COVID-19 - On the Ground

[Walrus]

"anti-vaccine movement..."

That tells me all I need to know about the article being bullshit. Most people refusing the shots are not anti-vax.

[jfish26]

"anti-vaccine movement..."

That tells me all I need to know about the article being bullshit. Most people refusing the shots are not anti-vax.

I mean...I'm pretty sure...by definition...oh, nevermind.

[Deleted User 89]

lol...abc is one of the least biased sources available, dipshit

[Walrus]

Maybe 1-2% are anti-vaccine nuts. 98% are people who recognize these are not vaccines in the traditional sense.

[Deleted User 89]

another post, more lies

[ousdahl]

"anti-vaccine movement..."

That tells me all I need to know about the article being bullshit. Most people refusing the shots are not anti-vax.

I mean...I'm pretty sure...by definition...oh, nevermind.

“I’m not racist just cuz I think Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists!”

[Mjl]

For those who are intellectually honest and curious...

They're doing the math wrong to be intentionally misleading.

The vaccines reduce your risk of Getting the virus. What's being presented here is just a factor of the short time you're looking at, and the total number who got sick. That only a small percentage of the total tested got sick is irrelevant. What matters is the reduction in the number of vaccinated who got sick vs the number of unvaccinated who got sick, both by chance in nature.

What this misleading piece of manipulation seems to assume, is that, following treatment with the vaccine or placebo, the individuals were then exposed to a dose of the vaccine that would get 100% of unvaccinated people infected....and you can't ethically do that. All you do is give to two groups their treatment and see how many get sick naturally and evaluate the results.

This post should be deleted.

Is the graphic misleading though? When I look at it, it shows a highly efficacious vaccine. Lobster just doesn't understand how to read it.

[Walrus]

I didn't know there was an emotional way one could interpret the data.

[Deleted User 89]

another post, more lies

[Walrus]

Thank god i live in a blue state where covid has been eradicated.

I'm waiting for you to pull a lobby and tell me that systemic racism has been eradicated in the state of Illinois too.

Dick move by me today but I decided someone has/had to step up.
We have employees who are blatantly ignoring/disregarding the rules. They are working in the office without being vaccinated. I called them out on it - and then I called out HR for not enforcing the rules. I refuse to work in an office with people who don't give a fuck and put me at risk - because they aren't following the rules. If the rules didn't exist, I might (but probably wouldn't) feel differently but it's almost like they are giving me (and more importantly the company that employs them and pays them well) a giant fuck you. I'm not putting up with that.

What is the male equivalent of a Karen?

[PhDhawk]

For those who are intellectually honest and curious...

They're doing the math wrong to be intentionally misleading.

The vaccines reduce your risk of Getting the virus. What's being presented here is just a factor of the short time you're looking at, and the total number who got sick. That only a small percentage of the total tested got sick is irrelevant. What matters is the reduction in the number of vaccinated who got sick vs the number of unvaccinated who got sick, both by chance in nature.

What this misleading piece of manipulation seems to assume, is that, following treatment with the vaccine or placebo, the individuals were then exposed to a dose of the vaccine that would get 100% of unvaccinated people infected....and you can't ethically do that. All you do is give to two groups their treatment and see how many get sick naturally and evaluate the results.

This post should be deleted.

Is the graphic misleading though? When I look at it, it shows a highly efficacious vaccine. Lobster just doesn't understand how to read it.

He's trying to use the large percentage of uninfected individuals in both the placebo and vaccinated to suggest the vaccine is less effective than it is.

Yeah, if you know what to look for, the data showing a 95% effective rate for example is there, but you have to ignore the things he's circling and typing onto the graphic.

The 0.88% number he's highlighting is meaningless for any context.

[Walrus]

Yes PHD, this person far outranks you, so you have to try to destroy their science.

[Deleted User 89]

another post, more lies

[PhDhawk]

PhD is the highest degree offered in the United States.

and he did his statistic wrong. the P-value is significantly less than what's presented here. https://phastar.com/blog/250-statistici ... ccine-data

Assuming this means that the estimated COVID-19 case rate is 0.037% in the vaccine group and 0.395% among the placebo controls. A two-tailed test of equality of these proportions yields a p-value of less than 0.00001, which is overwhelming evidence of efficacy.

You're MD friend who you're protecting is clearly not very good at math.

[PhDhawk]

I didn't know there was an emotional way one could interpret the data.

There is an incorrect way to do it, and that's what you've done here.

[Walrus]

Well good, because "my friend" has a PhD in addition to MD and JD.

[Deleted User 89]

another post, more lies

[Deleted User 89]

lobs getting $2 hookered again

[ousdahl]

Well good, because "my friend" has a PhD in addition to MD and JD.

[PhDhawk]

Well good, because "my friend" has a PhD in addition to MD and JD.