/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14602234]

oooops! science killed a whole bunch of innocent people "by accident" again.
nobody will ever be had responsible for this tragedy.

[Anonymous No.14602235]

Bayesian statistics thread?

[Anonymous No.14602247]

And what percent of Canadians were double or triple vaccinated in the first place?

[Anonymous No.14602334]

>>14602247
Canada doesn't have reliable data. For several age groups, the vaccination rate is over 100%. This is why the CDC in the US has a reporting ceiling of 95% to hide the methodical errors. Pic related is the latest data the Canadian government has released. It seems inline with there being little difference in death and hospitalization rates for the vaxxed and unvaxxed but the triple jabbed do appear to have a much higher rates than other groups.

[Anonymous No.14602405]

>>14602334
If that's the case it's impossible to draw any conclusion from the data in OP

[e No.14602412]

>>14602234
Always hidden by you people: The death rate of like-for-like populations of unvaccinated vs vaccinated. Guess which one is higher?

There's only one answer, and you fucks are too dishonest to admit it.

[Anonymous No.14602416]

>>14602412
>The death rate of like-for-like populations of unvaccinated vs vaccinated. Guess which one is higher?
Total death rate, or death rate for "covid"?

[Anonymous No.14602418]

>>14602416
>uh oh, time to muddy the waters!

[Anonymous No.14602421]

I still can't believe all of those hand-wringing doctors, scientists, and politicians are all in on this. I mean, it seems so unlikely, almost impossible to believe. Its almost like something no reasonable person would consider, let alone post about.

I'm glad the good guys on social media aren't afraid of the legion of evil science.

[Anonymous No.14602425]

>>14602418
You see it that way? So if you die at a higher rate from other causes, that's a good trade-off?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239
>Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489
>To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71).

The viral vectors appeared to be protective, good thing the USA has decided to stop people from getting the J&J.

[Anonymous No.14602432]

>>14602425
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in
>>14602416 you are changing your entire argument. The point of the thread is that "most hospitalised are vaxxed" -> "vaxx is not good". When >>14602412 points out that you need to take into account the proportion of people who are vaccinated, you move to a completely different argument >>14602416 which seems to be "the statistics are fake anyway". So which is it? Aren't you citing those same statistics in OP? It's incredibly dishonest. That's what I mean by "muddying the waters".

[Anonymous No.14602440]

>>14602432
There's 8 unique posters in this thread. Two of those comments are mine, >>14602425 and >>14602416. COVID-19 deaths are unreliable due to differing criteria. Vaccination rates are unreliable due to flawed data. The best data we have is all-cause mortality, and we actually know the vaccination rates for the trials. Where's the protective effect of the mRNA vaccines? I'm dubious they're even protective against COVID-19. The trials obfuscated the data by only testing about 10% of the COVID-19 cases, the rest were listed as "covid-like illness" and then promptly excluded from the efficacy data. In truth, protection from "covid-like" illness was about 10%. Not 95%, it was 10%. There was no reduction in all-cause mortality, in fact it was higher in the vaccine group. Adverse events were higher in the vaccine group. And now we finally have papers from reputable researchers coming out showing that the vaccines come with a relative risk higher than the risk posed by COVID-19. At the very least, people should have a choice over which risk they want to take, but that didn't stop governments from mandating the vaccines and getting employees fired.

[e No.14602481]

>>14602440
>Vaccination rates are unreliable due to flawed data.
I don't think you know what this means. You don't get to just hand wave away things that make the narrative false just because you don't like them.

In what way, exactly, is the ENTIRE WORLD producing "flawed data" such that one cannot infer the unvaccinated fared considerably worse? Depending on the study 10 fold or higher deaths in the unvaccinated.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

I don't have to post the CDC, but it's the easiest. This is the same pattern you see in all the large multi-million sample comparisons worldwide.

So explain to me exactly how *everybody* worldwide got it wrong in exactly the convenient way that lets you preserve belief in the opposite being true?

