|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On December 09 2022 08:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote:On December 09 2022 08:08 Magic Powers wrote:
Surely you are not serious with your incomplete reasoning and hyper selection of data.
California had only 17.5% more deaths than Florida despite having an 80% greater population and 59% more infections. When adjusted for population size, California had a far lower rate of covid deaths than Florida. And here you are pointing to the rate of long covid and calling it a victory for Florida.
Are you absolutely fucking gone or what is up with you?
Edit: in fact California also completely outperforms Florida when looking at their CFR. No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. You can't just use gross numbers on one side and per capita numbers on the other to fit your argument. Do you want to talk about that or do you want to just deflect by going off on a tangent about case fatality rate and deaths when we weren't even talking about either of those things? I don't think you quite understand Magic Powers's argument. Because it is very sound, and the flaw that you seem to see in it is not actually in it. Let me break it down a bit. (Just reiterating the argument, not actually factchecking all of the numbers) California has an 80% larger population than Florida. This means that if they were to perform equally (relative/per capita numbers equal), all of Californias absolute numbers would be 80% larger. Thus, if absolute numbers are less than 80% larger, California is performing better. In this case, apparently California has 59% more infections. Since 59%<80%, that means that California is performing better on infections. Furthermore, California apparently also only has only 17.5% more deaths than Florida. Since 17.5% < 59% AND 17.5% <80%, California is not only outperforming Florida on Deaths, it is also outperforming a hypothetical Florida which has exactly as many (per Capita) infections as California, indicating that not only does California have fewer cases, those cases are also on average less severe. I also looked at the long covid study you linked. The 95% confidence intervals are so large and overlapping that you can not say anything significant about the differences between California and Florida.
Actually discussion started with value for money regarding vaccination - Magic links were regarding long covid and BlackJack also referred to long covid in his counter argument. Then he used Florida vs California to show that higher vaccination rate doesnt necessarily affect long covid cases.
Then it got weird.
BlackJack used percentage of population, Magic used number of cases expressed in percents.
Also according to bolded and this post:
On December 09 2022 07:45 Magic Powers wrote:
California had 59% more covid infections than Florida. That they have only 2-3% more cases of long covid is a massive argument in favor of more vaccinations.
Magic conclusion should be other way around.
|
|
|
On December 09 2022 09:52 Sermokala wrote:
You can use multiple number sets to draw conclusions they're all just numbers. You can't just deflect if you don't like how the statistics work. Having 30% more comparatively of one thing but 5% more of another thing means you outpreform the expected metrics on something. He posited that besting those metrics was due to the obvious higher rate of vaccination.
It's a thing you see in sports all the time just replace the argument for slugging percentage or xg in relation to touches in the final third.
No. That’s not “how statistics work.” You don’t get to say California has 60% more cases gross and only 2% more long-COVID per capita so they are outperforming Florida. This is not a difficult concept.
Florida has MORE COVID cases per capita than California.
Using gross numbers for one and per capita for the other is intellectually dishonest.
|
BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception. When you post something, I don't have the slightest interest writing a paragraph debunking your comment. I write very short comments and then ignore your responses, because that's all you deserve of my time.
The point is that you're once again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed that out by showing that California had 59% more infections. I could've instead pointed to other data points showing how different California is, but I chose that one.
I do not hold your hand anymore, because that's a wasted effort. You will always misinterpret data however you want anyway, so I don't make any additional effort explaining things to you. I treat you like a child, as I do with notorious anti-vaxxers. I treat you like someone who's incapable of doing basic statistical breakdowns.
Don't get used to me writing more than a short sentence in response to your comments. I'm only explaining why I won't be doing it in the future either.
Your conclusion is wrong. A higher rate of long covid in California does not indicate whatsoever that vaccination doesn't prevent long covid. It's wrong, and it's terribly wrong. It's your usual anti-vaxx misinformation that you like to spread.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 09 2022 18:55 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception. When you post something, I don't have the slightest interest writing a paragraph debunking your comment. I write very short comments and then ignore your responses, because that's all you deserve of my time.
