“In a letter to UK Statistics Authority chairman Sir David Norgrove, Lib Dem MSP Willie Rennie wrote: “The public have a right to always expect the Scottish Government’s interpretation of data to be robust.
“This is even more important when that data is being used to justify and substantiate restrictions on their liberty and freedoms under the use of emergency powers.”
No fan of Nicola Sturgeon. A doggedly self serving and dishonest creature – which translates as politician I guess.
As for cases predominantly being among the vaccinated – they CANNOT be from the unvaccinated, as vax rates in the over 60s are about 100% in Scotland. In the more vulnerable groups, THERE ARE NO UNVACCINATED. Overall 75% have had 2 jabs
In a random group of 1000, let’s say 750 are vaccinated (population average) and (according to real data) 1/20 currently have covid.
However, ignoring age and risk factors and treating everyone as the same;
Among the unvaccinated, cases are 250/20 – ie 12 cases.
And from the vaccinated, 750/20 – ie 37 cases.
Why then is it remarkable that the hospitals are full of the vaccinated?
But “vaccinated people are getting sick, so vaccines don’t work” I hear you say.
Nope. Vaccines do not, never have and never can prevent infection. They’re not a space suit. They prevent more serious disease by accepting the immune response. That’s what they’re for. And these vaccines do that really well.
The important question is WHO IS DYING? And the answer is only the most vulnerable, for whom even vaccination isn’t enough.
The next question in importance is how many WOULD be dying, were they not vaccinated?
Maths is the enemy of those possessed by the conspiracies, that desperately want to make the case that the snow is whatever colour they’re shouting to each other that it is.
https://fullfact.org/health/expose-scotland-vaccinations/
And now, sadly I expect that will unleash the dismissals of reasoning…..
So the argument that the vaccination was needed to ‘stop the spread’, that is the justification for the mandates, and demonising the vaccine hesitant, is and always was, utter BS?
You lost me.
That’s what you interpret from it being overwhelmingly the unvaccinated that are dying?
Or that the pandemic control measures prevented the rampant spread and resultant huge death rate (where implemented and adhered to), until vaccines were available to blunt the disease?
So the vaccines aren’t as effective as we would like in totally preventing disease in as much of the population as we’d like. True.
Not dead seems like a not too shabby outcome.
And I don’t see the vaccine hesitant as demons.
Though I’m not so sure about the vaccine over confident and willfully ignorant, those who insist on spreading the falsehoods that created most of the hesitancy.
Interesting that you label your own post as “reasoning”, leaving the implication that those who look at your data differently are, a priori, wrong.
However, looking at your data in another way, 12 out of 250 and 37 out of 750 are essentially the same percentage. IOW, about 4.8% of both groups caught covid. Where is the advantage of having the jabs? One would suspect, that IF the jabs worked, especially after 2, 3 or 4 jabs, that the percentage of the vaccinated catching covid would be much less than for the unvaccinated.
And, looking at the population as a whole, 1,000 in your scenario: 37/12=3.08, or, the vaccinated are 3X more likely to catch covid than the unvaccinated.
Ya, playing math games is certainly fun. Reminds me of the old saying “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bull”
My numbers were illustrative, not real, explaining why – at the boundary – when 100% are vaccinated, 100% of cases will be from the vaccinated.
Do you know the actual, typical case rate among the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated? Now that might be useful data.
“During October–November [`21] unvaccinated persons had 13.9 and 53.2 times the risks for infection and COVID-19–associated death, respectively, compared with fully vaccinated persons who received booster doses, and 4.0 and 12.7 times the risks compared with fully vaccinated persons without booster doses.”
From here;
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?s_cid=mm7104e2_w
How could you read my made up numbers as either data, or representative of reality? I said they were not.
It seems you cannot differentiate by seriousness, but insist on equating serious/fatal with non fatal.
Between the vaccinated and unvacciated, who is dying?
Also, I’m not sure you understand “a priori”. It means “derived from reasoning not experience”.
So a priori, you’re of the view that vaccines are bad and covid is trivial – and no amount of data seems able to dent your a priori reasoning.
And a priori you reject the benefit data in favor of vaccination as false or manipulated.
And instead, you a priori cling to conclusions that fly in the face of the data, because you believe your reasoning to be unassailable.
