Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Fighting Tao · 18-06-2022 7:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220746#Comment_119220746

Please stop repeating your lie that the EMA report says the data was unreliable. It’s childish at this stage. It did not state anything like that.

hometruths · 18-06-2022 8:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220819#Comment_119220819

Ok, they did not say the data was unreliable, fair enough that was worded badly. They said the data was limited. Or insufficient. It was the estimates of efficacy that were unreliable.

For example:

"reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies."

hometruths · 18-06-2022 8:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220767#Comment_119220767

I'm not dodging looking up the data that Astro pointed me at - the only thing he has pointed me at is a reference to 9 different trials in 3 different regions - the US, EU and UK - I am assuming means for three different vaccines and if so Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazeneca - but he hasn't specified that.

All the the trials for these three vaccines say the same thing - no reliable conclusion for the efficacy against severe disease! Which I agree with.

I am claiming that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the efficacy data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials!!

I cannot prove a negative!! Astrofools says there is evidence to support this claim, great if so why not lay it out and prove me wrong!!

Why do you think I need to produce evidence that proves Astrofool's claim? There is no evidence to prove it - that's the point!!!

astrofool · 18-06-2022 9:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220892#Comment_119220892

You've been told what the answer is, the scientists and doctors of the world have told you what the answer is, I and everyone else understand this.

You say you disagree with the scientists and doctors who were confident of the effects against severe disease, I have given you all the data sources you need to go and calculate the confidence interval with the approval data for the different vaccines across different trials. If the CI is still wide, you have an argument you can make.

If you don't know how to calculate the CI, then you don't have a reasoned argument based on data, it's that simple.

Now, you will skip here and there trying to avoid figuring out the CI (and it can be done in a fairly simple manner using rough numbers as the trials themselves will have all sorts of variations and buckets of users and primary, secondary, tertiary and beyond endpoints, but if I run an experiment 9 times and get the same result each time, very very simple maths, and this isn't the way to calculate CI, but it will give you a ballpark, am wondering how much you will obsess on this, but whatever, would indicate an error range of about 10%, it would be smaller than this for the data from 9 of the trials as they use a number of techniques to reduce the CI and they're effectively running the experiment ~15,000 times in each trial but are stymied in a single trial by the chances of having users in the placebo group have severe symptoms using the defined endpoints).

Which brings us back to the circuit meltdown you'll have next:

Wondering how you are going to avoid taking the last step, maybe join Markus in the space is fake crusade as you get to disavow all scientific endeavour with that mindset.

Additional: not sure why I bothered, but I went and looked up some of the phase 3 data on severity and hselibrary had quite a comprehensive list of all the vaccines and extra data around severe disease which you'll have to disagree with and call the hselibrary liars to proceed:

https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccinations-in-preventing-disease-transmission-to-the-non-vaccinated

Pfizer:

Nine of the 10 severe cases that occurred during the study were in the placebo group.

Moderna:

Thirty cases were severe, and all of these occurred in the placebo group.

Az:

Ten participants were hospitalized for COVID-19, including two who were categorized as having severe disease; all of them were in the control group

Sputnik:

All 20 cases of severe COVID-19 that occurred 21 days after the first dose were in the placebo group.

Janssen (from memory this study finished in Jan/Feb then approval was in March/April):

Vaccine efficacy against severe/critical disease trended higher at 78 and 85 percent after 14 and 28 days post-vaccination, respectively

hometruths · 18-06-2022 9:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221100#Comment_119221100

You say you disagree with the scientists and doctors who were confident of the effects against severe disease, I have given you all the data sources you need to go and calculate the confidence interval with the approval data for the different vaccines across different trials. If the CI is still wide, you have an argument you can make.

Ok, you are saying the benefit of this analysis is that it will narrow the CI and thus provide a reliable estimate, as you posted previously eg:

Needless to say, I understand how you reduce the confidence intervals using meta-analysis, now it's up to you to get there.

I can't get there without knowing which wide CI to begin with are you trying to narrow with the meta-analysis?

astrofool · 18-06-2022 10:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221100#Comment_119221100

Just did a quick back of the envelope calculation and the CI for severe disease efficacy is +/- 2.34% at a 95% CI just using the EMA data from the phase 3 trials, we can let hometruths catch up in their own time (efficacy of 90%).

hometruths · 18-06-2022 11:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221380#Comment_119221380

Any particular reason you didn’t do the calculations from the UK and US trials as well??!!