[Anonymous No.14602483]

>>14602481
Stop being considerate enough to give him an explanation. Do you work with the retarded professionally?

[e No.14602485]

>>14602432
It's flat earthers all over again. Everything they don't like is fake because it's fake. If you question how they know it's fake, "It's fake and you're a shill". Don't question the narrative just believe.

[e No.14602487]

>>14602483
>Stop being considerate enough to give him an explanation. Do you work with the retarded professionally?
I often feel like I do. Does that count?

[Anonymous No.14602498]

>>14602481
>You don't get to just hand wave away things that make the narrative false just because you don't like them.
I didn't hand wave all-cause mortality, and I just provided two studies showing the opposite of what you claim. But fine, since this started with another anon claiming Canada's vaccination data is inaccurate, we'll go with that anyway. The triple vaccination rate is 50%, yet the hospitalization and death rate for that group is over 60%. Sound good to you?

What's your response to these studies? >>14602425 Are they to be ignored because they don't fit your narrative? Are the Danes wrong? Are the Americans in the first study wrong? Is half of the European Union wrong for banning Moderna in children?

[Anonymous No.14602501]

>>14602485
>Don't question the narrative just believe.
That's a pretty ironic statement.

[Anonymous No.14602512]

>>14602481
Ah yes, the CDC, which just admitted via FOIA that it wasn't even looking at VAERS data, which was created by the CDC and FDA as a way to signal potential issues. So the CDC says the vaccines are safe, and they know because...well, who knows, because they're not even looking at the adverse events being submitted.

[e No.14602516]

>>14602498
>I didn't hand wave all-cause mortality, and I just provided two studies showing the opposite of what you claim.
That is not AT ALL what those studies show. I gave you far larger sample sizes across all swaths of the demographics of America, and your response is "Tiny phase III randomized trial contradicts you"? Even though, by the way, they did not. The results are not statistically significant. CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.5 to 33.8? Meanwhile posters like you, maybe not you specifically, bitch endlessly about confidence intervals of merely a point or two without understanding what they mean. No, sir, those studies do not contradict me.

I just gave you three papers with a CDC sample size in the tens of millions. Worldwide there are studies exactly like this. Again, what special snowflake "flaw" *you claimed in your original post* lets you hand wave this away? Explain it to me. In fucking detail. Your reply here did not do that. I'm willing to bet money as to why: You don't have an explanation and you're dodging because you've been caught.

>The triple vaccination rate is 50%, yet the hospitalization and death rate for that group is over 60%. Sound good to you?
I can't believe this keeps happening. You people dishonestly prune the results. Here's the totals, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1256999/number-covid-hospitalizations-canada-by-vaccination-status/
And here's more https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

In effect, you lie with misreporting data or misreporting what the data means. So tell me "friend", where's your flaw that makes the whole world somehow wrong? I'm waiting for that explanation. Aaany day now.

>>14602512
VAERS is correlation with no real quality control, they list absolutely anything anyone reports "associated with" around the time frame of an event. It is not what you think it is. People have told you idiots this time after time, and you ignore it.

[Anonymous No.14602518]

>>14602481
>"flawed data"
define vaccinated. because canada is also about to change that definition to include only if you are BOOSTED.

[e No.14602521]

>>14602498
>>14602516
So don't play that stupid shell game with me. If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of hospitalizations will be among the vaccinated.

Do basic fucking math before you open your mouth.
>>14602518
It wears off. Over a long enough period of time *eventually* your risk returns to baseline depending on other risk factors like age. No fucking shit they'll reclassify you as unvaccinated two fucking years later.

[e No.14602524]

>>14602501
As I've demonstrated, yes it is very ironic. It's just completely lost on you.

[Anonymous No.14602538]

I dont understand the criteria for hospitalizations. are they there because covid, or did they procure a testkit to check to see if they had covid while they were there.

I've been worried to go to the hospital as they may subject me against my will to a medical experiment, ergo the testkit. But if they do, that would mean everyone is tested for covid in the hospital, even for a broken arm. Than we are at the question of what test did they use, what parameters compose the test, and than account for any difference in testing performed across um Canada, yes canada wide data collection.