Jon–
Like GreyGeek, I too am a STEM professor, well versed in statistical analysis, and author of several books. But your numbers are not the main reason that your argument is faulty. Here are the problems:
1. As others have pointed out, the vaccine was sold as something that would stop the spread the way that vaccines since Jenner have done, namely by simulating an infection so that the immune system would build up the antibodies and other resources needed to fight off a real infection. The Smallpox and other conventional vaccines DO NOT turn vaccinated people into spreaders or superspreaders, even for a short period of time. The recipient, in nearly all cases, is protected, and the incidence of the disease rapidly diminishes. Smallpox was wiped out around the world with this vaccine, which is no longer administered. This means that in fact Fauci and CDC were lying to us if they knew that the Covid jabs did not act in the way that other, conventional vaccines work. Or they were just ignorant about how vaccines do work. In either case, they have destroyed their credibility.
2. Your argument confuses deaths with cases. The vaccines may reduce the number of serious cases and deaths, but not the number of cases. A cursory glance at the percent of cases over time plotted on the same graph as the percent of vaccinations over time shows that there is virtually no correlation. This means that it is necessary to balance the risk of serious infection against the side effects of the vaccine.
3. It is therefore also necessary to balance the society costs of the various mandates, lockdowns, etc. against the benefits of the vaccine, including suicides, depression, lost employment, years of schooling, etc.. These are, pace Fauci, an essential part of public health. He failed miserably on that score.
4. Regarding the masks, there are studies on both sides but the argument against masks and lockdowns actually proceeds from experience. After the 1918-19 Spanish Flu, studies were done to determine the efficacy of these methods of fighting a virus. As it happens, some cities implemented masks, etc., and others did not. A statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in outcome for these cities. No doubt with this result in mind Fauci et al said at the beginning of the current pandemic that masks were useless. Only later, for no clear reason, he changed his mind. We also have the example of Sweden, which did not enforce any mandates, have any lockdowns, etc., and it has a better outcome than most countries that did.
4. A virus only subsides when the population acquires herd immunity. The idea that you can hide an entire population is absurd. All you can do is to try to keep the vulnerable isolated, but with a virus this is very difficult. That is why it was, as you point out, the vulnerable who were most adversely affected. The goals were never made clear, but I assume that the idea was by isolating them to the degree possible, they might get only a small dose of the virus and be able to fight it off. Or maybe to protect them until a vaccine became available. But this didn’t work very well, and as Kennedy points out in his book, the real failure of Fauci and the CDC is that they did not, at the very beginning, canvas doctors around the world to find out what worked and what didn’t, utilizing existing medicines. This can only be described as dereliction of duty.
You’re clearly an intelligent, well qualified and experienced individual. I won’t crow my qualifications in response.
But I’m no more a virologist, vaccinologist, medical researcher or medical statistician than you, so the ground between us is level enough.
A big difference between us is that I’m not angry, I’m optimistic.
“1. As others have pointed out, the vaccine was sold as something that would stop the spread the way that vaccines since Jenner have done, namely by simulating an infection so that the immune system would build up the antibodies and other resources needed to fight off a real infection.”
Random sample, Virginia – simply because it popped up, not because its the “best” evidence.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/see-the-numbers/covid-19-in-virginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/
Infection 4+ times more likely in the unvaccinated compared with the two times vaccinated. 3 times vaxxed not shown, but elsewhere that pushes it much higher.
Note, some of the smallpox vaccines required 3 to 4 doses to get to high efficacy.
Smallpox is not a respiratory virus, so its a tricky comparison. Covid makes no transmission puss.
Flu is a better comparison. Flu vaccines are marginally effective some years, but still they save lives and nobody argues against them.
“2. Your argument confuses deaths with cases. The vaccines may reduce the number of serious cases and deaths, but not the number of cases.”
No, I don’t. This is the trap in so many of these conversations. Cases lead to deaths, not dead is the outcome most desired. Vaccination reduces CASES and the probability of DEATH. Period.
Reducing the seriousness of cases is the ENTIRE POINT. Do you argue that, because the vaccines are not 100% effective they have no place in our response? That’s an odd position, when no vaccine is 100% effective.
“A cursory glance at the percent of cases over time plotted on the same graph as the percent of vaccinations over time shows that there is virtually no correlation.”
Do you have data from the parallel universe where nobody was vaccinated and everything else is identical to here? If not, this is a very confused statement comparing reality with an assumption. Do you KNOW what it would have looked like without vaccines? I think not, so the lack of correlation is not evident.
“3. It is therefore also necessary to balance the society costs of the various mandates, lockdowns, etc. against the benefits of the vaccine, including suicides, depression, lost employment, years of schooling, etc..”
