To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoooR

You guys aren't going to be able to prove anything with flu season with a bunch of directional charts. You'd need a multivariate regression and even then it's gonna be tough. Was it masks? Was it lock-downs? Was it people not wanting to go out? Was it a less virulent strain of the flu? Was it people washing their hands more? Was it people with the flu being more reluctant to goto the hospital due to COVID fears?

2017-2018 was the worst flu season I've seen since I've been in health insurance. and even at it's peak the Inpatient hospital admissions were about 25% what COVID peaked at.
2018-2019 was normal. About 40% the level of 2017-2018.
2019-2020 started normal then dropped to about 40% of normal in March (see above)
2020-2021 About 50% of normal. (see above)

For a 65+ person admitted with the Flu the average hospital stay is about 5.25 days. For COVID it's over 9.

---

Proving something is hard, disproving... not so hard.

It's very unusual to find someone so thoroughly committed to misunderstanding math in all of its various forms. His innumeracy is rivaled only by his commitment. Once I knew him only as the author of the stupidest post in the history of TGR. But as my awe grows I begin to hope Alpinezone never steals him from us. He's a rare stone.

Family says conservative radio host has changed his tune on vaccines after he was hospitalized with Covid-19

-For months, conservative Nashville, Tennessee-based radio host Phil Valentine has repeatedly made posts on multiple social media platforms telling his fans that if they weren't at risk for Covid-19, they shouldn't get the vaccine.

That message changed on July 23.

“ Phil contracted the Covid virus a little over a week ago and has since been hospitalized and is in very serious condition, suffering from Covid Pneumonia and the attendant side effects," the family statement reads, which emphasizes that Valentine has never been an anti-vaxxer. "(Phil) regrets not being more vehemently 'Pro-Vaccine' and looks forward to being able to more vigorously advocate that position as soon as he is back on the air, which we all hope will be soon."

He also argued that he wasn't an "anti-vaxxer," he was just a "logical thinker."

Valentine repeatedly made similar vaccine misinformation posts and shared misleading information about Covid-19 on social media. He even told followers they didn't need to get the vaccine.

One woman posted that her sister had encouraged her to get vaccinated but her "gut told her not to" because she'd already had the virus.

"Don't listen to your sister," Valentine responded. "If you've had (Covid-19) you have natural immunity."

He told another follower that "only those in danger of dying from (Covid-19) should've gotten vaccinated."

——

Sounds a lot like the “logical thinkers” in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

<snip>

He also argued that he wasn't an "anti-vaxxer," he was just a "logical thinker."

---

Wait. So *logic* got him where he ended up?

:confused:

yup, i misread it. it’s really odd that i can find flu statistics for every previous year but not last for norway and sweden. anyway RIP, credibility, i barely knew you. although i’d still take a chart with a source for zero flu cases. sounds…. unpossible .

Ron Johnson is actually a woman! You just got to study it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw

Went to two grocery stores today. Neither requires masking. They're across the street from each other. In one--the discount place--most customers and all the staff were wearing masks. In the overpriced one no one was.
My DIL is doing an ER rotation in Truckee. They're seeing a lot of covid cases in unvaxed tourists. Is it time to go back to hating tourists? (How about if we only allow vaxed tourists who commit to working 1 shift at a restaurant.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoooR

Never been called that before. There are things on that list from both the right and the left and the purpose was to demonstrate that both sides like to restrict freedom and think their restrictions are the "correct" ones. Which ones triggered you so much to call me that? Was it the gun one? Maybe education? As least I assume we agree that anybody should be able to get an abortion, smoke weed, and buy booze on any day of the week. BTW I've voted D in every election since I could vote.

---

Your definitions of freedom were like quoting the Bill of Rights (dripping with sarcasm)...you deflect and pivoted so hard, a typical R move

I enjoy a drink as much as anyone, but that being at the top of your list for freedom, jfc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoooR

You guys aren't going to be able to prove anything with flu season with a bunch of directional charts. You'd need a multivariate regression and even then it's gonna be tough. Was it masks? Was it lock-downs? Was it people not wanting to go out? Was it a less virulent strain of the flu? Was it people washing their hands more? Was it people with the flu being more reluctant to goto the hospital due to COVID fears?

2017-2018 was the worst flu season I've seen since I've been in health insurance. and even at it's peak the Inpatient hospital admissions were about 25% what COVID peaked at.
2018-2019 was normal. About 40% the level of 2017-2018.
2019-2020 started normal then dropped to about 40% of normal in March (see above)
2020-2021 About 50% of normal. (see above)

For a 65+ person admitted with the Flu the average hospital stay is about 5.25 days. For COVID it's over 9.

---

No, you don't need statistical analysis to see if masks work, which would be next to impossible to prove.

You need a solid understanding of physics.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

It's very unusual to find someone so thoroughly committed to misunderstanding math in all of its various forms. His innumeracy is rivaled only by his commitment. Once I knew him only as the author of the stupidest post in the history of TGR. But as my awe grows I begin to hope Alpinezone never steals him from us. He's a rare stone.

---

Here we go again... once an argument is lost it's time to resort to baseless claims and name calling. Got an example of my misunderstanding of math? I already know the answer - otherwise you would have used it when I challenged the forum to find a post of mine that wasn't valid and no one could (outside the one technicality that wasn't in the spirit of the challenge).

I posted it. You found it. You whined and cried but it's still there and you can go look. The password is Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

No, you don't need statistical analysis to see if masks work, which would be next to impossible to prove.

You need a solid understanding of physics.

---

This x1000. Statistics are the weakest form of math. We use them when we can't build a model any other way because we don't understand the phenomenon well enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

I posted it. You found it. You whined and cried but it's still there and you can go look. The password is Yes.

---

So no examples of my misunderstanding of math then?

