Debates
07 Aug 21
09 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidIf your personal opinion is clutching at straws and constantly grabbing hold of paranoid consiracies and wrong decision making… then it’s probably best to do some research and learn something for once.
Help me...am I wrong, or does Marauder ever have an original, personal opinion about anything ?
Just because someone thinks the Earth is flat, doesn’t mean that his opinion should be valued at all.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
09 Aug 21
@wildgrass saidThe study linked in the OP?
what study? I think it's a great example since cases are high and there's nearly exactly 50/50 vaccination rate right now.
09 Aug 21
@joe-shmo said1) That's not a study. It's just data.
The study linked in the OP?
2) You were complaining that the data wasn't current (or was chronologically suspect? Or something?). But the data from Florida is current data. That's why I posted it. The current data corroborates what that other data also says.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@wildgrass saidIt’s not a study? The authors didn’t just present data. They did some compilation and analysis. Sure seems like a bit of a study?
1) That's not a study. It's just data.
2) You were complaining that the data wasn't current (or was chronologically suspect? Or something?). But the data from Florida is current data. That's why I posted it. The current data corroborates what that other data also says.
09 Aug 21
@joe-shmo saidSure a study that, despite your feeble nitpicking attempt, shows that the unvaccinated have a much greater chance of catching COVID19 and an even greater chance of being hospitalized or dying from it than those vaccinated.
It’s not a study? The authors didn’t just present data. They did some compilation and analysis. Sure seems like a bit of a study?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder saidEven if they collected data until July, the majority of deaths/hospitalizations they are using occurred before March ( in every state ). The vaccination rates before March are practically nil ( probably less than 20% by the beginning of March ) across the US. The "data" is heavily biased in favor of extremely high vaccine efficacy for this very reason.
Sure a study that, despite your feeble nitpicking attempt, shows that the unvaccinated have a much greater chance of catching COVID19 and an even greater chance of being hospitalized or dying from it than those vaccinated.
@joe-shmo saidIrregardless. The point is you were complaining that the analysis wasn't appropriate because of the time course. But doing the analysis another way leads to the same conclusion. The CURRENT data out of Florida corroborates their findings.
It’s not a study? The authors didn’t just present data. They did some compilation and analysis. Sure seems like a bit of a study?
In Florida (vaccination rate 49% ), RIGHT NOW, more than 90% of those hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
10 Aug 21
@wildgrass saidFlorida was not in the study, so it corroborates nothing. Using sound methodology, which they have not done is critical to the analysis and the findings in the report are skewed in favor of increased vaccine efficacy.
Irregardless. The point is you were complaining that the analysis wasn't appropriate because of the time course. But doing the analysis another way leads to the same conclusion. The CURRENT data out of Florida corroborates their findings.
In Florida (vaccination rate 49% ), RIGHT NOW, more than 90% of those hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated.
11 Aug 21
@joe-shmo saidMaybe you don't like it, but...
Florida was not in the study, so it corroborates nothing. Using sound methodology, which they have not done is critical to the analysis and the findings in the report are skewed in favor of increased vaccine efficacy.
IT FITS THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CORROBORATE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@wildgrass saidIt does not "corroborate" the findings in the report. There was no analysis performed for the state of Florida. For Florida's current trend to "corroborate" the analysis, their needs to have been an analysis!
Maybe you don't like it, but...
IT FITS THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CORROBORATE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11 Aug 21
@joe-shmo saidSheeesh you're a tough customer. See a thing flying and twittering about and laying eggs but might not be a bird. Maybe it's this new thing that no one's ever seen or described before. Science still really hasn't proven that birds even exist.
It does not "corroborate" the findings in the report. There was no analysis performed for the state of Florida. For Florida's current trend to "corroborate" the analysis, their needs to have been an analysis!
How do you square that >90%+ of the hospitalized COVID patients currently in Florida are unvaccinated if the vaccine doesn't work?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@wildgrass saidDid I say vaccines don't work...no. Full Stop.
Sheeesh you're a tough customer. See a thing flying and twittering about and laying eggs but might not be a bird. Maybe it's this new thing that no one's ever seen or described before. Science still really hasn't proven that birds even exist.
How do you square that >90%+ of the hospitalized COVID patients currently in Florida are unvaccinated if the vaccine doesn't work?
I said the study linked has piss poor methodology, and the figures presented ( like 0.09% of all COVID deaths are vaccinated in NJ ) are greatly exaggerated by this "study" across the board. Its trash analysis and should be treated as such. That is what I'm arguing. It is not ok as a "scientist" to misrepresent objective reality by TWO full orders of magnitude ( or more ) and not be criticized for it. The authors are acting as propogandists... not scientists.
11 Aug 21
@joe-shmo saidThe data is incomplete for sure. There's no way to avoid studying this as a moving target. But they address the issue of vaccination rates as a caveat and the "implications" statements seem sound. Despite the caveats it's not all trash. We need to start somewhere, and their conclusions have been corroborated with recent state-level data showing that the overwhelming majority of current COVID hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated. The authors point out, "moving forward... more robust state-level data will help to monitor ongoing vaccine effectiveness..."
Did I say vaccines don't work...no. Full Stop.
I said the study linked has piss poor methodology, and the figures presented ( like 0.09% of all COVID deaths are vaccinated in NJ ) are greatly exaggerated by this "study" across the board. Its trash analysis and should be treated as such. That is what I'm arguing. It is not ok as a "scientist" to misrepresent objec ...[text shortened]... ( or more ) and not be criticized for it. The authors are acting as propogandists... not scientists.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
12 Aug 21
4 edits
@wildgrass said"The data is incomplete for sure. "
The data is incomplete for sure. There's no way to avoid studying this as a moving target. But they address the issue of vaccination rates as a caveat and the "implications" statements seem sound. Despite the caveats it's not all trash. We need to start somewhere, and their conclusions have been corroborated with recent state-level data showing that the overwhelming majorit ...[text shortened]... oving forward... more robust state-level data will help to monitor ongoing vaccine effectiveness..."
Incomplete is not the correct word for it. The data is heavily skewed. They are dividing apples by oranges and getting cherries and calling it "science"...
"There's no way to avoid studying this as a moving target."
And as a moving target... they need to apply some statistical methodology, and lets see some error bars.
And if they are making such a egregious errors in something so fundamentally basic as this they aren't worth worth the time to even read the accompanying report.