Agreed.
As for your Fauci views, I neither agree nor care. He is irrelevant to this discussion, just a convenient bogey man.
What have the effects you describe been, in NZ and China, where pandemic response has been thorough and effective? That data might be informative and cut across the generalities.
“4. Regarding the masks, there are studies on both sides…….”
Yes there are. Cite the ones you feel make the case, don’t postulate ambiguity and then fail to deliver the killing blow.
I see bad meta studies of bad evaluations that show low efficacy, and better but not huge trials that show benefits.
And I can apply a priori reasoning that spraying saliva is more likely to spread respiratory infection. Hard to counter that most basic reasoning.
“4…” repeated “…A virus only subsides when the population acquires herd immunity. The idea that you can hide an entire population is absurd.”
Agreed. So you advocate ripping off the bandaid 2 years ago and the devil take the hindmost.
Happily (from my perspective) we don’t live in that brutal and (from my perspective) mad timeline.
Herd immunity will come from a mix of infection and vaccination. Slowing the spread down means less deaths, more immunity, less collateral damage in the healthcare system and more time to develop good palliative protocols.
Either way we win – but your way kills so many more.
correction, some of the POLIO vaccines required 3 to 4 applications to get to high efficacy
“Nope. Vaccines do not, never have and never can prevent infection. They’re not a space suit. They prevent more serious disease by accepting the immune response. That’s what they’re for.”
Flatly false. Polio, smallpox, etc, are fully effective.
Jabbers are trying to morph the definition of vaccine. The Covid vax isn’t a vax, so we’ll change the definition of vax.
As far as Covid vax making cases of Covid less severe, that is a complete fabrication. We don’t know that.
So its clear you don’t understand how the immune system or vaccines work, ‘cos you really do seem to imagine they’re a space suit.
I suggest you do “your own research” from rather better sources before displaying such certainty.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2279715#:~:text=The%20innate%20immune%20response%20is,quickly%20begin%20fighting%20an%20infection.
for example.
Being ‘immune’ to a disease does not mean the pathogen doesn’t get IN, it means it cannot get HOLD.
The covid pathogen is harder to hit with antibodies (fast immune response) than it is with the slower, adaptive mechanisms – so there’s a tendency for the disease to get more of a hold in some people, despite their (natural or vaccinated) immunity.
Thats why people can get a second round, but its generally weaker than the first.
Just because the story you’ve heard fits the mythology you have been infected with doesn’t mean its right.
The polio vaccines require 3 or 4 exposures to get to 95 to 99% effect. Flu vaccines are less effective, because flue moves faster.
As for the covid vaccines making the disease less severe, look at WHO IS DYING to get insight into that.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
Not knowing is just fine. Not knowing, and not bothering to grasp the facts but asserting your mythology, to comply with a belief system? Not so much
Interesting post. Perhaps, instead of using base 5 your link, from which you derive your argument, could have used base 10, making comparisons much easier by just sliding the decimal point. A figurative population of 100 is much easier to play with than 60.
However, the author of your link had more to choose from than a 50-10 ratio. Using 10 deaths with 5 in each group, he could have put those ten anywhere, dividing the group to give 100% mortality among either the vaccinated or the unvaccinated. He could have added increased granularity and precision by using a population of 1000. Then, as a capstone, your link jumps to Switzerland and posts a graph which certainly looks damaging to those against the mRNA vaccine. Note that being against the mRNA vaccine does NOT make one against all vaccines, contrary to the MNM. Vaccines that work and are not dangerous are wonderful. (I am 80 and can clearly remember receiving ONE does of the polio vaccine dispensed in a sugar cube. That dose worked perfectly, but the vaccine given by shot often required a booster.) Most vaccines are wonderful, unfortunately, not RotaShield or the mRNA vaccines. The top graph in your link is for “all ages”. Comparing that against other age groups we see that the “all ages” graph is, effectively, a mimic of the graphs of the 60+ groups, especially the 80+ group. All that proves is that old people are more likely to die than younger people. As I said, I’m 80 and most of my friends and siblings have passed. It goes with the territory.
