| World Cup and Covid 08:43 - Dec 8 with 6621 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
People travelling in large numbers from all over the world, mixing on planes, in airports, hotels and public transport Qatar and no incidents reported. |  |
| |  |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:07 - Dec 11 with 1009 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 19:29 - Dec 11 by Jack123 |
Bloody hell, that video nearly made me cry, you got one chap with one of his legs off.
[Post edited 12 Dec 2022 14:16]
|
I just watched the first 5 minutes. It's same old, same old really. I haven't got an hour to watch the entire thing.
I'm particularly interested in the guy who lost a leg, was it due to a clot?
Can I seriously ask what makes you, AFD and Howen believe it over the rest of the medical world?
Is there a silver bullet of evidence in there or is it just because you want to believe it?
I've just watched a bit more. There doesn't seem to be a single shred of evidence in it. Nothing at all. [Post edited 11 Dec 2022 20:26]
|  | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:12 - Dec 11 with 1001 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 17:32 - Dec 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
Sorry, like I said you can't have your data.
The vaccinated were hospitalised at the same or higher rates than unvaccinated the UK Gov data showed that.
The ONS data also proves the point.
You also have to add the higher non COVID Excess Mortality of the vaccinated to the 45,000 this year.
You can't admit that what worked in 2021 has not worked in 2022, which the experts you trashed warned would happen. |
Your comparing statistically insignificant groups with much larger groups again aren't you?
You'll be saying I don't understand stats again any minute. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:22 - Dec 11 with 992 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:02 - Dec 11 by Scotia |
I know that. But do you really believe it?
What else moved us from the NHS being overwhelmed nhs to things like the glastonbury festival being able to happen? |
Omicron. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:24 - Dec 11 with 991 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:22 - Dec 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
Omicron. |
In July 2021? | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:02 - Dec 11 with 957 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:12 - Dec 11 by Scotia |
Your comparing statistically insignificant groups with much larger groups again aren't you?
You'll be saying I don't understand stats again any minute. |
You are absolutely correct, because you don't understand statistics.
I pointed out to you that the whole point of using "Rates" is so that you can compare different group sizes.
But as usual the medical and statistical text books are wrong and scotia is right.
However many of the groups are of the similar size and they show exactly the same increased rate .
Just some examples from May 2022.
age group 18-39 unvaccinated person-years 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 476178, Rate 21.4/100,000
age group 40-49 unvaccinated person-years 56504, Rate 64.1/100,000
Second Dose person-years 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 325485, Rate 83.7/100,000
age group 50-59 unvaccinated person-years 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
Second Dose person-years 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 450969, Rate 235.1/100,000
age group 60-69 unvaccinated person-years 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 408279, Rate 646.8/100,000
age group 70-79 unvaccinated person-years 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
Second Dose person-years 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 349100, Rate 1810.8/100,000
age group 80-89 unvaccinated person-years 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
Second Dose person-years 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 166832, Rate 6097.8/100,000
age group 90+ unvaccinated person-years 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
Second Dose person-years 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000
So give it up, you have no clue what you are talking about, whereas I have the data. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:04 - Dec 11 with 956 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 20:24 - Dec 11 by Scotia |
In July 2021? |
I didn't realise the world cup was in 2021, I must have missed it. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:28 - Dec 11 with 946 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:02 - Dec 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
You are absolutely correct, because you don't understand statistics.
I pointed out to you that the whole point of using "Rates" is so that you can compare different group sizes.
But as usual the medical and statistical text books are wrong and scotia is right.
However many of the groups are of the similar size and they show exactly the same increased rate .
Just some examples from May 2022.
age group 18-39 unvaccinated person-years 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 476178, Rate 21.4/100,000
age group 40-49 unvaccinated person-years 56504, Rate 64.1/100,000
Second Dose person-years 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 325485, Rate 83.7/100,000
age group 50-59 unvaccinated person-years 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
Second Dose person-years 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 450969, Rate 235.1/100,000
age group 60-69 unvaccinated person-years 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
Second Dose person-years 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 408279, Rate 646.8/100,000
age group 70-79 unvaccinated person-years 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
Second Dose person-years 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 349100, Rate 1810.8/100,000
age group 80-89 unvaccinated person-years 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
Second Dose person-years 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 166832, Rate 6097.8/100,000
age group 90+ unvaccinated person-years 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
Second Dose person-years 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000
3rd Dose person-years 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000
So give it up, you have no clue what you are talking about, whereas I have the data. |
For God's sake you abject fool.
The units are person-years which is skewered to the older generation. And you're comparing groups that are wildly different in size, as I said statistically insignificant groups.
56k v 325k.
37k v 450k
21k v 408k
10k v 350k
4k v 166k.
1k v 37k.