The point is that you're once again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed that out by showing that California had 59% more infections. I could've instead pointed to other data points showing how different California is, but I chose that one.
I do not hold your hand anymore, because that's a wasted effort. You will always misinterpret data however you want anyway, so I don't make any additional effort explaining things to you. I treat you like a child, as I do with notorious anti-vaxxers. I treat you like someone who's incapable of doing basic statistical breakdowns.
Don't get used to me writing more than a short sentence in response to your comments. I'm only explaining why I won't be doing it in the future either.
Your conclusion is wrong. A higher rate of long covid in California does not indicate whatsoever that vaccination doesn't prevent long covid. It's wrong, and it's terribly wrong. It's your usual anti-vaxx misinformation that you like to spread.
All he did was pointing out that your argument doesnt make sense, because it doesnt.
If Blackjack said: 154 Californians with long covid vs 128 Floridians with long covid then your argument would be correct, but it is not what happened here.
|
On December 09 2022 18:55 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception.
lol.
|
On December 09 2022 18:55 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler +BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception. When you post something, I don't have the slightest interest writing a paragraph debunking your comment. I write very short comments and then ignore your responses, because that's all you deserve of my time.
The point is that you're once again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed that out by showing that California had 59% more infections. I could've instead pointed to other data points showing how different California is, but I chose that one.
I do not hold your hand anymore, because that's a wasted effort. You will always misinterpret data however you want anyway, so I don't make any additional effort explaining things to you. I treat you like a child, as I do with notorious anti-vaxxers. I treat you like someone who's incapable of doing basic statistical breakdowns.
Don't get used to me writing more than a short sentence in response to your comments. I'm only explaining why I won't be doing it in the future either.
Your conclusion is wrong. A higher rate of long covid in California does not indicate whatsoever that vaccination doesn't prevent long covid. It's wrong, and it's terribly wrong. It's your usual anti-vaxx misinformation that you like to spread.
Only going to respond to the last paragraph here and ignore the ad hom attacks.
This is another dishonest misrepresentation of the discussion. Quote me where I said vaccination does not prevent long-COVID. For someone that freaks out anytime you feel that you get misrepresented you sure don't mind doing it to others. In fact I said exactly the opposite, allow me to quote the relevant portion of my post:
On December 09 2022 06:03 BlackJack wrote:But then you have to consider how much Long-COVID would be prevented by that extra 10% coverage. Because not everyone that gets vaccinated is immune from long-COVID. Studies vary widely and only a fraction of that 10% would be prevented from getting Long-COVID.
So I actually conclude that vaccination does indeed prevent long-COVID. I never claimed otherwise. My specific claim was that the level of Long-COVID prevented specifically by installing vaccine mandates would not be a a significantly large amount.
Indeed you are the one that failed to back up your claim that just by the sheer fact that California has a ton more people in their state and thus a ton more cases they are doing better at preventing long-COVID than Florida because they have similar rates per capita. This is not a logical conclusion to draw and you could make the same comparison to smaller countries that have even higher rates of vaccination than California.
Edit: Bolding a portion for JimmiC who managed to read this post but then immediately respond with a post that begins "The science disagrees with you. The data points to Vaccines reducing long covid" Although he didn't quote me so it's possible he was responding to someone else arguing that vaccination doesn't reduce long-COVID but I haven't seen anyone else making that claim either so who knows who he is talking to honestly.
|
At least i now know how how people categorize someone being an "anti-vaxxer", lol. Something to learn every day.
|
|
|
On December 09 2022 19:33 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 18:55 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception. When you post something, I don't have the slightest interest writing a paragraph debunking your comment. I write very short comments and then ignore your responses, because that's all you deserve of my time.
The point is that you're once again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed that out by showing that California had 59% more infections. I could've instead pointed to other data points showing how different California is, but I chose that one.