[Anonymous No.14602539]

>>14602516
>That is not AT ALL what those studies show.
That's exactly what they show. Do you know what a relative risk reduction is when it comes to all-cause mortality and significant adverse events?

>I gave you far larger sample sizes across all swaths of the demographics of America, and your response is "Tiny phase III randomized trial contradicts you"?
Yes, I find your data from pre-Omicron, from an organization that counted pre-vaccination cases as unvaccinated when announcing that the vaccines were 99% effective at preventing hospitalization back in the summer of 2021, very compelling.

>Worldwide there are studies exactly like this.
So you're saying half of the EU doesn't have access to this data, and that's why they banned Moderna for children?

>I can't believe this keeps happening. You people dishonestly prune the results.
I gave you Canada's current booster rates and their current COVID hospitalization and death rates, and you give me the rates from the beginning of 2021, and you have the nerve to say I'm being dishonest. How is data from early 2021 relevant today when the Omicron variants have substantial immune evasion? We have data from Canada, from the UK, and from other countries, all showing vaccination has either no or negative efficacy compared to being unvaccinated when it comes to Omicron.

>I'm waiting for that explanation.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why the two studies I provided looking at all-cause mortality are wrong.

[e No.14602545]

>>14602539
Nope. Not wasting my day on you. Literally the people defending qualia are more honest.
>I'm still waiting for you to explain why the two studies I provided looking at all-cause mortality are wrong.
You've conceded. Just like I said. You do not have an explanation, all you have is the flat earther "only ever attack" rhetoric. It's transparent and you fool nobody.

[Anonymous No.14602546]

>>14602521
>If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of hospitalizations will be among the vaccinated.
An anon posted the numbers here >>14602334. You seem to think all of the data is reliable, so we're using that data, and it shows the triple vaxxed make up 50% of the population but more than 60% of the COVID-19 deaths. That doesn't sound very efficacious.

[Anonymous No.14602552]

>>14602545
>You do not have an explanation
Kek. I need an explanation for the results of the studies? Okay, how about the vaccines aren't efficacious at preventing severe COVID-19 illness, and their risks outweigh the benefits? There you go!

[Anonymous No.14602554]

>>14602405
Depends on how far off you believe the government's data to be. If it's mostly true, then it appears being triple vaxxed is deadly and the vaccine is ineffective for reducing death or hospitaliztion. If the data is false, then ask what is it that they're likely trying to cover up. It certainly wouldn't be success that they're hiding.

[Anonymous No.14602558]

>>14602554
I would also say that if the data is false, then why are we trusting the people releasing the data?

[Anonymous No.14602569]

Bad data from the Canadian government but at least they show the bad data instead of rounding it down to 95% like the CDC in the States does.

[Anonymous No.14602574]

>>14602558
Public health entities from around the world have made many false statements so their credibility is already in tatters. Not sure why anyone trusts any of them after the mask lies early on, which they openly brag about being lies.

[Anonymous No.14602576]

>>14602569
One of the provinces also admitted that only the double vaxxed + two weeks were considered vaccinated. Anything below that was counted as unvaccinated when it came to hospitalizations and deaths.

[Anonymous No.14602584]

>>14602521
>he doesn't know how the CDC classifies people as unvaccinated until 2 weeks post dose
>got covid 13 days post injection?
>UNVAXXED casualty on the scoreboard!!!!!!

[e No.14602594]

>>14602539
Brief change of mind and then tossing you back in the bin. You're one lying sonofabitch and it's so easy to show I had a change of heart.
>Yes, I find your data from pre-Omicron
CTRL+F. You did not bring up omicron until now. Behold the shell game everybody. Duck and weave, dodge and pivot. Get shown to be wrong, change your claims again and again, never actually defend anything you've asserted. Note, this jackass still hasn't explained how the entire world is somehow wrong.

