Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 10:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217859#Comment_119217859

I don't understand, explain.

astrofool · 17-06-2022 10:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217851#Comment_119217851

The risk from COVID is over 1000 times greater to children, I posted the data backing this up months ago, yet you still post lies like this.

snowcat · 17-06-2022 10:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217855#Comment_119217855

And how did we have the largest wave? We are all vaxxed? Ah right variants.. so why did we just not get another injection for the variant?

hometruths · 17-06-2022 10:39PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217863#Comment_119217863

Can you please quote the post you made the point in and point out why I need to go and do some research?

snowcat · 17-06-2022 10:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217862#Comment_119217862

No. I just vaxxed my kid with the proven ones. The MRNA ones..now i wont be using them as they have been obviously proven to be shite.

astrofool · 17-06-2022 10:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217871#Comment_119217871

It was posted a few times and remember, you're the one making the claim so you'll need to do the meta-analysis and prove it wrong (you'll need the number of trial participants in the controlled/uncontrolled groups for all the different trials, the endpoints and the number of severe cases from each trial in each group, as a start at least). There's a reason the conclusions against severe disease were made quickly among those reading the trial results data from the various authorities.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216902#Comment_119216902

Turned out I was right about your next reply as well :)

It will be interesting to see what you choose to be pedantic about to avoid doing the work.

snowcat · 17-06-2022 10:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217866#Comment_119217866

Considering all my kids class have had Covid and they are all still with us that is an interesting stat. Actually from speaking to other parents none had more than a mild cold/flu for a few hours. 1000 times greater for children sounds like hysteria/misinformation. I have yet to hear of any child vaxxed or unvaxxed that has had serious complications from Covid.

astrofool · 17-06-2022 10:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217900#Comment_119217900

And I know this is beyond you, but here's a guide for how to narrow the confidence interval that you can research intently:

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+narrow+confidence+interval

hometruths · 17-06-2022 10:58PM

It will be interesting to see what you choose to be pedantic about to avoid doing the work.

This one is pretty obvious just for starters:

you're the one making the claim so you'll need to do the meta-analysis and prove it wrong

I'm quoting the regulators approving a vaccine for emergency use before trials would normally be completed, saying they could not reliably estimate VE against severe disease because the available data was limited.

And you think I need to combine data across different trials to prove that wrong?!

You're the one who thinks the efficacy was proven form extremely comprehensive data, and this meta-analysis proves that. If you want to try and demonstrate that without making a total fool of yourself, be my guest. You seem very confident of the fact:

Needless to say, I understand how you reduce the confidence intervals using meta-analysis

Needless to say, I have less confidence in your understanding.

astrofool · 17-06-2022 11:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217958#Comment_119217958

So after all that you chose to look foolish, here you go again:

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+narrow+confidence+interval

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217968#Comment_119217968

I see now where you started this:

Multiple separate trials all pointing to the same result, if you want to do the maths with the combined numbers across trials (where now there would be more than enough cases for high confidence) and measure the confidence interval go ahead, all I will say is that the result is proven and comprehensive

So you have done the maths and think the combined numbers result is proven and comprehensive, and that's all you'll say.

And you think I just have to agree that is proven and comprehensive, because you're not willing to share the maths that you say you did.

And you offer no explanation as to why your no doubt extremely comprehensive meta-analysis directly contradicts the conclusions of the regulators who believed the estimates against severe disease were not proven because the data was not comprehensive.

That's totally absurd.

Markus Antonius · 17-06-2022 11:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119217605#Comment_119217605

If the trial data was any good, they wouldn't need methods to narrow the confidence interval bands. He, like 99% of vaccine manufacturers and Covid extremists are using statistical contortions to dodge and avoid the ugly truth that the vaccines simply don't work very well.

Omicron cured Covid, we all know it.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218093#Comment_119218093

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

Indeed. Just one of many points that has gone over his head with this latest straw to clutch at.

17-06-2022 11:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218099#Comment_119218099

Lol.

Markus here believes that all space travel is fake.

Wouldn't be too eager to agreewith his opinion on scientific matters.

