| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. 01:18 - Mar 14 with 4367 views | Jack123 |
Will it ever rear it's ugly head again? I think if it does, there is zero chance of anyone conforming the way we did again.
Just my opinion, but I really think we have been robbed of 2 years of our lives.. We won't get that back.
[Post edited 14 Mar 2022 1:19]
|  |
| |  |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 16:32 - Mar 17 with 775 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 09:39 - Mar 17 by felixstowe_jack |
He just does not seem to understand his own statistics that clearly show that for age groups death rates are far higher for unvaccinated than people who have had three doses. |
I am not talking about three doses I am talking about 1 and 2 doses and where those with 3 doses will be in the same situation in a month or two.
Isn't it funny that you can see that the triple dose in much lower than the unvaccinated, but not that it is also much lower than the single and double jabbed as well and so is the unvaccinated lower.
They will then need another booster. [Post edited 17 Mar 2022 16:40]
|  | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 16:38 - Mar 17 with 772 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 08:50 - Mar 17 by Catullus |
We have been been told there will be more vaccinations, we knew this, we were told it'll be like the flu, a vaccination every year at least. |
Except it is nothing like every year, more like every three months.
They are now talking about the roll out of another booster. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 19:45 - Mar 17 with 742 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 16:23 - Mar 17 by A_Fans_Dad |
You just do not understand Statistics at all.
Why do you think that they presented the data if it was not to show that triple jabbed had lower mortality rates?
Which you have just shown to be true by your post.
Now apply the same logic to the unvaccinated compared to the single and double vaccinated.
If you can't see that the single and double rates are higher than the unvaccinated rates you are blind and combined they are much higher. |
No it's you not understanding just as before. You (and the Daily Mail) are trying to use stats for a different purpose to what they were intended for.
You're extrapolating them, whereas the data is actually:-
"100,000 triple-jabbed people"
The per 100,000 triple-jabbed people are a far larger group than any of the others. It skews the data because the data is from those subsets and not extraplated across the entire population per 100,000 as you've previously claimed. Do you now admit that you were wrong as clearly stated in an article that you've linked?
It's quite simple, it always has been. [Post edited 17 Mar 2022 20:15]
| | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 20:57 - Mar 17 with 711 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 19:45 - Mar 17 by Scotia |
No it's you not understanding just as before. You (and the Daily Mail) are trying to use stats for a different purpose to what they were intended for.
You're extrapolating them, whereas the data is actually:-
"100,000 triple-jabbed people"
The per 100,000 triple-jabbed people are a far larger group than any of the others. It skews the data because the data is from those subsets and not extraplated across the entire population per 100,000 as you've previously claimed. Do you now admit that you were wrong as clearly stated in an article that you've linked?
It's quite simple, it always has been. [Post edited 17 Mar 2022 20:15]
|
You are clueless as usual.
I suggest you get in touch with the mail and tell them their story is misleading because they can't do simple statistics, but you can to show the same thing.
 [Post edited 17 Mar 2022 21:08]
| | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 21:58 - Mar 17 with 688 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 21:16 - Mar 17 by Scotia |
The Mail are correct in their recognition of what the stats actually are. You aren't.
You've stated its per 10000 extrapolated across the population. You've posted a link that says it isn't as I've always said.
Prove me wrong. You've had about 2 months. |
I don't need to you are wrong.
You have just proved it yet again.
If the mail is correct then the chart is also correct.
You are clueless. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 07:41 - Mar 18 with 671 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 21:58 - Mar 17 by A_Fans_Dad |
I don't need to you are wrong.
You have just proved it yet again.
If the mail is correct then the chart is also correct.
You are clueless. |
The chart is correct. Completely correct. But you don't understand what it is showing.
You can't prove me wronmg because I'm not and you don't understand why that is the case.
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? I'll give you a clue, it is and always has been. The mail article says so. You don't understand the significance of that.
You can carry on with ad hom attacks all you like. Perhaps just try to understand | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 12:08 - Mar 18 with 654 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 07:41 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
The chart is correct. Completely correct. But you don't understand what it is showing.