>We have data from Canada, from the UK, and from other countries, all showing vaccination has either no or negative efficacy compared to being unvaccinated when it comes to Omicron.
I will, however, stop to refute THIS bullshit before I go. You've been corrected on this and keep lying. This is a lie. Outright. You're quoting a single preprint (maybe it's published now) and misleading people, because that "efficacy" metric isn't about hospitalization or death. Also, it was relative efficacy. Yes, that's right, you misread it.

UK https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00462-7/fulltext
>However, relative protection (vs unvaccinated) against hospital admission with omicron in breakthrough cases remained above 70% (HR <0·3) for all vaccination categories that included a booster dose (adjusted HR for hospital admission 8–11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated 0·22 [95% CI 0·20–0·24]; appendix pp 8–9).

Canada https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/?stat=rate&measure=total_last7&map=pt#a2
>From April 11, 2022 to May 08, 2022, compared to fully vaccinated cases, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die as a result of their illness. Compared to cases fully vaccinated with an additional dose, unvaccinated cases were 5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 7 times more likely to die as a result of their illness, during this same 4-week period (Table 3).

OOPS. Flat earthers 2.0. That's all you are.

[Anonymous No.14602598]

>>14602594
>Flat earthers 2.0
Except the flat earthers were harmless.
They're below flat earthers.

[e No.14602601]

>>14602598
You fucker. Well fine shut up take your point. You're not wrong.

[e No.14602605]

>>14602584
CDC lists those excluded separately. Add them back in. It changes nothing.

How fucking embarrassing is it to think you have some "gotcha" only to never do the two seconds of work it would take to check? Good god damn.

[Anonymous No.14602626]

>>14602594
>Image in thread refers to cases from May 1st to June 5th to show vaccines are failing
>DURR, YOU DIDN'T SAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR!

BTW, I looked at Canada's numbers, and for Table 3 including those dates, they've not only avoided providing the original data, but have then "standardized" the data to come up with those conclusions. When you look at >>14602234, do you see any reason to possibly question what they're claiming? Booster rates would need to be something like 90-95% of the population for their numbers to work.

[Anonymous No.14602630]

>>14602605
I'm still waiting for you to explain how half the EU is so stupid that they think Moderna is dangerous for children.

[Anonymous No.14602633]

>>14602234
>90% of deaths from covid are double vaxxed
>reduced to 80% those who are triple vaxxed
>85% of Canadians are vaccinated against covid
> no stats on survival rates of remaining unvaxxed 15%

OK

[Anonymous No.14602634]

>>14602574
please vote imhotep as the sole S+ class. What little i learned of the history of medical ethics, is that it is a multigenerational grind to earn public trust in the practice of medicine.

My hopes are that, while people may not trust the data, they trust their long term interest is taken care of

[e No.14602642]

>>14602626
>BTW, I looked at Canada's numbers, and for Table 3 including those dates, they've not only avoided providing the original data, but have then "standardized" the data to come up with those conclusions
"People use words I don't understand therefore they're lying"
From infobase linked above,
>*Age-standardized using July 2021 Canadian population estimates
That is what standardized means. Age adjusted. Like-for-like. Exactly what you people are terrified to look at because it shows how wrong you are.
>they've not only avoided providing the original data
From the study,
>Rate ratio calculations were based on data from 8 provinces and territories that have reported complete case-level vaccine history data to PHAC during the 4-week period of analysis.
Oh look at the bottom they list data you can download.
>they've not only avoided providing the original data
DURRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.14602644]

The UK showed that by March, only the boosted held any advantage, and the single and double vaccinated were dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. In response, they stopped offering free testing and no longer provide the data in their reports.

[e No.14602649]

These dipshits are SO INEPT they don't even know the .csv at the bottom of the page is the data they subsequently claim is "hidden".

They're SO STUPID they don't know enough to expand the definitions or notes to find out what they mean by words like "standardized".

At this point Yakub followers have to be smarter. There's no way anyone is this stupid.