It's the link between the medical and statistical text books and this website that is the problem. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:39 - Dec 11 with 940 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:04 - Dec 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
I didn't realise the world cup was in 2021, I must have missed it. |
Was the World Cup the first large event then?
Did I dream that society in the UK opened with practically no restrictions 6 months before omicron turned up? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| World Cup and Covid on 22:44 - Dec 11 with 921 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:28 - Dec 11 by Scotia |
For God's sake you abject fool.
The units are person-years which is skewered to the older generation. And you're comparing groups that are wildly different in size, as I said statistically insignificant groups.
56k v 325k.
37k v 450k
21k v 408k
10k v 350k
4k v 166k.
1k v 37k.
It's the link between the medical and statistical text books and this website that is the problem. |
Absolutely hopeless clutching at straws.
Compare the Unvaccinated to the double dose and then to the 3rd dose.
Double doses approximately twice as high as the unvaccinated.
Your grasp of numbers is quite pathetic. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 23:18 - Dec 11 with 900 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 21:28 - Dec 11 by Scotia |
For God's sake you abject fool.
The units are person-years which is skewered to the older generation. And you're comparing groups that are wildly different in size, as I said statistically insignificant groups.
56k v 325k.
37k v 450k
21k v 408k
10k v 350k
4k v 166k.
1k v 37k.
It's the link between the medical and statistical text books and this website that is the problem. |
First we have the insults and then the misunderstanding.
I have never met anyone with such a large numerecy problem.
Even school kids have a better understanding.
The larger the sample the less effect new deaths have on the Mortality RATE. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 07:28 - Dec 12 with 885 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 23:18 - Dec 11 by A_Fans_Dad |
First we have the insults and then the misunderstanding.
I have never met anyone with such a large numerecy problem.
Even school kids have a better understanding.
The larger the sample the less effect new deaths have on the Mortality RATE. |
There is no comparison between one group and another that is 37 times different in size. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 15:40 - Dec 12 with 839 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 07:28 - Dec 12 by Scotia |
There is no comparison between one group and another that is 37 times different in size. |
Thank you so much for responding in the way I assumed that you would when I set up this trap to show everybody how numerically and statistically inadequate you are.
You have destroyed any credibilty you had by continuing to say that rates cannot be used with different sample sizes, despite the text books all saying that is exactly why they are used.
While at the same using abusive language towards me yet again.
I have demostrated to you in the past how it is the smaller sample sizes that suffer when data changes, not the larger samples, this is easy to show.
sample of 10 with 1 defect = 10% or 10,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 10 defects also = 10% or 10,000/100,000
Add one more defect to both so we now have
sample of 10 with 2 defects = 20% or 20,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 11 defects = 11% or 11,000/100,000
Any school kid would understand this, but not you, even though I have explained it to you before.
I displayed the information with the 2nd dose sandwiched between the unvaccinated and 3rd dose knowing full well that you would ignore it and zero in on the much larger sample sizes of the 3rd doses to make your case.
You fell for it hook, line & sinker and jumped in with both feet.
So let's remove the 3rd doses and just compare the unvaccinated with 2 doses where the sample sizes are more comparable.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000 = 18% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
2nd dose sample 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000 = 66% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
2nd dose sample 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000 = 45% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000 = 82% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
2nd dose sample 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000 = 117% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
2nd dose sample 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000 = 103% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
2nd dose sample 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000 = 79% worse
Now for the coup de grace, I deliberately did not include the single vaxxed data because their samples are much less than the unvaxxed & double vaxxed.
So in your wierd theory their rates should be even lower than the unvaxxed and double vaxxed, let alone the triple vaxxed.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
1st dose sample 38827, Rate 42.6/100,000 = 178% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
1st dose sample 8161, Rate 171.5/100,000 = 167% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
1st dose sample 5355, Rate 800.4/100,000 = 175% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
1st dose sample 2585, Rate 2215.4/100,000 = 156% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
1st dose sample 1163, Rate 4302.1/100,000 = 80% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
1st dose sample 528, Rate 16296.7/100,000 = 151% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
1st dose sample 168, Rate 23815.7/100,000 = 54% worse
And just for good measure I will include a few 3rd doses less than 21 days ago where there is data, which also have smaller sample sizes
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
3rd dose sample 1000, Rate 332.0/100,000 = 14% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
3rd dose sample 404, Rate 1801.3/100,000 = 108% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
3rd dose sample 273, Rate 9417.2/100,000 = 295% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
3rd dose sample 269, Rate 14002.3/100,000 = 116% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
3rd dose sample 122, Rate 17272.2/100,000 = 12% worse
3rd Dose > 21 days sampe 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000= 13% worse
Anybody who takes the time and trouble to read this post will clearly understand that your complaint of different sample sizes is complete nonsense that you have used to discredit the analysis of Government data by many statisticians, medical people and laypersons for many months. [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 15:44]
| | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 07:07 - Dec 13 with 797 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 15:40 - Dec 12 by A_Fans_Dad |
Thank you so much for responding in the way I assumed that you would when I set up this trap to show everybody how numerically and statistically inadequate you are.