I do not hold your hand anymore, because that's a wasted effort. You will always misinterpret data however you want anyway, so I don't make any additional effort explaining things to you. I treat you like a child, as I do with notorious anti-vaxxers. I treat you like someone who's incapable of doing basic statistical breakdowns.
Don't get used to me writing more than a short sentence in response to your comments. I'm only explaining why I won't be doing it in the future either.
Your conclusion is wrong. A higher rate of long covid in California does not indicate whatsoever that vaccination doesn't prevent long covid. It's wrong, and it's terribly wrong. It's your usual anti-vaxx misinformation that you like to spread. All he did was pointing out that your argument doesnt make sense, because it doesnt. If Blackjack said: 154 Californians with long covid vs 128 Floridians with long covid then your argument would be correct, but it is not what happened here.
California has a far lower rate of covid deaths and a far lower CFR as compared to Florida. As a result California has more covid survivors. We can conclude that, if there's a causal effect, then California had the better vaccine policy leading to more survivors.
We can therefore not conclude a failure of vaccines to prevent California's higher rate of long covid. This is for a few reasons. For example, covid survivors may be a lot more likely to have long covid. Or in other words the benefit of survival may come with the downside of long covid.
It's called "survivorship bias".
|
|
|
Norway28747 Posts
BJ is not telling people to worry about myocarditis from the vaccines, he's saying let's not pretend it doesn't exist.
|
On December 09 2022 20:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 19:33 Razyda wrote:On December 09 2022 18:55 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception. When you post something, I don't have the slightest interest writing a paragraph debunking your comment. I write very short comments and then ignore your responses, because that's all you deserve of my time.
The point is that you're once again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed that out by showing that California had 59% more infections. I could've instead pointed to other data points showing how different California is, but I chose that one.
I do not hold your hand anymore, because that's a wasted effort. You will always misinterpret data however you want anyway, so I don't make any additional effort explaining things to you. I treat you like a child, as I do with notorious anti-vaxxers. I treat you like someone who's incapable of doing basic statistical breakdowns.
Don't get used to me writing more than a short sentence in response to your comments. I'm only explaining why I won't be doing it in the future either.
Your conclusion is wrong. A higher rate of long covid in California does not indicate whatsoever that vaccination doesn't prevent long covid. It's wrong, and it's terribly wrong. It's your usual anti-vaxx misinformation that you like to spread. All he did was pointing out that your argument doesnt make sense, because it doesnt. If Blackjack said: 154 Californians with long covid vs 128 Floridians with long covid then your argument would be correct, but it is not what happened here. California has a far lower rate of covid deaths and a far lower CFR as compared to Florida. As a result California has more covid survivors. We can conclude that, if there's a causal effect, then California had the better vaccine policy leading to more survivors. We can therefore not conclude a failure of vaccines to prevent California's higher rate of long covid. This is for a few reasons. For example, covid survivors may be a lot more likely to have long covid. Or in other words the benefit of survival may come with the downside of long covid. It's called "survivorship bias".
This is another really bad theory that is not well thought out.
Florida lost 0.38% of it's population in COVID deaths. California lost 0.24% of it's population in COVID deaths. It's not logical to conclude that Florida losing an extra 0.14% of the population to COVID causes them to be lost from the long-COVID numbers in a way that will dramatically shift the rates of long-COVID. You're talking about millions and millions of people with long-COVID, 10-15% of the entire adult population. A few thousand deaths lost from the numbers of long-COVID aren't going to change much of anything.
|
On December 09 2022 08:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote:On December 09 2022 08:08 Magic Powers wrote:
Surely you are not serious with your incomplete reasoning and hyper selection of data.
California had only 17.5% more deaths than Florida despite having an 80% greater population and 59% more infections. When adjusted for population size, California had a far lower rate of covid deaths than Florida. And here you are pointing to the rate of long covid and calling it a victory for Florida.
Are you absolutely fucking gone or what is up with you?