[Anonymous No.14602653]

>>14602644
To show what I mean:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/deaths
>Before March 2022, people who had received a second vaccine dose but not a third dose had a higher risk of death involving COVID-19 if their second vaccine dose was over six months ago than those who had their second dose less than six months ago. This indicated possible waning protection from vaccination over time. However, from March 2022, this difference was no longer significant.

>While these statistics are adjusted for age, they cannot be used to determine vaccine effectiveness. This is because vaccinated and unvaccinated people likely differ in characteristics other than age, such as health. Some deaths are expected in vaccinated individuals as the number of people who are vaccinated is high and no vaccine is 100% effective.

In other words, once the vaccine advantage was gone, they decided it was no longer worth making detailed reports and to instead claim they cannot be used to claim vaccine efficacy. They were good enough to use before, but not now.

[Anonymous No.14602655]

>>14602630
Still waiting on a response to this too. And this: >>14602425

[e No.14602657]

>>14602655
Already debunked your bullshit I'm not playing "debunk perpetual moving goalpost". US, UK, and Canada data all say you're wrong. Bye bye little flat earther. Maybe one day you'll grow up and be able to read.

[e No.14602661]

>>14602653
For determining effectiveness as vaccine wanes? Yes, you'd need more controls in your data than merely age.

What? To determine different things you need different qualifiers? CLEARLY A CONSPIRACY!

[Anonymous No.14602663]

>>14602440
There's millions of people who we have stats on covid vax, a couple % erroneous as you claim. Yet, yourself perhaps or at least the same crowd without a shadow of a doubt would also believe some paper where only 30 college students were trialled on X anti viral working or Y sleep study or Z effect of cannabis on creativity and claim that to be good enough to believe in.

No other study in the entire world has had so many participants, so how do you function if this data is not good enough for you? Do you still eat fish, take pain killers, eat stuff that has a bit of GMO, do you even go to the doctor? At what point will it take for you to have any data satisfy you?

[Anonymous No.14602671]

>>14602657
>They're wrong because I said so.
Do you have all-cause mortality for Canada and the UK from the past six months? Forgive me for not trusting the CDC.

[e No.14602675]

>>14602671
see
>>14602594
In general you can use CTRL+F in most browsers and "find". I link to both sources for UK and Canadian data.

[e No.14602677]

>>14602671
>Forgive me for not trusting the CDC.
So when Canada, UK, and other countries corroborate CDC data... what then?

[Anonymous No.14602681]

>>14602661
My point is they used to put together nice little graphs like this to show how well the vaccinations were working. Once the efficacy had basically vanished, they started making the claim that they cannot accurately calculate vaccine efficacy. We had trials for that btw, which could account for numerous factors besides age, and they were a major disappointment (as has been pointed out).

[e No.14602686]

>>14602681
see
>>14602594
>>14602481
Didn't vanish. Not even close. One of those CDC links covers more recent dates. I believe one of them is for omicron specifically. If I forgot to link that one let me know.

[Anonymous No.14602688]

>>14602663
>At what point will it take for you to have any data satisfy you?
I have the data from the trials that tracked far more details than what's currently being tracked. It did not paint the picture that's being painted. How could you possibly think the vaccines are getting more effective against variants that they were never intended for, compared to when they were first being tested and antibody binding was extremely high? That doesn't at least make you a little curious?

[Anonymous No.14602691]

>>14602686
See >>14602681 and >>14602653 and >>14602440 and >>14602234 and >>14602334.

[e No.14602693]

>>14602691
And each of those have been refuted. You lose. Good day sir.

[Anonymous No.14602698]

>>14602686
>One of those CDC links covers more recent dates.
The first one was dated in 2022 but only covered to December and claimed they could not evaluate mortality from Omicron. I just gave you the most recent UK data, which decided to stop graphing mortality when the March edition ceased to show any advantage unless boosted, and we know the UK stopped providing free testing.

[Anonymous No.14602700]

>>14602693
>And each of those have been refuted.
Kek. Your refutation has basically been "my data is better than your data" with no actual criticism of the studies.

