them, whatever.
“Contrarian” is the word you’re looking for.
Is being contrarian a good or a bad thing? Sounds like you think it’s a bad thing.
I used to think it’s neither. Some people naturally go with the crowd, some go against it. Going against it doesn’t make you a free thinker, it’s just a different tendency.
But now I think that being a contrarian starts off that way, as just a neutral natural tendency. But it forces you to frequently think deeply about things, because you keep getting in arguments. If you agree with most people you never have to think deeply about anything.
So now I think contrarians are crucial to society, and we should all try to be contradict our natures by engaging seriously (not condescendingly) with them. It foces us to also think deeply about things.
Skeptic.
Having a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good thing. It leads to asking questions and hopefully getting answers when applied EQUALLY to both sides of the argument.
The issue here is that you are looking for AFFIRMATION rather than INFORMATION.
I am looking for neither. Check my other replies. I am the one INFORMING, supplying bulk of primary information from good quality sources.
so what you’re saying is that all medicine and healthcare is a racket. gotcha.
Certainly not all.
Of course. Just this one, where there are thousands of researchers and doctors in agreement.
Deluded.
The body of evidence is clear, there’s really nothing for one to be skeptical of at this point. It’s like calling a flat earther a skeptic. You can title it what you want, but it’s delusion.
Lol!
Even if you are supporting vaccination, you need to be aware that the body of evidence is incomplete without phase-4 data, and long term studies of after effects. The CDC once took 27 years to decide that a particular vaccine was making the subjects more susceptible to another serious disease.
Yes, you should not get the COVID vaccines because there might possibly somewhere somehow be an outlying case that you should be afraid of.
COVID is perfectly safe to catch and really does nothing harmful to you whatsoever. Spreading COVID is also "the right thing to do"™.
lolicopters!
These quotes come immediately before and after the cited graph in the report, I’ve shortened them for clarity and brevity:
Because the elderly and the chronically sick are the most likely to get vaccinated, and the young and healthy are the least likely to get vaccinated, it distorts the numbers to look like getting the vaccine increases your chance of contracting covid.
The report you cited is overflowing with warnings not to misinterpret the data, but you missed all the warnings. Ironically, your own argument is an excellent example why we need authorities to interpret findings for the general public, and why those authorities are deserving of more trust than any stranger on social media.
source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf
All three of your quotes can be addressed:
Of course it is not the most appropriate way to assess vaccine effectiveness. The most appropriate way is isolate the vector (which hasn’t been done till date), then administer it to test subjects (good luck finding willing test subjects), both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and then check the covid positive rates for these test subjects. And then there have to be replication studies to verify results, etc. You’ll need no less than a dictator to get this done.
This is a generalised conjecture which can be refuted by one single appropriate example. As it happens, an appropriate example exists. Waterford, Ireland which has nearly 100% vaccination rate, became a covid positive hotbed soon after vaccination reached high percentage ( check here ).
As it happens, the denominators in the tables have been uniquely specified and rates given in proportion to them. If the PHE have not made any mistakes in making the table, it is highly unlikely that my interpretations have erred on this count.
As for your own interpretation about difference in vaccination rate by age and illness distorting rates of covid contraction, that cannot be addressed without more comprehensive data. But there are distortions from other side as well. For instance, those more likely to contract covid may also be taking more social distancing precautions and maintaining stricter personal hygeine, etc.