Coronavirus

[BIllyD]

Just to add to your claims @maxjam

A study in Israel finds Pfizer's vaccine to be >95% effective. 

0.1% of 602k vaccinated people tested positive compared to 3.9% of 528k unvaccinated people over same period. 

Only 7 serious cases out of 602k vaccinated people.

 

[maxjam]

17 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

The sample size is not to small though if the results show an outcome, that is not a reason to dispute the findings. 

No wonder maxjam was confused with what your trying to say.

Oh I know what @Albert is trying to say and tbh if it was someone else I may have discussed it further but tbh I cba with the instant dismissal and snide comments when faced with something he doesn't agree with so I'm done with the discussion.

As far as I am concerned, the Govt are happy to mass vaccinate after 11k people trial and AstraZeneca are happy to state 100% reduction in hospitalization and death after a 17k people trial - unless something changes, anything else is 2 blokes on a football forum arguing for arguments sake. 

[Albert]

15 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

The sample size is not to small though if the results show an outcome, that is not a reason to dispute the findings. 

I'm not disputing their findings, I'm disputing the '100% protection' claim. Interestingly, you do too. 

15 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

No wonder maxjam was confused with what your trying to say.

You're confused because you seem to think that because a sample is large enough for one purpose it's large enough for all.

1 minute ago, BIllyD said:

Just to add to your claims @maxjam

A study in Israel finds Pfizer's vaccine to be >95% effective. 

0.1% of 602k vaccinated people tested positive compared to 3.9% of 528k unvaccinated people over same period. 

Only 7 serious cases out of 602k vaccinated people.

I have not challenged any claims from the body of their report, just the marketing in the title which isn't actually supported in the body.

7 serious cases out of 602k people vaccinated actually refutes the 100% claim, and that's kind of the point I'm making. The claim of '100%' isn't in the body of their text as they didn't have the sample to claim it. A larger sample, as shown by you, does indeed include serious cases. The numbers overall are very promising, but 100% simply isn't the case. 

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Oh I know what @Albert is trying to say and tbh if it was someone else I may have discussed it further but tbh I cba with the instant dismissal and snide comments when faced with something he doesn't agree with so I'm done with the discussion.

It's interesting that this is your take on things, given you've refused to actually discuss any points for months with pretty much anyone. You just ignore points you don't like and move on, sniping at moments you seem to think are opportune. 

7 minutes ago, maxjam said:

As far as I am concerned, the Govt are happy to mass vaccinate after 11k people trial and AstraZeneca are happy to state 100% reduction in hospitalization and death after a 17k people trial - unless something changes, anything else is 2 blokes on a football forum arguing for arguments sake. 

As noted, @BIllyD noted figures that refute the 100% claim. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

I have not challenged any claims from the body of their report, just the marketing in the title which isn't actually supported in the body.

7 serious cases out of 602k people vaccinated actually refutes the 100% claim, and that's kind of the point I'm making. The claim of '100%' isn't in the body of their text as they didn't have the sample to claim it. A larger sample, as shown by you, does indeed include serious cases. The numbers overall are very promising, but 100% simply isn't the case. 

So you are arguing over 0.1%?

Some may claim you're just doing it because you want to be seen to be right on literally everything you say?

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

It's interesting that this is your take on things, given you've refused to actually discuss any points for months with pretty much anyone. You just ignore points you don't like and move on, sniping at moments you seem to think are opportune. 

EDIT : nope, just you ?

 

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted, @BIllyD noted figures that refute the 100% claim. 

I assume you're aware of the statistcally zero concept? 

7/602,000 is approx 0.001 and would fall into that category. Furthermore without seeing the data behind those 7 cases maybe there are extenuating circumstances.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

EDIT : nope, just you ?

 

I assume you're aware of the statistcally zero concept? 

7/602,000 is approx 0.001 and would fall into that category. Furthermore without seeing the data behind those 7 cases maybe there are extenuating circumstances.

Maybe they damaged their heads banging them against the wall after reading this thread ?

