serious question

[SanDiego619]

Covid is a BS hoax. 99.97% survival rate and how many billions are pharma companies making off this experimental non-vaccine being pushed to the population?

[SPUTTER]

Subscriber, here's an article that discusses the 95% efficacy number.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

If a person just glances at the actual numbers, one could conclude that the claim the shot is effective is doubtful. But they will piss on your leg and tell you it's raining.

[as_rocketman]

This is the complete summary for the CDC report, I left nothing out.

Your error is remarkably simple.

Nowhere in the summary of the CDC report I copied is it implied that the shot prevents a person from catching covid. The other report, the one funded by Pfizer, only followed the participants for 2 months, not enough time to prove immunity or safety for that matter.

Changes in bold above. There are measurements and claims of sterilizing immunity. Just because you found a reference that talks about something else does not mean such a claim does not exist. I already showed you where to find those measurements.

[as_rocketman]

My motivation for emphasizing absolute risk reduction is because absolute numbers are more meaningful than percentages (you can derive one from the other, but not the reverse).

No. Your motivation for emphasizing that is because the letter you cited contains a soundbite that includes ARR, and if you don't understand what it says, it appears to be critical of vaccination.

But again, you don't understand the letter. I didn't need another demonstration of this fact, but you've provided one anyway:

For example, media lackeys report the need for continued lockdown due to a 100% surge in covid deaths, over the previous week. Then it turns out the absolute numbers that declaration was based on are 2 and 4 deaths. While technically a 100% increase, in terms of absolute risk, such a change would be in the noise. Something that should be monitored over the next few weeks, rather than reacted to.

My overarching point is that people are more likely to be scared into accepting lockdowns and experimental vaccination, if their risk of dying from covid went up 100%. But not if it went up from 0.02 to 0.04%.

Thus percentage are the numbers used to inform (scare) the public, rather than absolute numbers. The study I cited quoted absolute risk reduction/ The study then stated how quoting absolute risk reduction was not popular, because it did not sound significant (scary) enough. That does not mean the other numbers in that study (or other studies) are inaccurate (that is a different question, and an important one; but not my point).

Wrong. The letter is not a study, and your contrived example above has no bearing at all on the letter's intended point.

I might not understand how the 95% vax efficacy numbers were calculated. What I do understand is that Fauci funded gain of function research (weaponization) of covid at the Wuhan lab. As Fauci is also the one pushing vaxxes against the virus he had weaponized, I don't trust him, or anyone connected with him.

Off topic. Short attention span may be to blame for your misapprehension of the letter, but I'm just speculating.

The fact that healthy people were quarantined and that the case and death rates were talked up to justify the destruction of the world economy, and then the acceptance of an experimental vax, tends to make sensible people skeptical.

Way off topic.

You might not speculate about my motivation, but I am skeptical about the motivation of all pushing lockdowns and experimental vaccines, regardless of how effective they are. I did not even mention the potential for long term harm from the mRNA vaxxes. No point, as there is no data about that yet.

The bottom line is that I am not paying "protection money" to Fauci, Gates, or their stooges, sycophants and vax profiteers. I am suspicious of you, Sir, because you push experimental vaxxes and dismiss lower risk alternatives.

Perhaps you really do know so much about this to make sense of it. That would be the conclusion half the population reaches, considering your manner; while putting off the other half and making them suspicious of your motives.

Try to know what you're talking about before penning an Academy Award acceptance speech next time.

[subscriber]

Thanks Sputter,

I have seen this before, but have questions. One is how the study group of vaxxed and unvaxxed had their exposure to the virus measured or managed? Without actual exposure to the virus the vaccines are 100 % effective. So is the placebo.

If the study is just based on random chance "out in the wild", then pairs of vaxxed and unvaxed would need to be "joined at the hip" to ensure the same average exposure of the trial and control groups.

If the study groups were very large, perhaps the assumption of equal and real exposure becomes easier to accept. I think that is where we are now. The whole population is split into test and control groups. Time will tell if they are guinea pigs or lemmings.

[SPUTTER]

http://presscore.ca/biontech-sec-filing-provides-evidence-that-the-first-dose-of-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-caused-new-coronavirus-variants/

[as_rocketman]

If the study is just based on random chance "out in the wild", then pairs of vaxxed and unvaxed would need to be "joined at the hip" to ensure the same average exposure of the trial and control groups.

No, that's not necessary at all. The statistics are fine, and they work because this is a double-blind, randomized trial. (Well, two, one each Pfizer and Moderna. But they work the same.)

The way it works is as follows: You start with a pool of N individuals. You give N/2 a real dose, and the other N/2 a placebo. Nobody knows who has what.

Then you release all N individuals into the wild. They come back for PCR testing frequently (daily I think; the cites I provided before have methods described in them). Any positive test gets set aside for confirmation; once confirmed you increment the count of successful infections.