[e No.14602721]

>>14602700
Not wasting my time. You're trying to bait me into a greater level of effort than you've put forward. Nah.
>>14602698
I also linked a recent analysis of UK data. Doesn't support you.

[Anonymous No.14602833]

>>14602721
>I also linked a recent analysis of UK data.
Which showed no benefit except for boosting up until March, at which point they changed their stance as it became harder to prove efficacy. Meanwhile, I provided you with two studies, one which came from the trials which tracked a wealth of data. The study even explains why the CDC's use of the data led to an incorrect conclusion. You can complain about sample size, but that sample size is what gained the vaccines their EUA for the entire adult population, so it was good enough for the CDC, and then the CDC misrepresented the data. We can add that to the other study I provided from the Netherlands showing all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated, and we can add that to the data showing male children and young adults have a much higher risk of myocarditis for the mRNA vaccines than they do from COVID-19.

[Anonymous No.14602847]

>>14602234
Theo Fleury sounds like he needs to get assraped again.

[e No.14602882]

>>14602833
>Which showed no benefit except for boosting up until March
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00462-7/fulltext#sec1
No. Unsurprisingly antivaxxers continue to prove they can't read. Figure 3, hazard ratios compared to unvaccinated. Even single dose recipients did better against Omicron than unvaccinated. In every single case and regardless of vaccine.

>Meanwhile, I provided you with two studies, one which came from the trials which tracked a wealth of data. The study even explains why the CDC's use of the data led to an incorrect conclusion.
What, these? >>14602425
Paper 2 is referring to overall mortality which we're not talking about. I linked you studies on hospitalizations and death with covid. 2nd study makes a remark about the CDC "of non-covid-19 mortality". First study is about adverse events. Only other URL not linked by me is here >>14602653 and you're just wrong, as was already explained. I have no idea which anon is you, or if they're all you, but you've provided no study purporting what you're claiming.

>We can add that to the other study I provided from the Netherlands showing all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated
Cute so here's what it found,
>For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71
No statistical significance. 1.03 and look at that CI. Ahahahahahahaha
So in summary: You didn't read what I linked, you didn't read what you linked, and you continue to post more claims and more dodging without addressing anything.

Typical antivaxxer. Gotta lie to antivax, same way you gotta lie to flerf.

[e No.14602885]

Since antivaxxers are afraid of reading studies, whether cited by themselves or anyone else, here's the graph and the explanation from my linked paper (figure 3). In every single case but one (Oxford-AstraZeneca, due to stated tiny sample numbers) unvaccinated did far worse than vaccinated. Antivaxxers will do anything to avoid the truth, and will pivot away from these facts by bringing up all manner of completely irrelevant claims.

>Variant-specific HRs of hospital admission (A), any hospital attendance, including admission (B), or any hospital attendance, including admission or positive test during hospital stay (C), by type of vaccine used for doses 1 and 2, number of vaccine doses, and time since last dose, relative to unvaccinated cases. These HRs can be interpreted as 1 – vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation conditional upon diagnosed infection. Booster doses were Pfizer–BioNTech or Moderna (not disaggregated). HR=hazard ratio. *Due to small numbers, all cases who had received a single dose of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine were grouped together and not separated by time since vaccine dose.

[Anonymous No.14602886]

>>14602847

[Anonymous No.14602887]

>>14602418
>I will not defend my argument
>you must agree with me immediately or you are being disingenuous

[Anonymous No.14602893]

>>14602481
You're wasting your breath going against the attention-energy gradient, man. You'll keep getting evasive non-answers until you get tired and they'll go back to spamming the same old bullshit that was already refuted tomorrow

[e No.14602895]

>>14602893
I'm goin to bed and it took no real effort on my part so eh

[Anonymous No.14603255]

>>14602885
That's a very large and thorough study you posted there. But a "hospital admission within 14 days of a positive test" does not tell us anything about the severity of the disease. Just like someone who had a stroke within 14 days of a covid shot doesn't mean the shot caused it.