Have you noticed that since covid was added to the 3 line cause of death on death certificates more deaths have been listed as “with covid”, which is interpreted as “from covid”? Last year, deaths from flu were listed as 1,000, which are normally around 20k-60k per year, until it was pointed out. Then, miraculously, the deaths due to flu leaped to 11k. A 19 year old who died in a motorcycle accident is listed as a death “with covid”, adding to the covid death count, because a postmortem blood test showed covid antigens. A man died after a four-year battle with brain cancer is also a “covid death” for the same reason. On May 10th of 2020 the CDC changed the rules for counting covid infections from one of having a positive PCR to a “presumptive” test, i.e., without any test the attending medical personnel assumes the patient has covid. This caused the covid count to leap from 1 to 16 because they took the count 5 level deep in “contact tracing”. So, for the last 2 years any death in which covid is detected is presumed to be DUE to covid. Today, any death shortly after receiving a covid vaccine shot is presumed to NOT be due to covid. Strange how the mental dissonance work.
Have you also noticed that the CDC did a metastudy of ALL the RCT’s concerning the use of face masks to block virons and using the 10 best studies they concluded that face masks do not stop virons from entering or exiting the wearer. I’m sure you can find the paper, published first on Feb 5th and then on May 5th, 2020, on the CDC website. Dispite looking at all the studies from 1946 to July of 2018, and stating flatly that face masks do not work to protect the wearer, they advised wearing them. Fauci stated that masks “may stop a droplet or two but doesn’t stop the passage of viruses” but later flip and started wearing masks, when the cameras were on him.
I’ll end with the graph of Switzerland’s current covid status.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/switzerland/
Notice that on Jan 20 there are over 29,000 cases added that day. On the same day there were only 12 deaths (7 day moving average for both). That’s 0.04% dying from covid, or, 99.96% surviving, irrespective of age group. That difference is not unusual, and it is not due to the vaccine. I’ve observed that ratio on a daily basis in my state since last May and in about every other state I’ve looked at. Using Jupyter Notebook, pandas, numpy and matplotlib I’ve graphed the raw data from the CDC and other sources and confirmed the accuracy of that pattern. The deaths due to covid, vaccinated or not, is always a fraction of 1%, sometimes 3 orders of magnitude less.
I’ve also run the “new cases” and “new deaths” against Benford’s Law and found that in EVERY case I’ve tested, which is all of them for all of last year in my state, the “new cases” violated Benford’s Law, which the “new deaths” never did. CDC’s “New Deaths” is based on actual death certificates and cannot be easily manipulated, except for mentally thinking “with” means “from”. New cases counts, however, have no legal document on which to base the count, and fraud is obvious. Run the PCR Ct more than 25 times and get higher (false) positives.
When I was in grad school, cooking, trimming, padding, cherry-picking or creating data out of thin air was grounds for immediate expulsion. Today, not so much, especially since we can lie so easily with computer models, and can keep our data secret. On YT is a video, “Do Scientists Cheat?”, from the PBS NOVA series. Excellent video. The figure they reached in 1987 was 48%.
I have five teaching certifications and taught Physics, Chemistry, Calc I, II and II, DiffEq, Anat&Phys, Microbiology and computer programming in college for almost 20 years, retiring from teaching in 1995. I started my own computer consulting business in 1983 and retired it in 2008, which I ran simultaneously while teaching. I was also asked by my state to investigate several homicides involving state highway patrol offices who were being sued for wrongful death, but those are other issues.
You put in a long day.
Let me try to reply succinctly, but including your text for clarity;
“Interesting post. Perhaps, instead of using base 5 your link, from which you derive your argument, could have used base 10, making comparisons much easier by just sliding the decimal point. A figurative population of 100 is much easier to play with than 60.”
Numbers for illustration (i.e. not data), but it seems you reject that idea consistently.
“However, the author of your link had more to choose from than a 50-10 ratio. Using 10 deaths with 5 in each group, he could have put those ten anywhere, dividing the group to give 100% mortality among either the vaccinated or the unvaccinated. He could have added increased granularity and precision by using a population of 1000.”
Indeed. Would that have altered the point he was making? It feels like it would not.
“Then, as a capstone, your link jumps to Switzerland and posts a graph which certainly looks damaging to those against the mRNA vaccine.”
He illustrated with actual data from multiple countries which certainly does undermine the story you’re presenting.
“Note that being against the mRNA vaccine does NOT make one against all vaccines, contrary to the MNM.”
I make no assertions to this point. Nor do I care about pro or anti vaccine mindsets, because there’s simply no place for a priori reasoning about outcomes, when there is so much data.
