CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[21st Century Man]

jameswills said:

Elysium said:

No that is the statistic. COVID doubled everyone’s risk of dying in a given year.

Ok I think we’ve reached peak nonsense now.

Oh I dunno. Most peoples risk of dying is miniscule, doubling it is still miniscule. Frying my bacon in vegetable oil doubles my risk of dying, it's on that level.

[Hants PHer]

mko9 said:

And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!

I tend to agree. The willingness of some posters in this thread to substitute correlation for causation is astonishing. Especially when that correlation is achieved by dubious means.

[RSTurboPaul]

Rollin said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Rollin said:

Surely you can see that non of that relates to recording or investigation of ADRs...Just a load of flannel

If people have died shortly after injection but the injection and any reactions to it are not recorded as even a potential cause of death 'because unvaccinated', that would seem to relate to recording and investigation of ADRs.

But that's not what is happening. '2 week til vaccinated' relates to delayed onset of vaccine effectiveness, as well you know. Why do you not know this? Have a think about how anaphylaxis could be recorded as a rare vaccine side effect if what you parrot was true.

Is the assertion that because anaphylaxis has been recorded at least once as an ADR within 14 days, all similar instances from that point forward have been captured and (therefore) there are no occurrences that have not been recorded?

Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 9th May 19:34

[r3g]

Elysium said:

Don’t take my word from it. This was the view of one of our most prominent statisticians:

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...

The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.

If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.

If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.

*YAWN*

4 year redundant article and underlying source : ONS.

ONS = Office for Ficticious Statistics
United Kingdom's principal government institution in charge of statistics and census data

This is the same ONS where they move the goal-posts every few months on how they measure and record data when the numbers start to get ugly.

Edited by r3g on Thursday 9th May 19:52

[jameswills]

mko9 said:

And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!

You have to do that because the number scales are very different in the two datasets, and so you can then visually show a relationship between two data sets that share a common base (in this case the timeline x axis). It’s only showing -150 to position the graph in the middle so it’s easier to read! There’s nothing odd going on here. The trend is the trend, it’s not going down is it?

Where I think you’re probably getting confused is when they DO fk about and use a logarithmic scale on one side with a linear on the other….which funnily enough the government loved to use. That is disingenuous and misleading.

[jameswills]

21st Century Man said:

Oh I dunno. Most peoples risk of dying is miniscule, doubling it is still miniscule. Frying my bacon in vegetable oil doubles my risk of dying, it's on that level.

Well yes good point. However I must say me wearing my funny hat through Covid halved my risk, so thankfully I managed to balance it all out.

[BigMon]

Hants PHer said:

mko9 said:

And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!

I tend to agree. The willingness of some posters in this thread to substitute correlation for causation is astonishing. Especially when that correlation is achieved by dubious means.

If you're up against a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, don't trust the 'gubbermint' or 'authora-tay' then it's pretty difficult to be on the same page when discussing statistics or pretty much anything really related to Covid or anything else.

[Rollin]

RSTurboPaul said:

Rollin said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Rollin said:

Surely you can see that non of that relates to recording or investigation of ADRs...Just a load of flannel

If people have died shortly after injection but the injection and any reactions to it are not recorded as even a potential cause of death 'because unvaccinated', that would seem to relate to recording and investigation of ADRs.

But that's not what is happening. '2 week til vaccinated' relates to delayed onset of vaccine effectiveness, as well you know. Why do you not know this? Have a think about how anaphylaxis could be recorded as a rare vaccine side effect if what you parrot was true.

Is the assertion that because anaphylaxis has been recorded at least once as an ADR within 14 days, all similar instances from that point forward have been captured and (therefore) there are no occurrences that have not been recorded?

Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 9th May 19:34

No. The point is that several times on this thread, posters have stated ADRs that occur within 2 weeks of vaccination are disregarded in terms of further investigation. That is not true.

[21st Century Man]

jameswills said:

21st Century Man said:

Oh I dunno. Most peoples risk of dying is miniscule, doubling it is still miniscule. Frying my bacon in vegetable oil doubles my risk of dying, it's on that level.

Well yes good point. However I must say me wearing my funny hat through Covid halved my risk, so thankfully I managed to balance it all out.