You can't prove me wronmg because I'm not and you don't understand why that is the case.
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? I'll give you a clue, it is and always has been. The mail article says so. You don't understand the significance of that.
You can carry on with ad hom attacks all you like. Perhaps just try to understand |
So let's break this down.
You say the Mail is correct - check
You say the chart is correct - check
Are you saying that the data nad the chart show that for age 70-79 the data and chart both show that Mortality Rates are higher for double vaccinated than triple vaccinated? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 12:58 - Mar 18 with 646 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 12:08 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
So let's break this down.
You say the Mail is correct - check
You say the chart is correct - check
Are you saying that the data nad the chart show that for age 70-79 the data and chart both show that Mortality Rates are higher for double vaccinated than triple vaccinated? |
We don't need to break anything down if you answer the question:-
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 13:38 - Mar 18 with 634 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 12:58 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
We don't need to break anything down if you answer the question:-
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? |
I know why you won't answer, because you know it will prove you wrong just as you were wrong when you refused to accept that 3 deaths are less than 6 deaths and therefore better. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:09 - Mar 18 with 630 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 13:38 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
I know why you won't answer, because you know it will prove you wrong just as you were wrong when you refused to accept that 3 deaths are less than 6 deaths and therefore better. |
I'm not answering because you haven't answered, once you have I will. I did ask first. I'll ask again it's quite simple, a yes or no will do.
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:16 - Mar 18 with 628 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:09 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
I'm not answering because you haven't answered, once you have I will. I did ask first. I'll ask again it's quite simple, a yes or no will do.
Do you now agree that the per 100,000 figure is actually based on the subset of vaccination status? |
I have already answered your question by proving it wrong.
You do not know more about statistics than the Oxford university world renowned statisticians that carried out and published the study who's conclusions you refused to acknowledge.
Just like you refused to acknowledge that 3 is deaths are better than 6 deaths. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:41 - Mar 18 with 621 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:16 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
I have already answered your question by proving it wrong.
You do not know more about statistics than the Oxford university world renowned statisticians that carried out and published the study who's conclusions you refused to acknowledge.
Just like you refused to acknowledge that 3 is deaths are better than 6 deaths. |
That's more diversion.
The article is either wrong or you are. You said that the vaccinated status per 100,000 refers to the entire population. You tried to "prove" by conflating two different groups of other stats measuring different things. All you demonstrated was your lack of understanding.
So answer the question. Is the article you quoted incorrect yes or no?
If it is, prove the stats relate to the entire population. If they do it should be very easy to demonstrate. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:50 - Mar 18 with 620 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:41 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
That's more diversion.
The article is either wrong or you are. You said that the vaccinated status per 100,000 refers to the entire population. You tried to "prove" by conflating two different groups of other stats measuring different things. All you demonstrated was your lack of understanding.
So answer the question. Is the article you quoted incorrect yes or no?
If it is, prove the stats relate to the entire population. If they do it should be very easy to demonstrate. |
At no time did I try and say that the "vaccinated status per 100,000 refers to the entire population", you said that I said it, not me.
I have had enough of your lies, so you either answer the questions about the DM graph or don't bother. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 15:49 - Mar 18 with 602 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 14:50 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
At no time did I try and say that the "vaccinated status per 100,000 refers to the entire population", you said that I said it, not me.
I have had enough of your lies, so you either answer the questions about the DM graph or don't bother. |
That is exactly what you said. Unequivocally.
I pointed out to you that it wasn't because you were drawing exactly the same incorrect conclusions as you are now. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 16:13 - Mar 18 with 599 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 15:49 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
That is exactly what you said. Unequivocally.
I pointed out to you that it wasn't because you were drawing exactly the same incorrect conclusions as you are now. |
Well you should be able to easily prove it then.
I assume that you understand that a "population" in statistics is the sample size of the group being compared to another group or that statistical calculations will be carried out on.
In the case where the data is ONS or NHS data on vaccines, infections or mortality for the UK the Group population is the same as the known population in the country for that Group, it is not a smaller representative sample.
