why is research so difficult?

@wildgrass said
Yeah mate. That's what clinical trials are.

Here's one of them. Honestly it has been awhile since I read it... Again I'm surprised that someone like yourself who has spent hours posting on the subject has not looked it up on your own. Why not?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

wildgrass said:

"Honestly it has been awhile since I read it..."

You should read it again because it doesn't say what you've been saying. For a start the group is half what you said, 40 000. That's compared to the NZ Health numbers which are for 5 000 000 (the pop of NZ) Next it's from 2020 the NZ health numbers as I have mentioned measure outcomes, they are not trials and they're up to date.

Next this 20-50 fold number, kindly copy/paste where you got this number and a brief explanation.

Apologies for edit and short reply, accidentally hit 'post' , if you wish to defend this BS more I'm happy to tear you a new one. But you really should reread it before trying again.

BTW you're not my 'mate'.

@wajoma said
wildgrass said:

"Honestly it has been awhile since I read it..."

You should read it again because it doesn't say what you've been saying. For a start the group is half what you said, 40 000. That's compared to the NZ Health numbers which are for 5 000 000 (the pop of NZ) Next it's from 2020 the NZ health numbers as I have mentioned measure outcomes, they are not ...[text shortened]... ar you a new one. But you really should reread it before trying again.

BTW you're not my 'mate'.

Awfully picky comments. The underlying results and conclusions are far and away more definitive than your faulty statistic.

The vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations for severe COVID by 20-50 fold vs a randomized controlled group. Are you disputing that conclusion?

@wajoma said
Haha, what a tard doesn't know how to work out percentages.

Not my job to tech basic math but here goes:

0 to 59 NFV_111 FV_137 RB_212 460

In the group 0 to 59 years old 111 out of 460 were not vaxxed. so divide 111 by 460 gives you .241304 which (now hold on to the top of your head kewpie) = 24%.

Of that group of 0 to 59 year olds that died from wuflu 76% were jui ...[text shortened]... om?

100% - 24% = 76%

I know right, advanced stuff.

And to think these people get to vote.

And 95% of New Zealand's population over age 12 is vaccinated.

So it looks like non-vaccinated have somewhere around 5 times the chance of dying of COVID as the vaccinated.

Speaking of basic math ................

@wajoma said
Not fully vaccinated = NFV
Fully vaccinated = FV
Received booster = RB (Last column total)
0 to 59 NFV_111 FV_137 RB_212 460
60 to 69 NFV_66 FV_94 RB_321 481
70 to 79 NFV_128 FV_141 RB_859 1128
80 to 89 NFV_182 FV_190 RB_1591 1963
90 to +_ NFV_132 FV_122 RB_1141 1395
Total___NFV_619 FV_684 RB_4124 5427

Sure doesn't look like 20-50 fold (whatever that means) to me.

I can point out a few problems with your interpretation of these numbers.

1) Those who make the effort to obtain a booster are, statistically, much more likely to have serious comorbidities. This could easily explain the comparatively high mortality figures in the RB column.

2) It appears that those classified as "fully vaccinated" are those who obtained only the initial two jabs, which was formulated for a form of the virus that is now long since extinct. It is something of a misnomer to describe such individuals as being "fully vaccinated," since the efficacy of the initial two jabs is known to wane rapidly, even against the original viral strains. Without boosters, the protection conferred is essentially gone in a year.

3) The lack of a control group, as mentioned by others, is highly significant. You can dismiss this and continue to view the numbers with the eyes of a child, but facts are facts, and the fact is that what you believe the raw numbers say may be light years off target.

4) The NFV category may include those who got one jab of the original vaccine, and stopped there. It is not necessarily comprised of individuals who never got a single jab. This muddies your simplistic "jabbed vs. not jabbed" analysis.

@soothfast said
I can point out a few problems with your interpretation of these numbers.