18-06-2022 12:12AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216560#Comment_119216560

And yet you did hide. You refused to mention that you had a previous username. You denied it a few times as well AFAIR.

I suspect you will try this tactic again in the future.

astrofool · 18-06-2022 12:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218036#Comment_119218036

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218093#Comment_119218093

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218099#Comment_119218099

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.

18-06-2022 12:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219339#Comment_119219339

From the resident flat earther no less.

hometruths · 18-06-2022 12:59PM

Ok, I'll bite.

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

Increase the sample size.

astrofool · 18-06-2022 01:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219427#Comment_119219427

Well done, now, how does one increase the sample size for a trial or experiment?

hometruths · 18-06-2022 01:45PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219534#Comment_119219534

Depends on the trial, but I assume you're talking about vaccine trials so the obvious answer is include more people

astrofool · 18-06-2022 03:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219570#Comment_119219570

Perfect, and what if there happens to have been 8 other trials running concurrently with similar amounts of people with similar results?

Going from having no idea about how to narrow the confidence interval, you are now on the verge of enlightenment as to why scientists and health experts were highly confident in the efficacy of the vaccines against severe disease.

You just need to take that 1 last step. Can you do it?

hometruths · 18-06-2022 04:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219874#Comment_119219874

Help me with that one last step - what are the 8 other trials? That's seems like a lot?

astrofool · 18-06-2022 05:48PM

You'll have to do this yourself, every time someone has shared knowledge with you, you have thrown it back at them.

To give you a bit of a lead, the nytimes has a good summary, you'll also find that most regions require that trials are run within that region before submitting for approval (e.g. in Europe for EMA, USA for FDA etc.) hence having lots of concurrently running trials and why scientists were confident in the vaccine when the trial results were released (even if the CI within a regional trial was quite wide by itself).

Although I now understand how you reached your initial conclusions if you didn't know how to narrow a confidence interval (though why someone would post so much about confidence intervals without understanding them and make themselves look foolish is beyond me).

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.

But I think it's fair to say that you have been lead as far as anyone can bring you if you are truly determined to do it yourself and avoid all the analysis done by multiple other posters in getting you this far, there is no other conclusion that can be scientifically reached at this point.

hometruths · 18-06-2022 05:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220444#Comment_119220444

so you say that is 9 trials in total - for arguments sake let’s 40k for each trial - total sample size of 360k.

so I guess this is what you are saying confirms both your point about massive trials and extremely comprehensive data?

Igotadose · 18-06-2022 07:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220481#Comment_119220481

Sorry, when you're disingenuous in arguments, you don't get a pass on 'for arguments sake.' Astro's pointed out what you need to research to reach conclusions on trial size. He's provided you a starting point. Get back to us with the data summarized and maybe then someone will engage with you.

hometruths · 18-06-2022 07:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220687#Comment_119220687

Astro's pointed out what you need to research to reach conclusions on trial size. He's provided you a starting point. Get back to us with the data summarized and maybe then someone will engage with you.

What I need to research?! Get back to us with the data?! Do me a favour.

The VE estimates against severe disease based on the trial data were unreliable because of limited available data. I have quoted the EMA reports verbatim in support of that argument.

In case you hadn't realised - the EMA reports say the data was unreliable precisely because there was not enough people, which I have pointed out repeatedly. And yet you think I need to do research on some harebrained straw clutching exercise to prove there was in fact enough people?!

Astrofool's claim that he knows better than the experts, and in his opinion the trial data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials is laughable. It is a total fabrication.

No doubt if there was such data available he would have already have linked to it. Oddly enough he has not.

And do you have an opinion?

Do you agree with me that the VE estimates against severe disease based on the trial data were unreliable because of limited available data?

Igotadose · 18-06-2022 07:33PM

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

Sure, my opinion is, you're dodging looking up the data that Astro pointed you at. And you're doing that, because (a) lazy and (b) would further hold you up for more ridicule when you do and realize it refutes whatever arc of complaint you're on about now.

So, you're not going to look? This is why 'for arguments sake' is bs when you're disingenuous. You really have to do the work No one will do it for you.

Fighting Tao · 18-06-2022 07:56PM

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 08:04PM

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 08:21PM

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!!!

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments