Coronavirus

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

You claimed it was exactly 100%... you keep emphasising that point. Presented with other data, you're now claiming you've said otherwise all along... cool. 

So, actually fact checking is 'unnecessary pedantry'. Cool. 

I didn't prove it was wrong by '0.1%', his claim was that it was actually 100%, while my point was that it wasn't and is a bit pointless to claim it as such, and that we also need to consider people that haven't been vaccinated. @maxjam just outright ignored the latter and doubled down on the former. 

To the uninitiated, ie those of us without an advanced degree in pedantry, I would like to clear up a few facts;

1.  I did not claim the vaccine was 100% successful at reducing hospitalizations and deaths - that was AstraZeneca, I merely relayed their findings.

2. Accord to @BillyD (who has since been told he's no good at his job ?) it was the Pfizer vaccine resulted in 7/602000 serious cases in Israel - which incidentally isn't 0.1, its 0.001.  #pedantlivesmatter

3. The AZ vaccine is not the Pfizer vaccine and therefore regardless of whether I or AstraZeneca made the claim, until proven otherwise  it is indeed 100% effective at reducing hospitalizations and death. 

[BIllyD]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

Got to be honest, if you think that's how confidence intervals work, you're not an expert in the concept. You need samples of the event occurring to determine one, at least in the usual way, and by definition there were zero in the set, hence one was unable to be calculated, which was the whole point. You've managed to confuse number of people with that however. You can state a confidence interval in terms of maximum likelihood based on the lack of events in a sense. Here, that would be about 1 in 5500 as the upper limit for 95%.

No, you stated 17k was not big enough sample to use for the population of the UK. I have stated from the start that it is, the rest of the stuff you seem to change depending in what direction you want to take an argument, which is something you seem to do on a frequent basis.

[BIllyD]

39 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Ok lol 

Is that it ? You pose a question that when is answered you reply with Ok lol ?

Ill ask again given I gave you the time to reply to your question, any reason why Sweden is top of them charts ?

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Is that it ? You pose a question that when is answered you reply with Ok lol ?

Ill ask again given I gave you the time to reply to your question, any reason why Sweden is top of them charts ?

It was lol at your statement about Florida and Cali, have you actually been to either? And please show me the data Sweden Vs us? Not Sweden vs the other Nordics.....big lol again, keep going to fit your narrative......

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

Vs us? 

No in the charts v the neighbouring countries.

[Gone]

1 minute ago, BIllyD said:

No in the charts v the neighbouring countries.

See updated post 

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

To the uninitiated, ie those of us without an advanced degree in pedantry, I would like to clear up a few facts;

1.  I did not claim the vaccine was 100% successful at reducing hospitalizations and deaths - that was AstraZeneca, I merely relayed their findings.

It was pointed out to you that the body of the report did not claim such, and it was a marketing point in a title. You continued to double down on it. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

2. Accord to @BillyD (who has since been told he's no good at his job ?) it was the Pfizer vaccine resulted in 7/602000 serious cases in Israel - which incidentally isn't 0.1, its 0.001.  #pedantlivesmatter

0.001% actually. That said, as noted, from their results the percentage might be a bit misleading as it also involves rates of infection, which vary country to county. From that study, around 9% of people who were vaccinated and caught Covid-19 got seriously ill. The positive is that represented 0.1% of people who got the vaccine, which was done from around 4% in the control ground (if I recall right), which is a big drop. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

3. The AZ vaccine is not the Pfizer vaccine and therefore regardless of whether I or AstraZeneca made the claim, until proven otherwise  it is indeed 100% effective at reducing hospitalizations and death. 

As noted, the point remains the same here. There's no point claiming '100% effective' as there is no data to make such a bold claim. As noted elsewhere, you can say with about 95% confidence that the true value isn't about 1 in 5500 people, but without actual instances, paradoxically, you cannot make the claim, which is why they didn't in the body of the work. 