1) Those who make the effort to obtain a booster are, statistically, much more likely to have serious comorbidities. This could easily explain the comparatively high mortality figures in the RB column.

2) It appears that those classified as "fully vaccinated" are those who obtained only the i ...[text shortened]... ividuals who never got a single jab. This muddies your simplistic "jabbed vs. not jabbed" analysis.

Thanks for the reply:

In order to keep this to flying off in first 4 then 8 then 16 different directions in the first instance I will reply to point 3) and 4)

3) Ignoring your 'eyes if a child' jibe this time, The control group is those that didn't take the juice in this case all we have is NFV.
4) If you want to include those who got one jab of the original clotshot in the NFV group this would even further reduce the number of pure bloods that died from wuflu and increase the number of clotshots victims that did die, it would make the juice look even worse so we can roll with your point 4 if you like, although something tells me, like kev bamboozle, you're a fan of increasing the financial status of already multi billion dollar mega drug Corps.

@wajoma said
Thanks for the reply:

In order to keep this to flying off in first 4 then 8 then 16 different directions in the first instance I will reply to point 3) and 4)

3) Ignoring your 'eyes if a child' jibe this time, The control group is those that didn't take the juice in this case all we have is NFV.
4) If you want to include those who got one jab of the original clotshot in ...[text shortened]... le, you're a fan of increasing the financial status of already multi billion dollar mega drug Corps.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, point (1) is the most serious. What we have is something far, far removed from a random sampling of the general population. The sickest will tend to get the booster, and these individuals may still die from complications due to comorbidities at high rates upon catching Covid. Really, this circles back to the problem of having no control group.

@no1marauder said
And 95% of New Zealand's population over age 12 is vaccinated.

So it looks like non-vaccinated have somewhere around 5 times the chance of dying of COVID as the vaccinated.

Speaking of basic math ................

I'm prepared to entertain this one for a while. It did blow wildgrass' '20-50 fold' clean out of the water, so cheers, she was showing some resistance to any semblance of reason.

@wildgrass said
Awfully picky comments. The underlying results and conclusions are far and away more definitive than your faulty statistic.

The vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalizations for severe COVID by 20-50 fold vs a randomized controlled group. Are you disputing that conclusion?

Yes and I've asked repeatedly for where you got that '20-50 fold' number. Even juice lover and drug salesman for multi billion dollar drug Corps, No.1 has stated a number of '5' which is a long way from your '50'.

BTW wildgrass said: 'faulty statistic'

Why is it faulty? The number records the vaxx status of those that died from the wuflu. State clearly and concisely the 'fault' Are you saying NZ Health are lying, if they were lying, the pressure is on them to lie in favour of their paymasters and controllers the NZ goobermint rather than lie to make the vax program and all the coercion look like a failure as is the picture forming before our eyes.

@wajoma said
Yes and I've asked repeatedly for where you got that '20-50 fold' number. Even juice lover and drug salesman for multi billion dollar drug Corps, No.1 has stated a number of '5' which is a long way from your '50'.

BTW wildgrass said: 'faulty statistic'

Why is it faulty? The number records the vaxx status of those that died from the wuflu. State clearly and concis ...[text shortened]... the vax program and all the coercion look like a failure as is the picture forming before our eyes.

You are misusing these numbers to make inaccurate conclusions, ignoring lots of other ways to analyze the same data, that's why the stat is faulty.

If some percentage of dead people were vaccinated, that says nothing about vaccine efficacy without matched control statistics. Those numbers exist in medical trial data you don't want to acknowledge.

@wildgrass said
You are misusing these numbers to make inaccurate conclusions, ignoring lots of other ways to analyze the same data, that's why the stat is faulty.

If some percentage of dead people were vaccinated, that says nothing about vaccine efficacy without matched control statistics.

Tell us another way to analyse those numbers.
Tell us where you got the '20-50 fold' number.
The control group is those that didn't take the juice.