Also it's quite easy to imagine testing bias(leading to hospitalization bias) considering the president of the "free" world said "you're not gonna get covid if you get vaccinated" along with the CDC recommending against routinely testing the vaccinated up until around October 2021 which would still have a lingering effect on this study.

A brilliant study, but sadly built on a foundation of faeces.

[Anonymous No.14603270]

>>14602425
>So if you die at a higher rate from other causes, that's a good trade-off?
That would only be a correct inference if the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations were similar. In reality, older and at-risk people are more likely to be vaxxed. Correlation is not always causation.

[Anonymous No.14603308]

>>14603270
In the US and Canada, the vax rate for all adults (18+) is in the 90%+ range. If you compare 18 year old males to 95 year old females, you'll see some difference in rates, but across the adult population, the difference isn't very large and I don't know why people like you think it's a winning argument to pretend there's a huge gap between the two or that the extreme ends are relevant when the vast majority of the population exist not at the extreme ends. It's like you were programmed with this excuse over a year ago and can't think of anything else until the next service pack updates your argument database.

[Anonymous No.14603477]

>>14602405
You can draw the conclusion that the vaccines don't work. Vaccines are supposed to prevent the disease you took them for. Now also factor in all the deaths and injury the vax caused and all the future death and illness caused by VAIDs and such.

[Anonymous No.14603542]

Still not getting it.

[Anonymous No.14603548]

>>14603477
>You can draw the conclusion that the vaccines don't work. Vaccines are supposed to prevent the disease you took them for
The vaccine was supposed to work against the wuhan type. It still helped a lot with delta. Now with omicron it basically doesn't do anything. Surprise. It's a new serotype.

[Anonymous No.14603550]

>>14602512
>it wasn't even looking at VAERS data,
for a good reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System#Limitations_and_abuse

[Anonymous No.14603559]

>>14602234
So you're telling me that the high-risk age groups are vaccinated to 95-99.7%, yet the vaccinated only account for 85% of the deaths? Seems like it does work.
Let's assume 97.5% of the risk group is fully vaccinated. 2.5% of the population make up 15% of the deaths. Curious.

[e No.14603575]

>>14603255
>That's a very large and thorough study you posted there. But a "hospital admission within 14 days of a positive test" does not tell us anything about the severity of the disease.
Learn to read, antivax fuckwits. Stop lying. Study ALSO includes DEATH hazard ratio. Same thing happens for deaths. Same thing the CDC reports. Same thing canada reports. Same thing most of the world reports.

Cope and seethe, you people have a religion and need to lie to preserve your faith. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14603667]

>>14603550
How neat of you to rely on Wikipedia. You're aware VAERS was created by the CDC? So you don't find it concerning that the CDC, which has repeatedly said they saw nothing alarming in VAERS, has just admitted that they never bothered looking at the data? At best they repeatedly lied.

[Anonymous No.14603670]

>>14603270
>That would only be a correct inference if the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations were similar.
That data came from the vaccine trials, you know, the ones which created comparable groups and gained EUA approval for adults due to their efficacy and safety? It turns out that they were 10% effective against symptomatic disease (not 95%), and the vaccine group had both a higher mortality rate and a significantly higher adverse event rate. How much more do you need to prove causation?

[Anonymous No.14603672]

>>14603667
It's self-reported. Do you remember how moot became person of the year? The same thing happened

[Anonymous No.14603675]

>>14602425
>(95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8),
If your discovery is compatible with zero/the null hypothesis then it's not a discovery

[Anonymous No.14603682]

Who cares, as long as the absolute number is as low as usual, vaxxers stay the majority.

[Anonymous No.14603684]

>>14602882
>Paper 2 is referring to overall mortality which we're not talking about.
Oh cool, so if you die at a higher rate that's totally fine so long as it's not COVID that kills you. :-)

>No statistical significance. 1.03 and look at that CI. Ahahahahahahaha
So you're saying the vaccines, which protect against COVID-19 (supposedly) provide no statistical significance in terms of overall mortality. So either COVID-19 is not a serious cause of total mortality, in other words, protecting against it is not significant enough to reduce overall mortality, or the mRNA vaccines are compensating by killing people through other means.