You have destroyed any credibilty you had by continuing to say that rates cannot be used with different sample sizes, despite the text books all saying that is exactly why they are used.
While at the same using abusive language towards me yet again.
I have demostrated to you in the past how it is the smaller sample sizes that suffer when data changes, not the larger samples, this is easy to show.
sample of 10 with 1 defect = 10% or 10,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 10 defects also = 10% or 10,000/100,000
Add one more defect to both so we now have
sample of 10 with 2 defects = 20% or 20,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 11 defects = 11% or 11,000/100,000
Any school kid would understand this, but not you, even though I have explained it to you before.
I displayed the information with the 2nd dose sandwiched between the unvaccinated and 3rd dose knowing full well that you would ignore it and zero in on the much larger sample sizes of the 3rd doses to make your case.
You fell for it hook, line & sinker and jumped in with both feet.
So let's remove the 3rd doses and just compare the unvaccinated with 2 doses where the sample sizes are more comparable.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000 = 18% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
2nd dose sample 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000 = 66% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
2nd dose sample 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000 = 45% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000 = 82% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
2nd dose sample 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000 = 117% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
2nd dose sample 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000 = 103% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
2nd dose sample 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000 = 79% worse
Now for the coup de grace, I deliberately did not include the single vaxxed data because their samples are much less than the unvaxxed & double vaxxed.
So in your wierd theory their rates should be even lower than the unvaxxed and double vaxxed, let alone the triple vaxxed.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
1st dose sample 38827, Rate 42.6/100,000 = 178% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
1st dose sample 8161, Rate 171.5/100,000 = 167% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
1st dose sample 5355, Rate 800.4/100,000 = 175% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
1st dose sample 2585, Rate 2215.4/100,000 = 156% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
1st dose sample 1163, Rate 4302.1/100,000 = 80% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
1st dose sample 528, Rate 16296.7/100,000 = 151% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
1st dose sample 168, Rate 23815.7/100,000 = 54% worse
And just for good measure I will include a few 3rd doses less than 21 days ago where there is data, which also have smaller sample sizes
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
3rd dose sample 1000, Rate 332.0/100,000 = 14% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
3rd dose sample 404, Rate 1801.3/100,000 = 108% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
3rd dose sample 273, Rate 9417.2/100,000 = 295% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
3rd dose sample 269, Rate 14002.3/100,000 = 116% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
3rd dose sample 122, Rate 17272.2/100,000 = 12% worse
3rd Dose > 21 days sampe 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000= 13% worse
Anybody who takes the time and trouble to read this post will clearly understand that your complaint of different sample sizes is complete nonsense that you have used to discredit the analysis of Government data by many statisticians, medical people and laypersons for many months. [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 15:44]
|
I give up with you. Quite frankly this is going way over your head.
Why have you removed those who received a 3rd dose? Obviously purely because it doesn't suit your incorrect interpretation of the data? But I'd love to see your reason.
Do you think that there may be a reason why those who received 2 may not have received 3?
That's the entire point. You're ignoring all the potential variables, there are lots of them, and where do you think those variables are more likely to be seen. In a group a small group or one many times larger?
You're using the unit of person years, the same unit in two groups. One group several factors of ten larger than the other and comparing the two. Its a mind blowingly stupid thing to do.
Do yourself a favour and read up on the statistical significance of group size. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 08:27 - Dec 13 with 771 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 15:40 - Dec 12 by A_Fans_Dad |
Thank you so much for responding in the way I assumed that you would when I set up this trap to show everybody how numerically and statistically inadequate you are.
You have destroyed any credibilty you had by continuing to say that rates cannot be used with different sample sizes, despite the text books all saying that is exactly why they are used.
While at the same using abusive language towards me yet again.
I have demostrated to you in the past how it is the smaller sample sizes that suffer when data changes, not the larger samples, this is easy to show.
sample of 10 with 1 defect = 10% or 10,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 10 defects also = 10% or 10,000/100,000
Add one more defect to both so we now have
sample of 10 with 2 defects = 20% or 20,000/100,000
sample of 100 with 11 defects = 11% or 11,000/100,000
Any school kid would understand this, but not you, even though I have explained it to you before.
I displayed the information with the 2nd dose sandwiched between the unvaccinated and 3rd dose knowing full well that you would ignore it and zero in on the much larger sample sizes of the 3rd doses to make your case.
You fell for it hook, line & sinker and jumped in with both feet.