“Vaccines that work and are not dangerous are wonderful. (I am 80 and can clearly remember receiving ONE does of the polio vaccine dispensed in a sugar cube. That dose worked perfectly, but the vaccine given by shot often required a booster.) Most vaccines are wonderful, unfortunately, not RotaShield or the mRNA vaccines. The top graph in your link is for “all ages”. Comparing that against other age groups we see that the “all ages” graph is, effectively, a mimic of the graphs of the 60+ groups, especially the 80+ group. All that proves is that old people are more likely to die than younger people. As I said, I’m 80 and most of my friends and siblings have passed. It goes with the territory.”
Unclear what your point is – other than “vaccines good” which I cannot argue with.
“Have you noticed that since covid was added to the 3 line cause of death on death certificates more deaths have been listed as “with covid”, which is interpreted as “from covid”? Last year, deaths from flu were listed as 1,000, which are normally around 20k-60k per year, until it was pointed out. Then, miraculously, the deaths due to flu leaped to 11k. A 19 year old who died in a motorcycle accident is listed as a death “with covid”, adding to the covid death count, because a postmortem blood test showed covid antigens. A man died after a four-year battle with brain cancer is also a “covid death” for the same reason. On May 10th of 2020 the CDC changed the rules for counting covid infections from one of having a positive PCR to a “presumptive” test, i.e., without any test the attending medical personnel assumes the patient has covid. This caused the covid count to leap from 1 to 16 because they took the count 5 level deep in “contact tracing”. So, for the last 2 years any death in which covid is detected is presumed to be DUE to covid. Today, any death shortly after receiving a covid vaccine shot is presumed to NOT be due to covid. Strange how the mental dissonance work.”
Huge claims, please link to analysis, otherwise this looks like a jumble of things you’ve been told, rather than result of your reasoning of evidence.
I gravely doubt the presumption that the falsification of millions of death certificates, requiring the complicity of hundreds of thousands of medical professionals, cementing the case for confirmation of a dataset that brings no advantage to anyone has any truth to it.
Especially given that such falsification would result in dismissal when discovered – as it generally would be.
You’ve been sold a bill of goods that, a priori, makes no sense.
“Have you also noticed that the CDC did a metastudy of ALL the RCT’s concerning the use of face masks to block virons and using the 10 best studies they concluded that face masks do not stop virons from entering or exiting the wearer. I’m sure you can find the paper, published first on Feb 5th and then on May 5th, 2020, on the CDC website. Dispite looking at all the studies from 1946 to July of 2018, and stating flatly that face masks do not work to protect the wearer, they advised wearing them. Fauci stated that masks “may stop a droplet or two but doesn’t stop the passage of viruses” but later flip and started wearing masks, when the cameras were on him.”
We weren’t talking about masks, but since you raise it;
**A large, well-designed cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh in late 2020 found that surgical or cloth mask distribution, role-modeling, and active mask promotion tripled mask use to 42.3% in intervention villages compared to 13.3% in comparison villages. In villages receiving mask interventions, symptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by approximately 9% relative to comparison villages. In villages randomized to receive surgical masks, symptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower (relative reduction 11.1% overall). The results of this study show that even modest increases in community use of masks can effectively reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19).37**
Pretty solid methodology, strong effect measured.
From here;
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
Your anger at everything CDC is a barrier to reasoning.
Your qualifications and experience are astonishing, a long life well spent. I congratulate you.
And we agree entirely about the importance of data accuracy.
Where we diverge, it seems to me, is that you choose not to use the big data, preferring to draw conclusions from limited scope, or stuff you heard, offer no references and seem to get cross that your arguments are not driving the decision making.
You said yourself;
“…….and posts a graph which certainly looks damaging to those against the mRNA vaccine…..”
How about a clear and simple exposition from you, answering the good-science question – WHY IS THAT WRONG?
Great post GreyGeek.
Those of us that are highly numerate have seen what is really happening since the start of the pandemic.
Our Great Leaders never even tried to do a cost-benefit analysis on lockdowns and mandates. Civilization was stampeded over a cliff.
I’d love to share the approach you used in your advanced numeracy.
Can you explain to the ignorant, both what numeric conclusions you reach and how they were informed by actual data?
Nothing to say?
I’m genuinely asking to be shown where and how I’m wrong.
Truly, I like nothing more – because it means I learned something.
Teach me.
This was just getting good. I imagine this to be what the meeting of wise men was like at Mars’ hill. Here’s some “data” to consider:
In a vision of the glory that is yet to be revealed, Isaiah asked, “where is the scribe, where is the weigher, where is he that counted the towers?”
Paul makes reference to this in his first letter to the Corinthians saying,
“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
So no data then.
Shame.