>First study is about adverse events.
I would think when you have two comparable groups, and one group ends up with substantially higher rates of coagulation disorders (oh btw, wasn't a vaccine supposedly pulled for this issue? But weren't we told it was safe?) and cardiac injuries, not to mention fun things like Bell's Palsy, that it would be a cause for concern. I guess not.

[Anonymous No.14603688]

>>14603672
>It's self-reported.
So...that makes it okay that the CDC repeatedly lied by saying they were tracking the data? And the CDC created that system, but you're willing to trust the CDC when their primary system for tracking adverse events is apparently trash?

[Anonymous No.14603689]

>>14603675
95% chance the vaccines cause an increased rate of adverse events. 5% chance they don't. Not great odds.

[e No.14603693]

>>14603684
>provide no statistical significance in terms of overall mortality.
According to one single study and only for non-covid mortality. Not "overall including covid".

Gotta lie to antivax.

[Anonymous No.14603695]

>>14603689
Please learn statistics

[Anonymous No.14603701]

>>14603688
What do you want to hear? Yes, they set it up. Yes, normally, when there are no shizos going crazy, that's a somewhat reliable system with known flaws. They set it up and when it showed the equivalent of "Moot" and "MARBLECAKEALSOTHEGAME", they concluded that it's not usable. Do you think, Taylor Swift gave a concert at that school for the deaf even though she set up that system? Do you think, Mountain Dew produced an ad campaign with "Hitler did nothing wrong" even though they set up that system?
How many deaths were self-reported to VAERS? Do you think, that the vaccine makes people into zombies? Because otherwise they could not self-report their own death.

[e No.14603703]

>>14603695
People have asked young earth creationists to learn evolution for decades and they still refuse. I doubt asking them to learn about science in this case will work either.

[Anonymous No.14603713]

>>14603703
To creationists, learning evolution is learning a "theory", an alternative world-view. Have antivaxxers really sunken low enough to deny even statistics? Last time I talked to someone they just completely missed the point and purposefully misinterpreted actual results. But alternative maths? What is wrong with these people?

[Anonymous No.14603717]

>>14603695
What is a confidence interval? How much of the range falls into the negative?

[Anonymous No.14603724]

>>14603701
>Not "overall including covid".
So again, you're totally cool with them repeatedly lying about tracking the data in VAERS when they weren't?

>Because otherwise they could not self-report their own death.
You realize 90% of the reports in VAERS are from doctors and physicians?

[Anonymous No.14603728]

>>14603693
>According to one single study and only for non-covid mortality. Not "overall including covid".
Um...

>The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046)
>overall mortality

>For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)
>For overall mortality

[Anonymous No.14603735]

>>14603724
>So again, you're totally cool with them repeatedly lying about tracking the data in VAERS when they weren't?
Yes, I literally could not care less about a web form by the American CDC that was filled with bullshit. No other study in any country in the works could confirm what was entered there. So who cares? We have much more reliable numbers

[Anonymous No.14603739]

>>14602235
>>14602234
Suppose 9 in 10 are double+ vaxxed... Then at worst it means that the vaccines are useless.
[math]D[/math]: Die by covid
[math]V[/math]: Gigavaxxed
We have [math]9/10 = P(V|D)[/math]
[math]P(D|V) = P(V|D) * P(D) / P(V) = P(D)[/math]
So it's the same if you're double+ vaxxed or not. Now if less than 9 in 10 are fully vaxxed, that would mean the vaccine makes you more likely to die.

Also, pfizer/moderna and non mRNA vaccines aren't the same.

[Anonymous No.14603743]

>>14603717
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
But for some interpretation of results like this: if both hypotheses lie in your interval, then your study is not sensitive enough to distinguish between them.