So let's remove the 3rd doses and just compare the unvaccinated with 2 doses where the sample sizes are more comparable.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 238300, Rate 18.1/100,000 = 18% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
2nd dose sample 69537, Rate 106.4/100,000 = 66% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
2nd dose sample 48202, Rate 420.7/100,000 = 45% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
2nd dose sample 22352, Rate 1572.3/100,000 = 82% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
2nd dose sample 8790, Rate 5186.2/100,000 = 117% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
2nd dose sample 3965, Rate 13197.2/100,000 = 103% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
2nd dose sample 1095, Rate 27682.8/100,000 = 79% worse
Now for the coup de grace, I deliberately did not include the single vaxxed data because their samples are much less than the unvaxxed & double vaxxed.
So in your wierd theory their rates should be even lower than the unvaxxed and double vaxxed, let alone the triple vaxxed.
age 18-39 unvaxxed sample 180720, Rate 15.3/100,000
1st dose sample 38827, Rate 42.6/100,000 = 178% worse
age 40-49 unvaxxed sample 56504, Rate [64.1/100,000
1st dose sample 8161, Rate 171.5/100,000 = 167% worse
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
1st dose sample 5355, Rate 800.4/100,000 = 175% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
1st dose sample 2585, Rate 2215.4/100,000 = 156% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
1st dose sample 1163, Rate 4302.1/100,000 = 80% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
1st dose sample 528, Rate 16296.7/100,000 = 151% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
1st dose sample 168, Rate 23815.7/100,000 = 54% worse
And just for good measure I will include a few 3rd doses less than 21 days ago where there is data, which also have smaller sample sizes
age group 50-59 unvaxxed sample 37361, Rate 290.6/100,000
3rd dose sample 1000, Rate 332.0/100,000 = 14% worse
age group 60-69 unvaxxed sample 21452, Rate 865.3/100,000
3rd dose sample 404, Rate 1801.3/100,000 = 108% worse
age group 70-79 unvaxxed sample 10216, Rate 2385.0/100,000
3rd dose sample 273, Rate 9417.2/100,000 = 295% worse
age group 80-89 unvaxxed sample 3918, Rate 6491.7/100,000
3rd dose sample 269, Rate 14002.3/100,000 = 116% worse
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
3rd dose sample 122, Rate 17272.2/100,000 = 12% worse
3rd Dose > 21 days sampe 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000= 13% worse
Anybody who takes the time and trouble to read this post will clearly understand that your complaint of different sample sizes is complete nonsense that you have used to discredit the analysis of Government data by many statisticians, medical people and laypersons for many months. [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 15:44]
|
You're doing exactly what you've denied doing previously again aren't you? Previosuly you caught yourself out and denied that this is what you've done.
You're assuming that the groups extend across the entire population, and they don't. They're restricted to vaccination status and therefore massively skewed by number.
This is what Public Health England say:-
"These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population
groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and
deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is
a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from
a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly
effective vaccine, 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 and no vaccine is 100% effective. 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 may also be
more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be
hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19"
Please stop this. It's completely stupid.
You don't know what you're doing or saying and it's dangerous. You make no sense to anyone who has an idea what they are talking about - unfortunatley some people will believe you because you present as authoratative. A glimpse below the surface demonstartes that you're are utterly clueless.
I said before you compare watermelons and petits pois at at times. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:12 - Dec 13 with 761 views | mangohilljack |
It absolutely blows my mind how easily people are prepared to turn the other cheek and basically ignore the plea of millions of people who did the 'so called' right thing only to pay a massive price with either their lives or mobility.
OHL has got one thing right, humanity is at an all time low and I'm ashamed to be human at times.
So many questions left unanswered, I think we can all agree on something that something here is not right at all. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:32 - Dec 13 with 758 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:12 - Dec 13 by mangohilljack |
It absolutely blows my mind how easily people are prepared to turn the other cheek and basically ignore the plea of millions of people who did the 'so called' right thing only to pay a massive price with either their lives or mobility.
OHL has got one thing right, humanity is at an all time low and I'm ashamed to be human at times.
So many questions left unanswered, I think we can all agree on something that something here is not right at all. |
I wouldn't turn the other cheek if that was the case. It isn't.
Not even AFD has claimed millions have had paid a massive price with their lives.
This is getting ridiculous now. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:43 - Dec 13 with 751 views | mangohilljack |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:32 - Dec 13 by Scotia |
I wouldn't turn the other cheek if that was the case. It isn't.
Not even AFD has claimed millions have had paid a massive price with their lives.
This is getting ridiculous now. |
I said millions have paid the price with either their lives or mobility.
This is an indisputable fact and the evidence is now overwhelming.
I choose NOT to brush it under the carpet as I know people who it has affected and the hardship in difficult times it caused.
By the way I raise points out of genuine concern and not to score points on a football forum | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 10:12 - Dec 13 with 740 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:43 - Dec 13 by mangohilljack |
I said millions have paid the price with either their lives or mobility.
