And 2 planes brought down 3 towers in a free fall. Fool me once shame on u= fool me twice shame on me. They think they can play the masses for a fool all the time! The ICI hearings begin today being totally reported on by MSM
The backstep dance is not an easy one for the liars to do. The moves involve: Let's get some other things in the top of the news, make believe what we did was a great success, reiterate that it would have been even better if everyone followed the official line, never admit to errors or past statements that are by now glaringingly obvious - - just ignore them and morph them into something else.... then repeat and repeat and repeat.
I'd ask as well: Was this a relative risk ratio? Or an odds ratio? Which are not the same. Our CDC Director has done this too often for my tastes -- given context-free comparisons, and not directly sourcing the data.
Also, as you point out, this is at best an observational study. We do not have two groups the same way we would in a RCT. So we need a clear and consistent definition of "unvaccinated" -- they keep changing this. We need clear and consistent definition of "boosted" -- one booster, two boosters. We need the time frame. We should further stratify the observed outcomes by age and biological sex. And we still have the huge problem of "dying with" as opposed to "dying from."
So if I have a small group of consisting of largely elderly or comorbid individuals in the "unvaccinated" pool, and I have a larger more representative population sample in the "booster" pool, I already know I have a higher percentages of deaths in Un_group as opposed to Bo_group. Right? Confounding and lurking variables. Were these blocked for and/or controlled.
This is also very time-frame sensitive. If I take the results for one month, I might get very difference outcomes than if I take the results for an entire year.
But let's keep going. Just crunch some pretend numbers In my Un_group (defined and selected however), I have a death percentage of say 12%. (Even without Covid, I'd have a death percentage well above the population average. Because much older people and sicker people are more likely to die). In my Bo_group (defined and selected however), I have a death percentage of 0.1. Still pretty high, given that healthy people under the age of 60 have 99.9-something probability of not dying from Covid.
Okay. Now let's calculate the relative risk ratio. 12 / 0.1 120 times greater! Shocking. Stunning! Horrific!
Maybe. Or, maybe not. Again, we need the Un_group and Bo_group to have large enough sample sizes, and to reasonably match up with each other. No dramatic differences in the age range distributions, the co-morbidity distributions, biological sex, etc. We need the data.
I am sorry to say that I have learned not to trust Dr. Wallensky's summaries. Data, and source, please.
A general comment about abuse of statistics, for example '…people who are boosted are 97 times less likely to die than the “unvaccinated”.'
Any time I see something about a ratio, or see the words 'relative risk', or something is 'X times more likely', my antennae start to quiver. I've been familiar with this for at least 12 years since I started looking at scientific studies in nutrition. But it's become glaring during the pandemic, if you pay attention, how general unfamiliarity with statistics is being taken advantage of.
Just yesterday I ran across something I had never heard of before, test-negative case control studies. As with relative risk, there may be a very specific purpose for this kind of thing, but when taken out of context it's incredibly misleading.
Nearly half the deaths occurred before there ever was a vaccine, and the federal health authorities continue to designate a person as "unvaccinated" until two weeks AFTER the second injection. How many thumbs can you put on the scale?
And 2 planes brought down 3 towers in a free fall. Fool me once shame on u= fool me twice shame on me. They think they can play the masses for a fool all the time! The ICI hearings begin today being totally reported on by MSM
The backstep dance is not an easy one for the liars to do. The moves involve: Let's get some other things in the top of the news, make believe what we did was a great success, reiterate that it would have been even better if everyone followed the official line, never admit to errors or past statements that are by now glaringingly obvious - - just ignore them and morph them into something else.... then repeat and repeat and repeat.
Will work for some but won't work for many.
I fact checked POTUS here on his tweet (sorry it's paywalled) but if anyone's interested!
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-us-president
I'd ask as well: Was this a relative risk ratio? Or an odds ratio? Which are not the same. Our CDC Director has done this too often for my tastes -- given context-free comparisons, and not directly sourcing the data.
Also, as you point out, this is at best an observational study. We do not have two groups the same way we would in a RCT. So we need a clear and consistent definition of "unvaccinated" -- they keep changing this. We need clear and consistent definition of "boosted" -- one booster, two boosters. We need the time frame. We should further stratify the observed outcomes by age and biological sex. And we still have the huge problem of "dying with" as opposed to "dying from."
So if I have a small group of consisting of largely elderly or comorbid individuals in the "unvaccinated" pool, and I have a larger more representative population sample in the "booster" pool, I already know I have a higher percentages of deaths in Un_group as opposed to Bo_group. Right? Confounding and lurking variables. Were these blocked for and/or controlled.
This is also very time-frame sensitive. If I take the results for one month, I might get very difference outcomes than if I take the results for an entire year.
But let's keep going. Just crunch some pretend numbers In my Un_group (defined and selected however), I have a death percentage of say 12%. (Even without Covid, I'd have a death percentage well above the population average. Because much older people and sicker people are more likely to die). In my Bo_group (defined and selected however), I have a death percentage of 0.1. Still pretty high, given that healthy people under the age of 60 have 99.9-something probability of not dying from Covid.
Okay. Now let's calculate the relative risk ratio. 12 / 0.1 120 times greater! Shocking. Stunning! Horrific!
Maybe. Or, maybe not. Again, we need the Un_group and Bo_group to have large enough sample sizes, and to reasonably match up with each other. No dramatic differences in the age range distributions, the co-morbidity distributions, biological sex, etc. We need the data.
I am sorry to say that I have learned not to trust Dr. Wallensky's summaries. Data, and source, please.
A general comment about abuse of statistics, for example '…people who are boosted are 97 times less likely to die than the “unvaccinated”.'
Any time I see something about a ratio, or see the words 'relative risk', or something is 'X times more likely', my antennae start to quiver. I've been familiar with this for at least 12 years since I started looking at scientific studies in nutrition. But it's become glaring during the pandemic, if you pay attention, how general unfamiliarity with statistics is being taken advantage of.
Just yesterday I ran across something I had never heard of before, test-negative case control studies. As with relative risk, there may be a very specific purpose for this kind of thing, but when taken out of context it's incredibly misleading.
https://jembendell.com/2021/12/23/lies-damn-lies-and-hospitalisation-statistics/
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/covid-19/2022/02/04/test-negative-case-control-studies-are-a-scam
Thanks, I was wondering where they got their data. 👍🏼
Nearly half the deaths occurred before there ever was a vaccine, and the federal health authorities continue to designate a person as "unvaccinated" until two weeks AFTER the second injection. How many thumbs can you put on the scale?
*And without comparison to unvaxxed-but-treated-early, it's not an accurate comparison ...