I carried one of those orange buckets from B&Q, following "The Science". I'm convinced I dodged a bullet.

[Scolmore]

J210 said:

That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?

If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.

Do you have a source please?

[bodhi]

21st Century Man said:

I carried one of those orange buckets from B&Q, following "The Science". I'm convinced I dodged a bullet.

Are you sure that's not just because B n Q was one of the only places open and the orange buckets are the same price as a Bag for Life and loads more useful?

[Yahonza]

Elysium said:

r3g said:

Elysium said:

No that is the statistic. COVID doubled everyone’s risk of dying in a given year.

OK.

Don’t take my word from it. This was the view of one of our most prominent statisticians:

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...

The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.

If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.

If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.

Speigelhalter obviously understands the maths of risk & probability (these are not the same thing but are often used interchangeably) and better than most as that is his job. Although it is technically true that overall population risk of dying increased with the Covid outbreak, the risk was highly stratified by age group. The adaptive immune response to viral infection just isn't as robust in many older people (e.g. T cell function). One of the purposes of vaccination is to boost the T cell response against a set of given antigens.

[kerplunk]

Hants PHer said:

mko9 said:

And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!

I tend to agree. The willingness of some posters in this thread to substitute correlation for causation is astonishing. Especially when that correlation is achieved by dubious means.

Red herring

It's perfectly acceptable to present two datasets on a graph in support of an hypothesis

If people leap to conclusions purely on the correlation then more fool them - it's not the graph's design at fault

[119]

Scolmore said:

J210 said:

That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?

If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.

Do you have a source please?

Highly unlikely.

[jameswills]

Scolmore said:

J210 said:

That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?

If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.

Do you have a source please?

What about Rishi Sunak having financial links with Moderna (through his old hedge fund), and then Zahawi the serial tax dodger who just seemed to not be able to get involved in government, maybe something to do with founding YouGov, and then became vaccines minister.

And VanTam who was plucked from a very lucrative role in the pharmaceutical industry to a stty paid government job as chief medical officer just in time for a pandemic where he did his job got knighted now works for Moderna.

There are loads more dots like this you can follow.

[.:ian:.]

21st Century Man said:

jameswills said:

21st Century Man said:

Oh I dunno. Most peoples risk of dying is miniscule, doubling it is still miniscule. Frying my bacon in vegetable oil doubles my risk of dying, it's on that level.

Well yes good point. However I must say me wearing my funny hat through Covid halved my risk, so thankfully I managed to balance it all out.

I carried one of those orange buckets from B&Q, following "The Science". I'm convinced I dodged a bullet.

Based on the science behind some of the regulations, whenever I was walking around I kept with me a supply of scotch eggs to munch on.
Didn't catch covid, did put on 2 stone though.

[Roderick Spode]

kerplunk said:

Hants PHer said:

mko9 said:

And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!

I tend to agree. The willingness of some posters in this thread to substitute correlation for causation is astonishing. Especially when that correlation is achieved by dubious means.

Red herring

It's perfectly acceptable to present two datasets on a graph in support of an hypothesis

If people leap to conclusions purely on the correlation then more fool them - it's not the graph's design at fault

Precisely. Someone better notify tens of thousands of scientific and engineering publications and papers if it's suddenly now an untenable method of presenting data.

[Roderick Spode]

Rollin said:

ChocolateFrog said:

On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.

What percentage of the population died of Covid?

The average answer? 5%

Or should that be

The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.

The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.

They should've asked Spode, seems like everyone he knows are dropping like flies

LOL at another valuable [T]Rollin snarky one-liner. Back to the other thread where the big boys will pat your wee head and give you a biscuit.

[J210]

Scolmore said:

If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.

Do you have a source please?

I do Yes.

Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list

https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk

Row 3181 if you have the full excel. Or can use the quick search what shows



No context to what the money relates to.

119 said:

Highly unlikely.

Edited by J210 on Friday 10th May 08:58

[Scolmore]

J210 said:

Scolmore said:

If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.

Do you have a source please?

I do Yes.

Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list

https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk

Row 3181 if you have the full excel.

No context to what the money relates to.

119 said:

Highly unlikely.

Thank you very much indeed. I now have some reading to do!