This is an indisputable fact and the evidence is now overwhelming.
I choose NOT to brush it under the carpet as I know people who it has affected and the hardship in difficult times it caused.
By the way I raise points out of genuine concern and not to score points on a football forum |
It is not an indisputable fact and there is no evidence of that. Post some if there is.
Has there been some safety issues? Yes, there is with all medication, even paracetamol. The chances of encountering them from the vaccine are miniscule.
I have no idea if you've posted before under a different name but we've had two and a half years of anti- vax stuff posted on here. None of it has stood up to examination. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 17:06 - Dec 13 with 709 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 08:27 - Dec 13 by Scotia |
You're doing exactly what you've denied doing previously again aren't you? Previosuly you caught yourself out and denied that this is what you've done.
You're assuming that the groups extend across the entire population, and they don't. They're restricted to vaccination status and therefore massively skewed by number.
This is what Public Health England say:-
"These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population
groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and
deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is
a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from
a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly
effective vaccine, 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 and no vaccine is 100% effective. 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 may also be
more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be
hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19"
Please stop this. It's completely stupid.
You don't know what you're doing or saying and it's dangerous. You make no sense to anyone who has an idea what they are talking about - unfortunatley some people will believe you because you present as authoratative. A glimpse below the surface demonstartes that you're are utterly clueless.
I said before you compare watermelons and petits pois at at times. |
You know those Vaccine manufacturers who only studied the Antibody response of vaccinated to unvaxxed and whether they tested for COVID to declare 90 efficacy, no tranmisson efficacy,[no serious illness efficacy, no mortallity efficacy, no adverse effects data and no long term data of any kind, because they didn't have them as criteria in their studies and there were no long term studies.
Based on that they authorised the population to become part of the world wide Phase 3 clinical trial and guess what my deluded and brainwashed friend, the VAERS, EuroMOMO, NHS and ONS data are the current results of that ongoing Phase 3 trial.
Let's look at that that appeal to authority straw you are grasping at when they make this statement
"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 may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19" ".
Which of course only applied at the very beginning of the vaccination programme and was soon replaced by "everybody should get the vaccine", in fact by May 2021 40 Million people had been given at least one vaccination and 26 Million had two.
That was when all those ill people were getting vaccines when the vaccines were at their most effective and is the basis of how good they were and the claim of saving 10s of thousands of lives.
Back in May 2021 that is exactly how it looked using exactly the same ONS statistical data that you and PHE say cannot be used now even though everybody was using them then.
Let's look at May 2021 when everybody was saying how good the vaccines were doing and they were.
40-49 Unvaxxed 258.9 Double vaxxed 179.8 = 44% better
50-59 Unvaxxed 763.8 Double vaxxed 412.8 = 85% better
60-69 Unvaxxed 2093.8 Double vaxxed 832.9 = 151% better
70-79 Unvaxxed 5406.3 Double vaxxed 1536.0 = 252% better
80-89 Unvaxxed 10749.1 Double vaxxed 5200.0 = 107% better
95+ Unvaxxed 23031.3 Double vaxxed 16152.4 = 43% better
But it is not just the current numbers that you ignore in your total ignorance, it is the change which has gone from showing the Vaccines as being effective during 2021 to being disastrous in 2022.
The trend from good to bad was obvious months ago when I first reported it happening.
Here is the change from May 2021 to May 2022.
40-49 from 44% better to 66% worse
50-59 from 85% better to 45% worse
60-69 from 151% better to 82% worse
70-79 from 252% better to 117% worse
80-89 from 107% better to 103% worse
95+ from 43% better to 79% worse
All based on the same statistics
One thing that is even worse that I had forgotten about, as it is not on the spreadsheet that I downloaded, is the data for children 10-14 years old from Jan 2021 to May 2022.
Unvaxxed = 6.39/100,000
Single vaxxed = 6.48/100,000
Double vaxed = 97.28/100,000
Triple vaxxed = 289.2/100,000
Of course if you think that Excess Mortality is only a concern in the UK but you should be aware that in the 38 countries providing data there have been 752,743 excess deaths in 2022.
Europe also has a problem with children with 1777 deaths from week 21 in 2021 to week 44 in 2022 compared to the average of 273 for the same period for the previous 5 years.
The really worrying thing is that you are either so that naive that you still believe the government propaganda, or are totally brainwashed by it, or are as devious as hell by trying to use it to cover for your lack of investigative & statistical skills.
You can wriggle as much as you like the numbers do not lie [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 18:00]
| | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 18:00 - Dec 13 with 695 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 07:07 - Dec 13 by Scotia |
I give up with you. Quite frankly this is going way over your head.
Why have you removed those who received a 3rd dose? Obviously purely because it doesn't suit your incorrect interpretation of the data? But I'd love to see your reason.