Still no one has been able to find a post of mine that wasn't valid on the subject of COVID. jono thinks he got me because I missed responding to a post after saying I had responded to everyone. That's the best he's got!

In medicine, statistics, as flawed as it is, is the bedrock when it comes to deciding if a treatment works or doesn't work. That doesn't mean it's the be all and end all. A treatment may be statistically shown to increase cancer survival--but if the increased survival is 3 months and the treatment has horrendous side effects and costs $100,000 maybe not such a good idea. Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance.

Lots of docs will tell you that their gut feeling or their experience tells them that useless treatment x will work for their patient. They are almost always wrong. (Maybe always when it comes to surgeons.)

The generally accepted standard is a 5% or less chance that the benefit of treatment was due to chance and not the treatment. Which would mean 5% of studies are potentially wrong. (In practice most beneficial treatments have a much smaller chance of being due to chance; 5% is the highest acceptable number.) While we don't want to approve worthless treatments we don't want to throw out good ones. (Type 2 error.)

Before you write off statistics, remember that the universe runs on probability.

I'm not writing of statistics, studied them for my nuclear physics degree, and actually enjoy them.

I'm just objecting to a meta study that uses a number of poorly constructed studies to see if masks work or not

If you use garbage data, the meta study will be worthless.

On the other hand, physics will tell you how much benefit a mask will give either the wearer or the people around him.

It seems that the anti mask people are using it as religion, and want to prove that masks don't work.

Not clear why, masks are not that hard to use.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

“Let the children breathe!” :P

Got our first dose of wildfire smoke this afternoon at home…. <!covid cough!>

Ron Johnson thinks he can demonstrate that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time by only showing us Babe Ruth's stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

In medicine, statistics, as flawed as it is, is the bedrock when it comes to deciding if a treatment works or doesn't work. That doesn't mean it's the be all and end all. A treatment may be statistically shown to increase cancer survival--but if the increased survival is 3 months and the treatment has horrendous side effects and costs $100,000 maybe not such a good idea. Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance.

Lots of docs will tell you that their gut feeling or their experience tells them that useless treatment x will work for their patient. They are almost always wrong. (Maybe always when it comes to surgeons.)

The generally accepted standard is a 5% or less chance that the benefit of treatment was due to chance and not the treatment. Which would mean 5% of studies are potentially wrong. (In practice most beneficial treatments have a much smaller chance of being due to chance; 5% is the highest acceptable number.) While we don't want to approve worthless treatments we don't want to throw out good ones. (Type 2 error.)

Before you write off statistics, remember that the.universe runs on probability.

---

The lowest form of math is still math, so certainly not writing it off. It's the best tool every time we don't have something better. But it's a good idea to keep in mind that there is sometimes something better--often, if physics can be used. We don't understand medicine well enough to use anything else and it's not the only thing like that. But when we can build a model that's predictive within an acceptable margin of error it can also be useful for designing better things--stealth fighters and masks, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

I'm not writing of statistics, studied them for my nuclear physics degree, and actually enjoy them.

I'm just objecting to a meta study that uses a number of poorly constructed studies to see if masks work or not

If you use garbage data, the meta study will be worthless.

On the other hand, physics will tell you how much benefit a mask will give either the wearer or the people around him.

It seems that the anti mask people are using it as religion, and want to prove that masks don't work.

Not clear why, masks are not that hard to use.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

---

Yeah, I was responding to Jono. Who already knows everything I said. Agree with you about metanalysis. Only as good as the individual studies, but if the original studies are well done but underpowered metanalysis can certainly bring out a valid conclusion that was hidden in the original papers.

The reason I want to see clinical studies and not rely on the physics is, as Jono says, we don't understand medicine or the human body or viruses well enough to reliably predict outcomes based on physics or biochemistry. (Most of the covid vaccines haven't worked or haven't worked well.)

^ Violent agreement, yes.



I think I'm still smarting a little from the 6 microns = droplet fiasco. It's been a weird year.

Year?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

I'm not writing of statistics, studied them for my nuclear physics degree, and actually enjoy them.

I'm just objecting to a meta study that uses a number of poorly constructed studies to see if masks work or not

If you use garbage data, the meta study will be worthless.

On the other hand, physics will tell you how much benefit a mask will give either the wearer or the people around him.

It seems that the anti mask people are using it as religion, and want to prove that masks don't work.

Not clear why, masks are not that hard to use.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

---

This is nonsense. You realize it's entirely possible a mask can block droplets by x% and still be ineffective at reducing transmission in the real world?

You can nitpick the studies all you want, but the reality is it's extremely likely that masks have little effect if 14 RCT's find that to be the case. Or put another way, if masks have significant benefit, it's extremely unlikely 14 RCT's are going to find that they have no benefit. And by the way, the CDC thought this study was valid enough to have on their website - it seems most people on here have a high degree of faith in that organization.

We have numerous studies showing no benefit from masks, and the data from COVID makes it clear as day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Ron Johnson thinks he can demonstrate that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time by only showing us Babe Ruth's stats.

---

rideit level analogy right here.

Is there ever really a good moment to be reminded that the easiest lie to tell is to build a randomly controlled trial to study a rare event using a too-small sample and then (predictably and meaninglessly) find "no statistically significant" effect using said study?

It's kind of basic but it feels like you don't necessarily have to be a ron johnson to miss that. For instance, if you just see the "Breaking news! X has no effect!" headlines it's often buried pretty deep that if you study 4 people for 2 weeks for skin cancer you should expect sun screen, sun, tanning beds and topically applied agent orange to all have no statistically significant difference from the control group. Touting such a result is two steps beyond a lie, of course. Putting together a meta-analysis of studies with no statistically significant results is next level, like big tobacco level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Year?!

---

Good point.