This is close to over, you won't answer direct simple questions, you have offered nothing to counter the NZ Health verified stats. Take a note from your boyfriend No.1 who makes his case, substantiates how he deduced his assertion.

Against the up to date NZ Health stats you have nothing but a 4 years out of date 'trial', which you have mis-interpreted in every possible way including doubling numbers.

Here's another doozy, wildgrass said:

"The fold change depended on the type of vaccine, the demographic group, and the strain. Nothing to dispute."

Well excussssse me for being picky but NO, only one type of seizure syrup is mentioned the only link you've provided. Is BS and lies all you have, don't you like to be honest? And still no evidence, source or logic for your '20-50 fold' number.

@wajoma said
Tell us another way to analyse those numbers.
Tell us where you got the '20-50 fold' number.
The control group is those that didn't take the juice.

This is close to over, you won't answer direct simple questions, you have offered nothing to counter the NZ Health verified stats. Take a note from your boyfriend No.1 who makes his case, substantiates how he deduced his asser ...[text shortened]... e, don't you like to be honest? And still no evidence, source or logic for your '20-50 fold' number.

Where did 20-fold come from? It came from that study.

eah I only posted one Randomized trial, hoping you would read it. There are many others.

Do you dispute the findings?

I don't think you mentioned control groups before. What did that data show in your analysis of vaccine efficacy?

The correct way to analyze retrospective data is to provide the appropriate comparison to a similar group that did not receive a medical intervention. For the dataset you analyze and for reasons already laid out in the thread, that comparison might not be possible. That's why random trials are considered the gold standard for proving causality.

@wildgrass said
Where did 20-fold come from? It came from that study.

How, How, How.

Show your workings, I've shown mine even going to the trouble of explaining percentages to kewpie.

I took the total of people that have died from wuflu in NZ in the 0-59 year old group = 460, then the the 111 not fully vaxxed, which are the unvaxxed and soothfast would like to include in this number those that have received one jab which further reduces the totally unvaxxed fatality rate to less than 111 but it's all we have so 111/460=24%

Of the 460 people in the 0-49 group that died from wuflu at least 76% were juiced up.

So we're agreed. The clotshot did not stop you getting wuflu, it did not stop you from getting extremely ill from wuflu, it did not stop you from dying from wuflu, and it did not stop you passing wuflu on.

How did you arrive at '20-50 fold' which exact numbers did you use, because nowhere in the 4 years out of date trial of one particular seizure syrup (another wg ooopsy) does it say '20-50 fold' N O W H E R E, so it's for you to explain how you came by that number, let's just ignore that you tried to double the group size.

Where did you get '20-50 fold' from? Don't just say 'that study' copy and paste the relevant info, you steaming pile of dog shyte wasting my time.

@wajoma said
How, How, How.

Show your workings, I've shown mine even going to the trouble of explaining percentages to kewpie.

I took the total of people that have died from wuflu in NZ in the 0-59 year old group = 460, then the the 111 not fully vaxxed, which are the unvaxxed and soothfast would like to include in this number those that have received one jab which further reduces th ...[text shortened]... t say 'that study' copy and paste the relevant info, you steaming pile of dog shyte wasting my time.

🙄

@ponderable said
There seems to be a hesitation to research facts before claiming outrageous things.
To add insult to injury people claiming what can be (easily) reserached are called liars.
e.g. @Metal-Brain claimed that the President had no command over the National Guard of the District of Coumbia.

Even Wikipedia has the correct infromation. It took me (as a non-native speaker) about a minute to find that infromation.

You are a liar. I said Trump cannot unilaterally deploy NG troops in DC. He can offer them and others have to accept them. His command is limited by the constitution.

Why do you have to lie about it to slander me?

@vivify said
It's not research that's difficult it's finding sources that agree with stupid right-wing claims.

Metal Brain doesn't research to learn more about topics he scours the internet for confirmation bias.

You are a liar. You are accusing me of the exact thing you do and you know it.