[BIllyD]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not disputing their findings, I'm disputing the '100% protection' claim. Interestingly, you do too. 

You're confused because you seem to think that because a sample is large enough for one purpose it's large enough for all.

I have not challenged any claims from the body of their report, just the marketing in the title which isn't actually supported in the body.

7 serious cases out of 602k people vaccinated actually refutes the 100% claim, and that's kind of the point I'm making. The claim of '100%' isn't in the body of their text as they didn't have the sample to claim it. A larger sample, as shown by you, does indeed include serious cases. The numbers overall are very promising, but 100% simply isn't the case. 

I wasn't disputing any claims tbh, more that a 17k sample was enough to use based upon the UK population and would give a 99% confidence level. 

Yes the 7 cases does show it not to be 100% which is where the 1% marginal error comes in that I stated earlier. 
 

A pretty safe assumption I presume is that based on the sample size, the results returned no cases where the person receiving the vaccine required hospital treatment for COVID. I haven't read the report though in detail though, so maybe I have that wrong ?

Regardless, the vaccine is effective against stopping hospital admissions, based upon the numbers so far on various studies even at the early stage, it is between 97-100%, which is the point Maxjam was trying to make.

[Sith Happens]

16 minutes ago, maxjam said:

EDIT : nope, just you ?

 

I assume you're aware of the statistcally zero concept? 

7/602,000 is approx 0.001 and would fall into that category. Furthermore without seeing the data behind those 7 cases maybe there are extenuating circumstances.

In all seriousness, maybe they caught covid during the 3 week spell from having the vaccine to being protected...add another 10 days that it can take covid to come out then you could be looking close on 5 weeks from vaccination date before symptoms appeared.

 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

I'm not quite sure what you think the contradiction here is. 17k is too small a sample to evaluate the claim that a vaccine offers 100% protection against severe disease, but it is more than sufficient to determine safety, for the reasons previously discussed. 

Ah the old as discussed routine ?

[Albert]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So you are arguing over 0.1%?

Some may claim you're just doing it because you want to be seen to be right on literally everything you say?

I'm arguing over something that was being made out to be a key bit of data. It's interesting how it becomes irrelevant when the data is refuted. 

14 minutes ago, maxjam said:

EDIT : nope, just you ?

Whether you acknowledge it in the same manner, you do indeed drop and run when your arguments are challenged. 

14 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I assume you're aware of the statistcally zero concept? 

7/602,000 is approx 0.001 and would fall into that category. Furthermore without seeing the data behind those 7 cases maybe there are extenuating circumstances.

Ah, so now you're claiming that it's virtually zero, even if not actually zero. 

Depending on demographics of the study, you're right, it would be hard to compare. 7/602k scaled to the UK's population is still nearly 1000 people prior to considering other key issues like people who cannot be vaccinated, etc. That said, as noted from the start, the data overall is promising, hence my support for a staged reopening with a view to keep the R number below 1. That should be very achievable on the numbers we've seen. 

5 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

I wasn't disputing any claims tbh, more that a 17k sample was enough to use based upon the UK population and would give a 99% confidence level. 

Yes the 7 cases does show it not to be 100% which is where the 1% marginal error comes in that I stated earlier. 

Somehow you're still confusing the percentage of people protected against serious disease and confidence intervals. The authors never claimed a '100% confidence interval', no self respecting researcher would on those kinds of numbers. Really, the only conclusion I can reach from what you've tried to argue is that you don't understand how confidence intervals actually work. Given that you've claimed you used them in your line of work, that is quite concerning. Ultimately though, this point is now well and truly moot though. 

5 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

A pretty safe assumption I presume is that based on the sample size, the results returned no cases where the person receiving the vaccine required hospital treatment for COVID. I haven't read the report though in detail though, so maybe I have that wrong ?

Regardless, the vaccine is effective against stopping hospital admissions, based upon the numbers so far on various studies even at the early stage, it is between 97-100%, which is the point Maxjam was trying to make.