Markus Antonius · 19-06-2022 12:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221380#Comment_119221380

This is not how you present statistics you imbecile! 😆

I told you above that if the trial data was any good then they wouldn't need to narrow the confidence intervals. First you dismiss what I say as "one of the stupidest things" then you completely contradict yourself by saying the test needs more samples 😂

Not once in my professional life, have I ever seen anyone do a "back of the envelope" statistical analysis. You might want to tone it down before you expose yourself any more...

King Mob · 19-06-2022 1:06am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221834#Comment_119221834

Again Marky, you've claimed that all space flight is fake.

You do not know anything about science, math or statistics. If you did you would not profess the beliefs you do. The fact you believe this stuff shows that you aren't at all knowledgeable about anything.

And as always your attempts to butt into the argument only lead to embarrassment for your fellow conspiracy theorists.

They can't agree with you because of your previously stated silly beliefs. And they can't tell you to piss off because they are forbidden from disagreeing with you.

All you are doing is robbing them of credibility when the only person backing them up is a flat earther.

hometruths · 19-06-2022 7:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221834#Comment_119221834

In case KingMob is any doubt I agree 100%.

Funny thing is the absurdity of a mangled "quick back of the envelope calculation" is the least of astrofool's problems.

He was forced into that stupidity once he finally realised the flaw in his idea about "narrowing" the CI, as posted multiple times, eg:

Because now the confidence interval can be re-calculated using all the data you have posted and brought into your argument, efficacy across multiple authorities for multiple vaccines solving your issue of not enough cases. That is what I lead you towards (though you weren't anywhere near smart enough to see it)

By asking him "which wide CI to begin with are you trying to narrow with the meta-analysis?" I lead him towards finally realising that he couldn't just recalculate the Pfizer VE estimate of 66.4% 95% CI (-124.8, 96.3) by mixing it up with Moderna and AstraZeneca data to increase the sample size.

Since he couldn't answer my question, and is not the type to say "Oops, I made a mistake" he came up with a "quick back of the envelope calculation".

Kind of amusing given the earlier comment:

Absolutely no clue between the two of you, not even a shared brain cell.

I'll ask again, when running an experiment or trial, how do you narrow the confidence intervals?

If the trial data was any good, they wouldn't need methods to narrow the confidence interval bands.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read and completely anti-science, as expected. And as expected, hometruths thinks it's something enlightening.

King Mob · 19-06-2022 11:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119222090#Comment_119222090

Dude, the fact you're agreeing with a guy who's claimed that all space flight is fake should be a warning sign to you.

astrofool · 19-06-2022 11:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221652#Comment_119221652

It was unneeded to narrow the CI significantly, but feel free to include them (you can break them out per vaccine as well if you want then).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119221834#Comment_119221834

I didn't think it could get dumber after your last post but you somehow succeeded. Out of interest, do you agree with the efficacy results from the various trials? Do you understand what a meta-analysis is?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119222090#Comment_119222090

And now we have an equivalent class of hometruths and Markus, what fun the 2 of them shall have together :)

You are now in your own fantasy world. You have been given every opportunity, all content and details yet you remain (unsurprisingly) intransigent.

Needless to say, your argument about the vaccines being lucky to work against severe disease and that scientists and governments are engaging in spin has been long busted.

Yet, you will continue to post stupider and stupider comments in your delusion with Markus, the flat-earther. That is what you have become.

hometruths · 19-06-2022 4:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119222592#Comment_119222592

It was unneeded to narrow the CI significantly, but feel free to include them (you can break them out per vaccine as well if you want then).

You haven't narrowed anything, never mind significantly, except the odds of anybody taking you seriously!

It is not possible to a perform meta-analysis per vaccine from the different trial data across different regions because they all used the same clinical trial data.

Here is the relevant data the FDA used for Pfizer: https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download

And here is the relevant data the EMA used for Pfizer: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

Notice any similiarities?!

So all of a sudden your 9 trial mega meta-analysis boils down to saying if we mash up the inconclusive data from three different vaccines in three trials we might get a better result?