Do you think that there may be a reason why those who received 2 may not have received 3?
That's the entire point. You're ignoring all the potential variables, there are lots of them, and where do you think those variables are more likely to be seen. In a group a small group or one many times larger?
You're using the unit of person years, the same unit in two groups. One group several factors of ten larger than the other and comparing the two. Its a mind blowingly stupid thing to do.
Do yourself a favour and read up on the statistical significance of group size. |
"Over my head?"
"Do yourself a favour and read up on the statistical significance of group size. "
You are kidding, here is a description of using "Rates".
"Why Use Rates?
We use rates to describe the frequency of a health event or
health status relative to the size of a population
When we use rates, the number of events is adjusted for the
size of the source population in which they occurred.
Rates make it possible to compare disease frequency across
different groups of people, places, and time periods.
Clinicians often report numbers of patients they see with
certain diseases, but epidemiologists and public health agencies
use proportions and rates, which allow us to describe the
frequency of diseases relative to the size of the population in
which they occurred."
From here
https://www.nwcphp.org/docs/da
"Why have you removed those who received a 3rd dose? Obviously purely because it doesn't suit your incorrect interpretation of the data? But I'd love to see your reason"
I can't believe you actually wrote that, as I explained at the time.
You are the one that said I can't use vastly differing population sizes, even though everybody else says you can and do.
So I left the Unvaxxed and Double Vaxxed because their sample sizes are very silmilar, which is your damned requirement, not mine.
You will use any excuse not to look at and accept the data
Also look at the last of 3rd doses
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
3rd dose sample 122, Rate 17272.2/100,000 = 12% worse
3rd Dose > 21 days sampe 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000= 13% worse
Although the samples size are massively different they both say 12%/13% worse than unvaccinated.
I am not ignoring anything at all, it is simply someone elses data that they use for the comparisons so blame the ONS for their presentation.
They use person years for that very reason that the populations are fluid over time.
For goodness sake grow up and actuallu look at the data instead of looking for excuses.
In case you ask here is the NHS on Rates.
https://www.healthknowledge.or [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 18:31]
| | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 07:53 - Dec 14 with 664 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 17:06 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad |
You know those Vaccine manufacturers who only studied the Antibody response of vaccinated to unvaxxed and whether they tested for COVID to declare 90 efficacy, no tranmisson efficacy,[no serious illness efficacy, no mortallity efficacy, no adverse effects data and no long term data of any kind, because they didn't have them as criteria in their studies and there were no long term studies.
Based on that they authorised the population to become part of the world wide Phase 3 clinical trial and guess what my deluded and brainwashed friend, the VAERS, EuroMOMO, NHS and ONS data are the current results of that ongoing Phase 3 trial.
Let's look at that that appeal to authority straw you are grasping at when they make this statement
"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 may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19" ".
Which of course only applied at the very beginning of the vaccination programme and was soon replaced by "everybody should get the vaccine", in fact by May 2021 40 Million people had been given at least one vaccination and 26 Million had two.
That was when all those ill people were getting vaccines when the vaccines were at their most effective and is the basis of how good they were and the claim of saving 10s of thousands of lives.
Back in May 2021 that is exactly how it looked using exactly the same ONS statistical data that you and PHE say cannot be used now even though everybody was using them then.
Let's look at May 2021 when everybody was saying how good the vaccines were doing and they were.
40-49 Unvaxxed 258.9 Double vaxxed 179.8 = 44% better
50-59 Unvaxxed 763.8 Double vaxxed 412.8 = 85% better
60-69 Unvaxxed 2093.8 Double vaxxed 832.9 = 151% better
70-79 Unvaxxed 5406.3 Double vaxxed 1536.0 = 252% better
80-89 Unvaxxed 10749.1 Double vaxxed 5200.0 = 107% better
95+ Unvaxxed 23031.3 Double vaxxed 16152.4 = 43% better
But it is not just the current numbers that you ignore in your total ignorance, it is the change which has gone from showing the Vaccines as being effective during 2021 to being disastrous in 2022.
The trend from good to bad was obvious months ago when I first reported it happening.
Here is the change from May 2021 to May 2022.
40-49 from 44% better to 66% worse
50-59 from 85% better to 45% worse
60-69 from 151% better to 82% worse
70-79 from 252% better to 117% worse
80-89 from 107% better to 103% worse
95+ from 43% better to 79% worse
All based on the same statistics
One thing that is even worse that I had forgotten about, as it is not on the spreadsheet that I downloaded, is the data for children 10-14 years old from Jan 2021 to May 2022.
Unvaxxed = 6.39/100,000
Single vaxxed = 6.48/100,000
Double vaxed = 97.28/100,000
Triple vaxxed = 289.2/100,000
Of course if you think that Excess Mortality is only a concern in the UK but you should be aware that in the 38 countries providing data there have been 752,743 excess deaths in 2022.
