🇳🇱
:: tens of thousands of people die of covid everyday::
COVID conspiracy theorists: Bah the numbers are made up, they just report anyone who dies for any reason as a covid death. Fake news!
:: one person who already had severe allergies and a heart condition dies from the COVID vaccine::
Also COVID conspiracy theorists: OMG see the vaccine is deadly an more dangerous than the virus, it is a legit threat and has a microchip in it!
@freemo I have a friend who is way too deeply into that :(
@wa__em too many people are. The problem is the government legit broke a lot of trust while simultaniously fear mongering the topic (one that warrents some degree of natural fear regardless)...
The end result is no trust and a lot of fear to go around. That tends to manifest in all sorts of unusual ways. One of which is conspiracy theory nonsense.
Headlines like this are so dishonest because they rely on people not understanding statistics.
If everyone gets vaccinated, and the vaccination is 99.9999% effective, you would be telling the truth to say "100% of all new covid cases are vaccinated people"... but despite being true it is highly manipulative since people dont understand that it isnt really saying anything of value, its just meant to sound scary and say nothing.
It wouldnt be a vaccine, but how is that relevant? Neither the news article you posted nor my own example, presents a condition where a vaccine has zero effect... In fact as I stated a vaccine could be 99.9999% effective and you could still see 100% of people who get the virus having been vaccinated. The wording is simply constructed to be confusing and cause people to misunderstand what is being stated (hint, it is not stating the vaccine is ineffective in any way).
@yaksha
Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine says, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things... 1st, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill & go to the hospital (aka personal protection), 2, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission (aka R0).”...Moderna’s chief medical officer even admitted that, “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission.” https://noagendasocial.com/@noagendashownoteslinks/106350590604873374
@freemo @wa__em
the devil is in the details.. you cant draw any meaningful conclusions by just looking at national vaccination rates. You'd have to do a proper study on vaccine effectiveness, which ultimately shows relatively high rates, even on the delta variant (which it has 88% - 94% efficacity on depending on the vaccine you get).
@freemo @wa__em @yaksha I’m glad you posted this before I shared my calculation based on those numbers heh. I did skim an efficacy paper and I thought that was precisely what you did though, you look at your case population and compare it to the wider population to calculate to what extent a population is over/under represented in the case population, and from that you get a relative risk?
odds_ratio_vaccinated = (vaccinated_cases / vaccinated_pop) odds_ratio_unvaccinated = (unvaccinated_cases / unvaccinated_pop)
relative_risk = or_vaccinated / or_unvaccinated
efficacy = (1 - relative_risk) * 100
?
I only ever took the one undergrad stats course, was mediocre at it, and promptly forgot everything, so I’m happy to be corrected.
Your logic isnt too far off, the devil though is in the details.
For example, whats your sample size? How were the sampled from the population? Was it double blind randomly checking members from the population or inferred by just those who show up in a hospital? What about the people who got sick but were so minor they never went to the hospital? etc.
The simple numbers we can run on the back of a napkin is fine and all, but it isnt a replacement for a properly run study.
@freemo @ademan @wa__em @yaksha
"Risk isn't just about the probabilities, it's also about the consequences..." https://youtu.be/YjvRRy-rm6E?t=1000
"the fact that you aren't"
I'm not? I ask that question all the time, and work pretty heavily with that question.. It simply wasnt relevant to the point being made.
“Statistics isn't about discovering correlations, it's about eliminating coincidence."
Exactly, which is why all the science on this topic which has passed peer review does exactly that, not just look at correlation but have quite a bit of procedure designed to eliminate coincidence. In fact I elaborated on a small snippet of that already in the thread.
If you think im missing some points, by all means, feel free to explain it. But you seem to talk in sound bites and links so as to avoid any critical interpretation; not much I can do with that honestly.
@freemo it comes down to two things 1) personal protection, 2) R0 & to what extent the various interventions addresses 1) & 2), respectively. If we agree no drug is 100% safe & effective, then the vax is likely a short term placebo for most people w/unknown long term effects. If vax reduces severity, they can claim success, but not contracting COVID also eliminates potential severe symptoms.
@yaksha @wa__em
If we agree no drug is 100% safe & effective, then the vax is likely a short term placebo for most people w/unknown long term effects.
This statement makes no sense to me. Why would something that is <100% effective, for example something 99.9999% effective suddenly just be a placebo?
@freemo It's a placebo because the patient believes it works. Did the patient have natural immunity? Would they have had mild reaction had they caught the virus? How do you measure whether a patient's immune system has been primed for covid pre & post vax?
IIRC, placebo is 33% effective, better than most drugs they're tested against.
@yaksha @wa__em
What the patient thinks isnt where the statistics come from.. we dont figure out how many people with vaccines get infected anyway by going "hey buddy do you think you have covid". Moreover placebo effect (which can in fact cause real physiological protection and isnt just a mental state) is tested against, its the whole point of double-blind studies.
So no, that is completely nonsensical, we already adjust for placebo effect and measure actual infection rates compared against placebo to insure a vaccine is truely effective.
None of that of course requires a vaccine to be 100% effective either.
@freemo @yaksha @wa__em Interestingly, this still paints a pretty poor picture of vaccine efficacy though…
61% vaccinated, 57% fully vaccinated, so vaccinated people are only slightly under-represented in the cases. Obviously there are all sorts of confounding variables (like people who estimate their risk of covid exposure being more likely to get the vaccine, etc) or important things beyond infection like disease severity, but at a glance, doesn’t seem great…
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html