Yet you say all the regulators, scientists and health experts agree with you that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials based on this?!

Did any of these experts actually conduct this analysis at the time? If so can you link to it so we can all get a better look at it.

If not, why do you think you're so much smarter than them?!

astrofool · 20-06-2022 12:00am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119223660#Comment_119223660

Oh no, you got me, so I'll have to show that the per vaccine trials were carried out across multiple countries to completely refute your argument, right?

The meta analysis of data across vaccines wasn't enough for you? (I mean it's enough for the scientists and health officials to be confident).

A simple yes will suffice.

hometruths · 20-06-2022 6:52am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119225193#Comment_119225193

Oh no, you got me, so I'll have to show that the per vaccine trials were carried out across multiple countries to completely refute your argument, right?

But were individual clinical trials carried out in the US, UK and the EMA? I have linked docs from the approval from both the US and the EMA that are using the same data. If that's not the case by all means link to whatever shows that?

The meta analysis of data across vaccines wasn't enough for you? (I mean it's enough for the scientists and health officials to be confident).

Your quick back of the envelope calculation was not enough for me, no. Again as I said above: Did any of these experts actually conduct this analysis at the time? If so can you link to it so we can all get a better look at it.

shillyshilly · 20-06-2022 11:37am

I see we're still stuck on the CI argument.... and still butchering it... Clopper and Pearson method, have a look into it please

Dohnjoe · 20-06-2022 3:27pm

605 cases in hospital at the moment, half are not boosted, one third not vaccinated.

Fighting Tao · 20-06-2022 3:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119227338#Comment_119227338

But but the CI.

astrofool · 20-06-2022 7:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119225430#Comment_119225430

As said, a simple yes will suffice, I don't think anyone is going to be running around indulging your ridiculous and off-the-wall fantasies any longer.

Dohnjoe · 21-06-2022 9:50am

“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” – Bill Murray

hometruths · 21-06-2022 11:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119229622#Comment_119229622

Totally agree.

By way of example we have someone arguing their back of the envelope calculation is an indication that a potential meta-analysis from 9 separate clinical trials is not merely a plausible explanation but in fact proof that the regulators were wrong when they said that no reliable estimates of efficacy against severe disease could be established due to insufficient data.

Do you agree that this supposed meta-analysis is a plausible explanation of why, contrary to what the approval reports state, the estimates of efficacy against severe disease were in fact proven from extremely comprehensive data in massive trials?

King Mob · 21-06-2022 11:22am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119230016#Comment_119230016

Again, one of the only dudes who's backing you up believes that all spaceflight is fake.

You won't comment on that because you know how it's undercutting your argument.

hometruths · 21-06-2022 11:30am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119230029#Comment_119230029

My argument is that the regulators said that no reliable estimates of efficacy against severe disease could be established due to insufficient data and I've quoted them verbatim to illustrate that.

Another point in my argument is that people are spinning the clinical trial results to claim it was made clear from day 1 that efficacy against severe disease was proven as a primary benefit of the vaccines.

Every increasingly weak straw that astrofool clutches at to try and claim that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials just reinforces my point that people are trying to spin this.

I've no idea why you think Markus' views on spaceflight undercuts this argument, and I'm not sure you could make a plausible case for that idea any better than astrofool has made for his extremely comprehensive data.

King Mob · 21-06-2022 11:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119230070#Comment_119230070

Because the fact that he's the only one who's convinced by your arguments shows that your arguments aren't very convincing.

Because it shows that your pedantic argument only convinces and is supported by people who already hold very silly, very delusional beliefs.

Because it shows that you've no issue with being supported by conspiracy theorists who spread misinformation and you won't challenge false information as long as it supports a conspiracy theory.

And again, your argument is nonsense and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You're only posting it here because you've been banned from the other forums, or know that such arguments will not be taken very seriously.

hometruths · 21-06-2022 11:42am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119230100#Comment_119230100

Are you convinced by astrofool's argument that meta-analysis of the 9 separate trials in the US, UK and EU shows that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials?

King Mob · 21-06-2022 11:46am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119230125#Comment_119230125

Yes. He has been doing a very good job of picking apart your argument to the point where you're just rambling and desperate for any sort of point now.

Why are you asking me to comment on a poster's position when you just refused to?