When the total number of infections reaches a threshold preset for a target level of statistical confidence, you then have your analysts look at who exactly was infected. For every single infected individual, you see if they were in the vaccine group or the control group. Make two tallies.

If the vaccine is ineffective, then the odds of being in the vaccine group are the same as placebo (or worse, I guess is possible). In that case it's like flipping a coin. For the first ten infected, you would expect five vaccine and five placebo. But you might get 6 vs. 4 or 3 vs. 7 or whatever. Ten is not enough to be sure.

100, on the other hand, is getting pretty good. You might see 46 vs. 54 instead of a perfect 50/50, but you really don't expect to see 90 vs. 10.

In the two Phase III initial results, what they saw was 8:162 and 5:95. Those are pretty nice results. They have been confirmed by the extended Phase III results, as I've already linked.

This experiment is an example of a Poisson process, and the statistics for such an experiment are remarkably well characterized. Thus it should give you pause if someone comes out of left field claiming the results are mischaracterized or misleading. This is something any experimentalist should be thoroughly familiar with.

If the study groups were very large, perhaps the assumption of equal and real exposure becomes easier to accept. I think that is where we are now. The whole population is split into test and control groups. Time will tell if they are guinea pigs or lemmings.

The study size is actually not relevant in the way you think. What matters is the number of infections -- those are the random "trials." The reason to have a large study group is so we reach a significant number of trials in a relatively short time.

This is also why Phase III for these vaccines could be conducted so much faster than usual. For rare diseases, it might take years to reach a decent number of exposures.

[as_rocketman]

Sorry as_rocketman, but I'm only quoting your own citation. The other study you are referring too, the Polack/Pfizer, study only covers two months.

You don't get to put blinders on and deny the existence of everything you cannot see. The first time I explained this to you, I cited and quoted the extended Phase III, which is much more than two months in duration, not that your objection is even valid to begin with. You have nothing to complain about.

[SPUTTER]

Thanks Sputter,

I have seen this before, but have questions. One is how the study group of vaxxed and unvaxxed had their exposure to the virus measured or managed? Without actual exposure to the virus the vaccines are 100 % effective. So is the placebo.

If the study is just based on random chance "out in the wild", then pairs of vaxxed and unvaxed would need to be "joined at the hip" to ensure the same average exposure of the trial and control groups.

If the study groups were very large, perhaps the assumption of equal and real exposure becomes easier to accept. I think that is where we are now. The whole population is split into test and control groups. Time will tell if they are guinea pigs or lemmings.

Right, a more accurate and definitive test would have been to expose the vaccinated group to the wild virus. That would be unethical though but then again so is mass vaccinating the population with something experimental.

[subscriber]

The study size is actually not relevant in the way you think. What matters is the number of infections -- those are the random "trials." The reason to have a large study group is so we reach a significant number of trials in a relatively short time.

Thanks Rocketman,

How many PCR cycles were used to determine each of these trial infections?

What happens when the daily PCR results show an infection one day, but not the following day? Or does the test stop for an individual as soon as they have one positive test? Is there some way to determine false positives and false negatives and null them out. Trend lines from week to week perhaps.

[elSquid]

-- Michael

[as_rocketman]

Thanks Rocketman,

How many PCR cycles were used to determine each of these trial infections?

What happens when the daily PCR results show an infection one day, but not the following day? Or does the test stop for an individual as soon as they have one positive test? Is there some way to determine false positives and false negatives and null them out. Trend lines from week to week perhaps.

Methods section has the answers:

Source

This also doesn't matter so much, provided you perform the same test for everyone -- double-blinding is preserved. If the tests themselves were noisy, this would result in the vaccines looking less effective than they actually were.

[SPUTTER]

There's only one thing that's certain, is nobody knows without any doubt whether the shots are effective. Just go read the CDC website, even they say they are still learning about efficacy. So I'm not the one with blinders on. I'm not the one who made a decision without knowing all the facts. And don't put away those blinders just yet because you'll need them to take the next "Delta variant experimental booster". Another shot nobody will know nothing about.

[as_rocketman]

There's only one thing that's certain, is nobody knows without any doubt whether the shots are effective. Just go read the CDC website, even they say they are still learning about efficacy. So I'm not the one with blinders on. I'm not the one who made a decision without knowing all the facts. And don't put away those blinders just yet because you'll need them to take the next "Delta variant experimental booster". Another shot nobody will know nothing about.

So you don't believe in the binomial distribution??

There are a few things we need to refine with this stuff, sure, but there is no doubt whatsoever of vaccine efficacy.

I'm not concerned about the "delta variant," that's mostly newspaper confusion. Early studies confirm the expected result that vaccination is also proof against this particular strain. Someday the virus may evolve a significant escape, but it's not expected given the low mutation rates and the highly conserved nature of the mRNA template.

[as_rocketman]

Weird double.

Probably a latent side effect of vaccination.