Europe also has a problem with children with 1777 deaths from week 21 in 2021 to week 44 in 2022 compared to the average of 273 for the same period for the previous 5 years.
The really worrying thing is that you are either so that naive that you still believe the government propaganda, or are totally brainwashed by it, or are as devious as hell by trying to use it to cover for your lack of investigative & statistical skills.
You can wriggle as much as you like the numbers do not lie [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 18:00]
|
The first part of that is just regurgitated nonsense we've been over multiple times. We had 5 pages of it a few weeks ago in which you resorted to an unqualified charlatan who believed that Covid was exacerbated by a weed killer and vaping.
Why do you believe these people over 99% of medical professsionals from all over the world? I genuinely don't get it. I mean this in the best possible way but do you have deep rooted trust / paranoia issues, I really think you need to consider this.
I alos not that you compleletely overlook the part of the statement from PHE stating the stats were not suitable for comparison. You then go on to make a comparison and make the same fundamental mistake again. You always do. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 08:43 - Dec 14 with 658 views | Scotia |
| World Cup and Covid on 18:00 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Over my head?"
"Do yourself a favour and read up on the statistical significance of group size. "
You are kidding, here is a description of using "Rates".
"Why Use Rates?
We use rates to describe the frequency of a health event or
health status relative to the size of a population
When we use rates, the number of events is adjusted for the
size of the source population in which they occurred.
Rates make it possible to compare disease frequency across
different groups of people, places, and time periods.
Clinicians often report numbers of patients they see with
certain diseases, but epidemiologists and public health agencies
use proportions and rates, which allow us to describe the
frequency of diseases relative to the size of the population in
which they occurred."
From here
https://www.nwcphp.org/docs/da
"Why have you removed those who received a 3rd dose? Obviously purely because it doesn't suit your incorrect interpretation of the data? But I'd love to see your reason"
I can't believe you actually wrote that, as I explained at the time.
You are the one that said I can't use vastly differing population sizes, even though everybody else says you can and do.
So I left the Unvaxxed and Double Vaxxed because their sample sizes are very silmilar, which is your damned requirement, not mine.
You will use any excuse not to look at and accept the data
Also look at the last of 3rd doses
age group 90+ unvaxxed sample 1126, Rate 15448.5/100,000
3rd dose sample 122, Rate 17272.2/100,000 = 12% worse
3rd Dose > 21 days sampe 36690, Rate 17498.2/100,000= 13% worse
Although the samples size are massively different they both say 12%/13% worse than unvaccinated.
I am not ignoring anything at all, it is simply someone elses data that they use for the comparisons so blame the ONS for their presentation.
They use person years for that very reason that the populations are fluid over time.
For goodness sake grow up and actuallu look at the data instead of looking for excuses.
In case you ask here is the NHS on Rates.
https://www.healthknowledge.or [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 18:31]
|
But this is where this needs to stop.
Yes,"over your head" and yes "read up on the statistical significance of groups". In fact you don't understand the absolute basics. This isn't maths or stats it's basic understanding of scientific concepts. You really need to stop dong it.
Because then you move in to discussing rates - I knew this is what you thought you were doing but your getting it wrong, completely wrong from the outset.
For starters "We use rates to describe the frequency of a health event or
health status relative to the size of a population" that is fine but that isn't what they are used for in this case. It is for the efficacy of a vaccine. Which is why the use of rates is caveated by PHE as I mentioned earlier but you seem to have ignored.
Secondly you are not using rates to compare across a population. You are comparing rates within different populations subset rates. Your comparing "rates" directly with "rates". Not only that the populations that you are comparing them between are wildly different in sizes, wildly different variables and are not statistically comparable. What you think you are doing, you aren't doing. The stats aren't telling you what you think they are telling you because you fundamentally don't understand what they are designed to tell you. They are not designed to tell you vaccine efficacy because they can't.
You really need to learn to crawl before you can walk.
You're getting this compeltely wrong and have done since you started to do this.
I honestly think you're a dangerous poster, if you want to be a danger to yourself then that's fine, but JACK123 stated that you make sense to him. I don't know why but he listens to you. You posting on this site could have impacted his health and those who may listen to him. I don't think anyone can say that about anyone else, plenty of people post nonsense / abuse and have been banned for it, you post a mixture of conspiracy claptrap with your own incorrect attempts at scientific analysis but you're still here. I don't get it.
Since Covid started I can't think of a post you've made that hasn't been discredited. Unfortunately people may have believed them and they may have impacted their health care decisions. You could have killed peole. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:49 - Dec 14 with 646 views | onehunglow |
| World Cup and Covid on 08:43 - Dec 14 by Scotia |
But this is where this needs to stop.