7 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

No, you stated 17k was not big enough sample to use for the population of the UK. I have stated from the start that it is, the rest of the stuff you seem to change depending in what direction you want to take an argument, which is something you seem to do on a frequent basis.

...this really shouldn't be that hard for you, given the background you've claimed to have. When evaluating the rate of reactions, you're considering the number of people who received the vaccination, hence uncertainty tends with the square root of number of participants. For 17k, that gives you a very low uncertainty. For asking whether people get severe disease though, the samples in this instance are people getting severe disease, and there are none here, hence determining a confidence interval becomes more challenging. As noted, from the data we have, under 1 in 5500 is something you can say with 95% confidence.

So to reiterate, no, I'm nothing I am saying is 'changing depending in what direction [I] want to take the argument', but rather, you just don't understand how to manipulate basic statistics here, and are getting confused at how uncertainty tends in the two cases.

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

It was pointed out to you that the body of the report did not claim such, and it was a marketing point in a title. You continued to double down on it. 

0.001% actually. That said, as noted, from their results the percentage might be a bit misleading as it also involves rates of infection, which vary country to county. From that study, around 9% of people who were vaccinated and caught Covid-19 got seriously ill. The positive is that represented 0.1% of people who got the vaccine, which was done from around 4% in the control ground (if I recall right), which is a big drop. 

As noted, the point remains the same here. There's no point claiming '100% effective' as there is no data to make such a bold claim. As noted elsewhere, you can say with about 95% confidence that the true value isn't about 1 in 5500 people, but without actual instances, paradoxically, you cannot make the claim, which is why they didn't in the body of the work. 

...this really shouldn't be that hard for you, given the background you've claimed to have. When evaluating the rate of reactions, you're considering the number of people who received the vaccination, hence uncertainty tends with the square root of number of participants. For 17k, that gives you a very low uncertainty. For asking whether people get severe disease though, the samples in this instance are people getting severe disease, and there are none here, hence determining a confidence interval becomes more challenging. As noted, from the data we have, under 1 in 5500 is something you can say with 95% confidence.

So to reiterate, no, I'm nothing I am saying is 'changing depending in what direction [I] want to take the argument', but rather, you just don't understand how to manipulate basic statistics here, and are getting confused at how uncertainty tends in the two cases.

Simple question for you, as you seem to be avoiding it. A sample of 17k against the UK population would give you what confidence levels ? Don't need any of the other stuff you put, just an answer to that please. ?

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

It was lol at your statement about Florida and Cali, have you actually been to either? And please show me the data Sweden Vs us? Not Sweden vs the other Nordics.....big lol again, keep going to fit your narrative......

Yeah, how dare @BIllyD compare countries with similar demographics and climates! It's devastating to your case. 

Also, I have been to both Florida and California. Very different climates and demographics. California is dry and hot, while Florida is wet and hot, which are indeed very different climates. Given that you were one pushing that climate and weather had such a big impact on the disease for the longest time, and going on the character of different places impacted how people responded, it's odd that you'd change your tune now. 

[Gone]

Just now, Albert said:

Yeah, how dare @BIllyD compare countries with similar demographics and climates! It's devastating to your case. 

Also, I have been to both Florida and California. Very different climates and demographics. California is dry and hot, while Florida is wet and hot, which are indeed very different climates. Given that you were one pushing that climate and weather had such a big impact on the disease for the longest time, and going on the character of different places impacted how people responded, it's odd that you'd change your tune now. 

Who rattled your cage 

[Albert]

Just now, BIllyD said:

Simple question for you, as you seem to be avoiding it. A sample of 17k against the UK population would give you what confidence levels ? Don't need any of the other stuff you put, just an answer to that please. ?

I didn't avoid it, it's not something you've really asked for. 

Confidence intervals need to be calculated alongside statistics from the test data itself, calculating it in a vacuum is poorly defined in this instance. 