Edit: in fact California also completely outperforms Florida when looking at their CFR. No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. You can't just use gross numbers on one side and per capita numbers on the other to fit your argument. Do you want to talk about that or do you want to just deflect by going off on a tangent about case fatality rate and deaths when we weren't even talking about either of those things? I don't think you quite understand Magic Powers's argument. Because it is very sound, and the flaw that you seem to see in it is not actually in it.
My understanding of the situation is that BJ wasn't disagreeing with the soundness of the argument, but rather, the validity - that it might be the case that MP was citing a few correct statements, but that they weren't being combined in a logical sequence that leads to a proper syllogism. Not so much "I disagree with your premises or the conclusion", but rather "The steps of your premises don't actually lead to the conclusion". Percentages were at least being used ambiguously, if not inconsistently, leading to a lot of confusion. I think this boiled down to semantics, rather than an innate disagreement on the facts of the matter.
Also, MP, whether or not your frustration is justified, you know that saying + Show Spoiler +"BJ, you're an anti-vaxxer, and everything you say is tainted by that perception."
|
On December 08 2022 18:49 Magic Powers wrote:
16 million Americans currently have long covid (8% of the work force).
Is this btw an accurate number?
I haven't really paid attention before but i looked as it seemed quite high, apparently in Finland the number is roughly 1/10 of USA (4% of total population in comparison to 0,4%).
|
|
|
I don't think that's accurate number JimmiC. It's an accurate description of how scared we should be about getting myocarditis after taking a COVID shot though. 
|
Oh shit shots fired at the Scandinavian countries that suspended Moderna vaccine for certain people for fear mongering and spreading misinformation.
Also I never said you should be scared of myocarditis or COVID, but you do you. If someone is too afraid of COVID to leave their house I’m here to defend their right to not leave their house. If Novak Djokovic is so afraid of vaccine side effects that he doesn’t want the vaccine I’m here to defend his right. I’m not making any judgements on the reasonableness of either of these decisions.
Edit: but if u wanted my judgement on the reasonableness of these decisions I would say both are pretty dumb
|
On December 09 2022 21:37 BlackJack wrote:
Oh shit shots fired at the Scandinavian countries that banned Moderna vaccine for certain people for fear mongering and spreading misinformation.
Also I never said you should be scared of myocarditis or COVID, but you do you. If someone is too afraid of COVID to leave their house I’m here to defend their right to not leave their house. If Novak Djokovic is so afraid of vaccine side effects that he doesn’t want the vaccine I’m here to defend his right. I’m not making any judgements on the reasonableness of either of these decisions.
I think you're talking about me here? I know Moderna has been banned for certain "groups of people" in Finland. However i am not to decide anything about that. Also if there is a study that even 0.00000000000000000000000000001% more people will die and i get to decide if to take that or 0% (or closer to 0%) why would i not?
Because my country decides to give some other vaccine (which they didn't at the time i got mine btw) doesn't mean anything on my stance.
|
On December 09 2022 21:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 21:37 BlackJack wrote:
Oh shit shots fired at the Scandinavian countries that banned Moderna vaccine for certain people for fear mongering and spreading misinformation.
Also I never said you should be scared of myocarditis or COVID, but you do you. If someone is too afraid of COVID to leave their house I’m here to defend their right to not leave their house. If Novak Djokovic is so afraid of vaccine side effects that he doesn’t want the vaccine I’m here to defend his right. I’m not making any judgements on the reasonableness of either of these decisions. I think you're talking about me here? I know Moderna has been banned for certain "groups of people" in Finland. However i am not to decide anything about that. Also if there is a study that even 0.00000000000000000000000000001% more people will die and i get to decide if to take that or 0% (or closer to 0%) why would i not? Because my country decides to give some other vaccine (which they didn't at the time i got mine btw) doesn't mean anything on my stance.
No I’m talking to JimmiC who says I’m spreading misinformation by saying that myocarditis is a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines, particularly Moderna. Since it was suspended in your country for that reason JimmiC must also believe that the people in your country are also spreading misinformation and fear mongering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