Yes,"over your head" and yes "read up on the statistical significance of groups". In fact you don't understand the absolute basics. This isn't maths or stats it's basic understanding of scientific concepts. You really need to stop dong it.
Because then you move in to discussing rates - I knew this is what you thought you were doing but your getting it wrong, completely wrong from the outset.
For starters "We use rates to describe the frequency of a health event or
health status relative to the size of a population" that is fine but that isn't what they are used for in this case. It is for the efficacy of a vaccine. Which is why the use of rates is caveated by PHE as I mentioned earlier but you seem to have ignored.
Secondly you are not using rates to compare across a population. You are comparing rates within different populations subset rates. Your comparing "rates" directly with "rates". Not only that the populations that you are comparing them between are wildly different in sizes, wildly different variables and are not statistically comparable. What you think you are doing, you aren't doing. The stats aren't telling you what you think they are telling you because you fundamentally don't understand what they are designed to tell you. They are not designed to tell you vaccine efficacy because they can't.
You really need to learn to crawl before you can walk.
You're getting this compeltely wrong and have done since you started to do this.
I honestly think you're a dangerous poster, if you want to be a danger to yourself then that's fine, but JACK123 stated that you make sense to him. I don't know why but he listens to you. You posting on this site could have impacted his health and those who may listen to him. I don't think anyone can say that about anyone else, plenty of people post nonsense / abuse and have been banned for it, you post a mixture of conspiracy claptrap with your own incorrect attempts at scientific analysis but you're still here. I don't get it.
Since Covid started I can't think of a post you've made that hasn't been discredited. Unfortunately people may have believed them and they may have impacted their health care decisions. You could have killed peole. |
I think we disagree often enough sco4ia but think we are as one on this matter
I’ve long appended what I feel and cannot believe the mentality of mankind . Some like AFD immediately mistrust data that would challenged them in some way .
We never fully fronted up to covid. It changed us for all time ,as OHL said
Even now ,the layman believes he knows better than learned scientists. Our Professor Paul Wigley poster,a great man and a real authority was ridiculed by some of our more cretinous contributors
AFD is sadly now on my er growing ignore list as he really is dangerous,as are some others. | |
| |
| World Cup and Covid on 11:38 - Dec 14 with 617 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 08:43 - Dec 14 by Scotia |
But this is where this needs to stop.
Yes,"over your head" and yes "read up on the statistical significance of groups". In fact you don't understand the absolute basics. This isn't maths or stats it's basic understanding of scientific concepts. You really need to stop dong it.
Because then you move in to discussing rates - I knew this is what you thought you were doing but your getting it wrong, completely wrong from the outset.
For starters "We use rates to describe the frequency of a health event or
health status relative to the size of a population" that is fine but that isn't what they are used for in this case. It is for the efficacy of a vaccine. Which is why the use of rates is caveated by PHE as I mentioned earlier but you seem to have ignored.
Secondly you are not using rates to compare across a population. You are comparing rates within different populations subset rates. Your comparing "rates" directly with "rates". Not only that the populations that you are comparing them between are wildly different in sizes, wildly different variables and are not statistically comparable. What you think you are doing, you aren't doing. The stats aren't telling you what you think they are telling you because you fundamentally don't understand what they are designed to tell you. They are not designed to tell you vaccine efficacy because they can't.
You really need to learn to crawl before you can walk.
You're getting this compeltely wrong and have done since you started to do this.
I honestly think you're a dangerous poster, if you want to be a danger to yourself then that's fine, but JACK123 stated that you make sense to him. I don't know why but he listens to you. You posting on this site could have impacted his health and those who may listen to him. I don't think anyone can say that about anyone else, plenty of people post nonsense / abuse and have been banned for it, you post a mixture of conspiracy claptrap with your own incorrect attempts at scientific analysis but you're still here. I don't get it.
Since Covid started I can't think of a post you've made that hasn't been discredited. Unfortunately people may have believed them and they may have impacted their health care decisions. You could have killed peole. |
By "discredited" you mean by your refusal to accept data that the rest of the world accepts.
OK, enough said. | | | |
| World Cup and Covid on 11:40 - Dec 14 with 616 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| World Cup and Covid on 09:49 - Dec 14 by onehunglow |
I think we disagree often enough sco4ia but think we are as one on this matter
I’ve long appended what I feel and cannot believe the mentality of mankind . Some like AFD immediately mistrust data that would challenged them in some way .
We never fully fronted up to covid. It changed us for all time ,as OHL said
Even now ,the layman believes he knows better than learned scientists. Our Professor Paul Wigley poster,a great man and a real authority was ridiculed by some of our more cretinous contributors
AFD is sadly now on my er growing ignore list as he really is dangerous,as are some others. |
Good as you have absolutely nothing to contribute.
You would give kids vaccines that would still allow them to die by the thousands. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.