Ie the vaccinated group for age 12-15 is the known number of people between 12 and 15 that have been vaccinated, the unvaccinated group is the total of peple in that age group less those vaccinated.
Each of the those age groups were used for the Statistical comparisons of "Outcomes".
I am not making any mistakes, because you have yourself just used the DM data to draw the same conclusions yourself.
So if I am wrong you and the DM are also wrong. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 17:28 - Mar 18 with 576 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 16:13 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
Well you should be able to easily prove it then.
I assume that you understand that a "population" in statistics is the sample size of the group being compared to another group or that statistical calculations will be carried out on.
In the case where the data is ONS or NHS data on vaccines, infections or mortality for the UK the Group population is the same as the known population in the country for that Group, it is not a smaller representative sample.
Ie the vaccinated group for age 12-15 is the known number of people between 12 and 15 that have been vaccinated, the unvaccinated group is the total of peple in that age group less those vaccinated.
Each of the those age groups were used for the Statistical comparisons of "Outcomes".
I am not making any mistakes, because you have yourself just used the DM data to draw the same conclusions yourself.
So if I am wrong you and the DM are also wrong. |
But for comparison, which you are erroneously doing, those sample sizes need to be unbiased.
Which is why I asked the number of those in each group.
I haven't drawn conclusions from the Mail because the data isn't suitable. The only stats that is is for the triple jabbed because that is the only statistically significant group.
In the case of the unvaccinated, single vaccinated and double vaccinated compared to triple jabbed the groups are far too biased to be able to compare. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 20:31 - Mar 18 with 559 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 17:28 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
But for comparison, which you are erroneously doing, those sample sizes need to be unbiased.
Which is why I asked the number of those in each group.
I haven't drawn conclusions from the Mail because the data isn't suitable. The only stats that is is for the triple jabbed because that is the only statistically significant group.
In the case of the unvaccinated, single vaccinated and double vaccinated compared to triple jabbed the groups are far too biased to be able to compare. |
"The only stats that is is for the triple jabbed because that is the only statistically significant group. "
Wow, I am amazed that you do not consider between 4 and 11 million sample sizes to be "significant"
However you appear to have a misunderstanding about Bias.
This is from a Statistics course on sampling, quote on Unequal Samples.
"if your grouping is a natural one, you’re not making decisions based on a total number of individuals. It’s very common to just happen to get a larger sample of one group compared to the others.
That doesn’t bias your test or give you incorrect results. It just means the power you have is based on the smaller sample.
So if you have 30 individuals with Treatment A and 40 individuals with Treatment B and 300 controls, that’s fine. It’s just that you could have stopped with 30 controls. The extra 270 didn’t help the power of this particular test."
So in the DM data case the power is based on the minimum sample of over 4 million split in to their age groups.
The minimum recommended sample size is 30. [Post edited 18 Mar 2022 20:33]
| | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 22:00 - Mar 18 with 544 views | Scotia |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 20:31 - Mar 18 by A_Fans_Dad |
"The only stats that is is for the triple jabbed because that is the only statistically significant group. "
Wow, I am amazed that you do not consider between 4 and 11 million sample sizes to be "significant"
However you appear to have a misunderstanding about Bias.
This is from a Statistics course on sampling, quote on Unequal Samples.
"if your grouping is a natural one, you’re not making decisions based on a total number of individuals. It’s very common to just happen to get a larger sample of one group compared to the others.
That doesn’t bias your test or give you incorrect results. It just means the power you have is based on the smaller sample.
So if you have 30 individuals with Treatment A and 40 individuals with Treatment B and 300 controls, that’s fine. It’s just that you could have stopped with 30 controls. The extra 270 didn’t help the power of this particular test."
So in the DM data case the power is based on the minimum sample of over 4 million split in to their age groups.
The minimum recommended sample size is 30. [Post edited 18 Mar 2022 20:33]
|
That's just a spectacular amount of nonsense. | | | |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 22:32 - Mar 18 with 532 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Covids gone quiet hasn't it. on 22:00 - Mar 18 by Scotia |
That's just a spectacular amount of nonsense. |
Clueless, it is statistics 101. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.