This isn't the discussion we'd be having if that was actually @maxjam's original claim. They were claiming it was actually 100%, and when the issues of scaling from the sample size would brought up, they doubled down, hence the discussion. 

As noted, the vaccine results are very promising overall, and it seems that as long as nobody does anything point blank braindead, like opening up all at once without maintaining low levels of disease otherwise, the UK should be able to get out of this crisis in the coming months. 

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ah the old as discussed routine ?

So, when I go into full detail people whinge it's 'boring' or 'too long to be bothered reading', but when I point out that this has previously been discussed in detail it's 'the old routine'. I wish I could say it's a novel tactic, but yours is one as old as society. 

[Archied]

17 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, when I go into full detail people whinge it's 'boring' or 'too long to be bothered reading', but when I point out that this has previously been discussed in detail it's 'the old routine'. I wish I could say it's a novel tactic, but yours is one as old as society. 

Perhaps you don’t even realise fully that it’s just your default go to position to feel always in the right , who knows??‍♂️
you do realise that when people just give up bothering to argue with you it doesn’t default mean that they can’t argue because your right , then people stop arguing because there really is no point arguing with you , subject comes back up again and you say as discussed because in your head the only reason anybody could stop engaging with you is because your right and they accepted that already?

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps you don’t even realise fully that it’s just your default go to position to feel always in the right , who knows??‍♂️

This in and of itself is an interesting tactic, you're planning on the notion of 'well, they must feel they're always right'. 

Honestly, I'm not, and I've made errors on here many times, and admitted those errors. You're confusing me actually backing my position, and not accepting random sniping without evidence or even basic logic, with me not accepting that other views could also be true. There are plenty of ways to view the World, but you don't just accept poor arguments because they exist. If you feel you actually have an argument to make, make it, and accept when you lack evidence that people may call you out on that. 

[Sith Happens]

I just don't get people.  There are protests over the planned roll out of covid vaccinations in Australia. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56137597

How can you protest about a vaccine you aren't being forced to take ? No surprise to see lunatic Pete Evans involved,  the bloke is an absolute clown. 

 

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

This in and of itself is an interesting tactic, you're planning on the notion of 'well, they must feel they're always right'. 

Honestly, I'm not, and I've made errors on here many times, and admitted those errors. You're confusing me actually backing my position, and not accepting random sniping without evidence or even basic logic, with me not accepting that other views could also be true. There are plenty of ways to view the World, but you don't just accept poor arguments because they exist. If you feel you actually have an argument to make, make it, and accept when you lack evidence that people may call you out on that. 

Is that opinion or fact again? 

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

This in and of itself is an interesting tactic, you're planning on the notion of 'well, they must feel they're always right'. 

Honestly, I'm not, and I've made errors on here many times, and admitted those errors. You're confusing me actually backing my position, and not accepting random sniping without evidence or even basic logic, with me not accepting that other views could also be true. There are plenty of ways to view the World, but you don't just accept poor arguments because they exist. If you feel you actually have an argument to make, make it, and accept when you lack evidence that people may call you out on that. 

Wrong ,,,, as discussed 

[maxjam]

45 minutes ago, Albert said:

Ah, so now you're claiming that it's virtually zero, even if not actually zero. 

No my argument remains the same.  If anyone else on this forum thinks I've strayed from my original point please feel free to let me know.

 

45 minutes ago, Albert said:

Whether you acknowledge it in the same manner, you do indeed drop and run when your arguments are challenged. 

I fully acknowledge that I do (try to at least) drop arguments and run with you when for 99% of the other forum users they have run their course. 

And whilst we're on the subject of telling others how to behave maybe you could drop the unnecessary pedantry and point scoring and take note of others using the forum when they point out the repetitive and boring nature of whats being posted - as they have done above ?

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

I'm arguing over something that was being made out to be a key bit of data. It's interesting how it becomes irrelevant when the data is refuted. 

It still is a key bit of data and fully backs up the point that @maxjamwas making. 

Of course you will overlook that because you will be congratulating yourself on thinking you've proved that his point was wrong by 0.1%.