[BIllyD]

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

It was lol at your statement about Florida and Cali, have you actually been to either? And please show me the data Sweden Vs us? Not Sweden vs the other Nordics.....big lol again, keep going to fit your narrative......

I have been to both, many times, not sure the relevance in that.

Please explain why it's not relevant to compare then again other Nordics ?
Surely that's a better comparison than against us where we know we have got it completely wrong ?

[Albert]

Just now, BIllyD said:

I have been to both, many times, not sure the relevance in that.

Please explain why it's not relevant to compare then again other Nordics ?
Surely that's a better comparison than against us where we know we have got it completely wrong ?

Well, clearly the issue is that the comparison is devastating to the point they're trying to make. Much like how Florida and California, which are well known to have very different climates and demographics, must actually be very similar. 

[Gone]

Just now, BIllyD said:

I have been to both, many times, not sure the relevance in that.

Please explain why it's not relevant to compare then again other Nordics ?
Surely that's a better comparison than against us where we know we have got it completely wrong ?

So you know they are very similar for a lot of variables that’s the relevance. I’m asking you to compare vs us not the other Nordics, and no I don’t know we have got it completely wrong hence the debate 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

So you know they are very similar for a lot of variables that’s the relevance. I’m asking you to compare vs us not the other Nordics, and no I don’t know we have got it completely wrong hence the debate 

...hang on, are you saying that Sweden is more similar to the UK in climate and demographics than they are to their neighbours on all sides? 

[Gone]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

...hang on, are you saying that Sweden is more similar to the UK in climate and demographics than they are to their neighbours on all sides? 

Yep, same as you comparing Oz with the UK

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Yep, same as you comparing Oz with the UK

The point with comparing the UK and Australia isn't about similar climates, etc, but rather, that the UK did demonstrate that they had effective tools for keeping the R number below 1. This alone is enough to justify that elimination was possible. Beyond that, it was a question about what the philosophy behind it was, and the UK chose not to go down that path, and you were entirely against that path. 

To me, the climate and demographics argument is moot in that point, as again, we know the UK could have kept the R number below 1. Whether it would have been more challenging or not is the real question there. The UK made many mistakes in its response though (as did Sweden), which have been discussed to death at this point. 

At least the vaccine is a ray of sunshine for the UK. 

[BIllyD]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

I didn't avoid it, it's not something you've really asked for. 

Confidence intervals need to be calculated alongside statistics from the test data itself, calculating it in a vacuum is poorly defined in this instance. 

No it was my original point, I didn't really comment on the paper itself as I said I didn't have enough info to do so.

It's really irrelevant though to be honest, we all knew what @maxjamwas pointing out, if there is anything to be disagreed about it should be about the effectiveness of the vaccine against serious illness which was his point.
 

Although I disagree about using this to open up, I don't disagree with him on this.

[Gone]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

The point with comparing the UK and Australia isn't about similar climates, etc, but rather, that the UK did demonstrate that they had effective tools for keeping the R number below 1. This alone is enough to justify that elimination was possible. Beyond that, it was a question about what the philosophy behind it was, and the UK chose not to go down that path, and you were entirely against that path. 

To me, the climate and demographics argument is moot in that point, as again, we know the UK could have kept the R number below 1. Whether it would have been more challenging or not is the real question there. The UK made many mistakes in its response though (as did Sweden), which have been discussed to death at this point. 

At least the vaccine is a ray of sunshine for the UK. 

You’ve conceided, cheers ?? At last, we got there in the end. Checkmate 

[BIllyD]

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

So you know they are very similar for a lot of variables that’s the relevance. I’m asking you to compare vs us not the other Nordics, and no I don’t know we have got it completely wrong hence the debate 

It's easy to compare against us, it shows if you dont get the lockdown measures right you can do more damage than good. However that doesn't mean that they don't work, as per the rationale for comparing them against other similar countries.