Aren’t YOU the head cheerleader for Team No Mask?
Oh, the irony…you sure are a glutton for well deserved DK abuse!
Thanks for giving us a chuckle again, every forum has a village idiot.
Printable View
Aren’t YOU the head cheerleader for Team No Mask?
Oh, the irony…you sure are a glutton for well deserved DK abuse!
Thanks for giving us a chuckle again, every forum has a village idiot.
How do we vaccinate threads against Ron Johnsons? I mean, how do we keep his stupid ass out of otherwise decent threads?
sent from Utah.
I don’t know, but I found a tweet thread from the kind of moron who might listen to a simpleton like rj.
https://twitter.com/bethanyshondark/...74070442217478
Fkna, you must be having a slow day….Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
Nah, I just cross posted it. She is a good example of the deluded fools. Now she has turned to prayer.
I still haven't gotten over the idiocy of the early days--sitting knee to knee at a banquet table with a bunch of strangers, not a mask in sight, but carefully bumping elbows instead of shaking hands. Or how paranoid I was hiking in the mountains. I would have preferred to see a mountain lion than another hiker coming at me on the trail. But then weren't we worried back then about getting covid from our dogs and cats? Why not mountain lions?Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Re type 2 (or is it type II) error--an underpowered study missing a true benefit. That's why if you're doing it right you call in the statisticians ahead of time to figure out how big a study you need to minimize type 2 error. Based on the expected magnitude of the benefit as suggested by preliminary studies.
Early days lasted much too long. On the upside, I discovered that hand sanitizer removes pine pitch, which is going to be useful for the rest of my life!
I'm sure I've responded to him more than makes sense so I finally parked his answers in the troll thread. IDK if that's better. On some topics there are honest-thinking people with similar issues who keep their mouths shut rather than be thought a fool and he's just the guy to open it and remove all doubt. The disingenuousnous seems like a trump card, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by basinbeater
Trolling or honest questions? Part of the issue is average level of education, complicated by the specialist level of education of the various pandemic experts. I watched a few TWiV episodes where they discussed submitting an op-ed to NYT, and complaining about the editors stripping out all the science. NYT's justification is their publication needs to be understandable to people with fifth grade level education. I posit that NYT's readers are smarter than the national average. With a fifth grade education, statistics doesn't exist, they don't even have algebra. Critical thinking skills aren't well developed either. Even among college grads, in many fields, their knowledge may not exceed a fifth grade level - how many sociology grads can complete a square? Or understand compound interest?
Then, for the trolls, there's plenty of dishonest argument styles, and free internet training for anyone who wants to improve their trolling. Not a useful line of work, but trolls don't are about being useful. Anyway, I say there's trolls in this thread. Prove me wrong.
There's some honest questions too, and several of us err toward that interpretation. Probably the right way to err, though it sometimes feeds the trolls.
I know it's not as fun as arguing about freedom and the tyranny of nose+mouth coverings; but again,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Star
is not what vaccine trial efficacy means. It means how much the prevalence (<-- I used the wrong word here, should've been "incidence"; thanks oldgoat) of the disease was reduced in the vaccinated group versus the placebo group in a clinical trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
And for the record, the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials measured confirmed COVID cases (1 symptom + PCR positive) as endpoints for vaccine efficacy, not severe COVID. Trials found both vaccines to be 100% effective at preventing severe COVID.
Looking at the Pfizer trial: 36,523 people participated in the study, 18,325 in the placebo group, 18,198 in the vaccine group. 162 people in the placebo group (0.88%) developed symptoms compared to 8 people in the vaccine group (0.04%), for a difference of 0.84% (0.88 - 0.04%). 0.84%/0.88% = 95.03%. That's how the clinical statisticians came to the vaccine efficacy of 95.0%. Of the 170 people who developed symptoms, 8 of them were vaccinated. 8/170 = 95.3% (which is coincidentally similar to, but distinct from, 95.0%). Of the 18,198 people who were vaccinated, 8 developed symptoms; so we can expect ~1 out of every 2,000 vaccinated people to have breakthrough disease (with Wuhan Classic).
Just for the sake of illustration, let's imagine that 100 people in the vaccine group developed the disease, and see how that changes the numbers. 162/18,325 = 0.88% of the placebo group developed symptoms (this value is unchanged from the Pfizer study). 100/18,198 = 0.55% of the vaccine group developed symptoms for a difference of 0.33%. 0.33%/0.88% = 37.8% vaccine efficacy. Of the 262 total symptomatic individuals (in this imaginary example), 100 of them were vaccinated. 100/262 = 61.8%, which is a very different value from the vaccine efficacy of 37.8%.
It's inherent in the calculations that as the magnitude of the difference increases between the number of subjects in the placebo group that developed symptoms and the number of subjects in the vaccine group that developed symptoms, the closer the vaccine efficacy and the percentage of symptomatic individuals who received the vaccine will be.
Vaccine efficacy means how much the risk of developing disease is reduced by receiving the vaccine. 95% efficacy is the same thing (statistically) as saying that out of every 20 people who would have developed symptomatic COVID had they remained unvaxed, 1 will develop symptomatic COVID even after vaccination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CS2-6
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Unfortunately those that could most learn, won’t because that kind of math is all Greek to them, so they will simply continue to believe whatever ignorant bullshit their preselected media and political sources tell them.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Good stuff. This bit here requires the caveat that we would expect 1/2000 over the same time period and given the same level of exposure. So how many will get a breakthrough case in their lifetime or even a year is higher and depends on prevalence.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS2-6
I got the J&J early March, because it was the first available.
Thinking of possibly getting a single dose of Phizer or Moderna.
As long as we're getting technical--your second link says the efficacy is how much the vaccine reduces INCIDENCE (new cases), not PREVALENCE (total active cases). The two words aren't interchangeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS2-6
Both respiratory viruses, both of similar size.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
You pulled that from the section on hand washing. Key word: combined.Quote:
I found this in the actual text of the study you referred to:
"The effect of hand hygiene combined with face masks on laboratory-confirmed influenza was not statistically significant (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73–1.13; I2 = 35%, p = 0.39). Some studies reported being underpowered because of limited sample size, and low adherence to hand hygiene interventions was observed in some studies."
What those numbers mean is that masks plus hand hygiene showed evidence of helping, but in the studies they picked they didn't have enough confidence to call it a statistically significant finding. Also, they admit that the studies they picked were both flawed and underpowered (that's the word we use to describe studying 4 people for 2 weeks to check for new skin cancer, too) but they left it to the reader to understand that being underpowered is a really very super effective way to guarantee no statistical significance can be found. Because significance requires large enough samples to show up, particularly for relatively rare events.
After that they cited a couple studies that disagreed with the above statement, but they neglected those. Cherry picking is a problem, too, like when you find a study that says what you want and claim it's the best without reading past the abstract. So that's pretty good--it really looks like you come by that example honestly, too, or at least that's what I choose to believe for as long as you can keep the veil up. Carry on soldier.
"The effect of hand hygiene combined with face masks on laboratory-confirmed influenza was not statistically significant..."
It's just amazing to watch you guys try to dismiss me as some deplorable troll when you can't find anything I've posted that wasn't valid. Some interesting psychology on display.
Attachment 380354
Points #1,4,8,11,15,20 are especially relevant to people in this thread.
Thus thread delivers.
Attachment 380355
Are you kidding me? Surgeons discovered over 100 years ago that they need to wash their hands and wear masks so they don't kill their patients, and you're looking at studies fine by idiots with some ideology to support?Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
There's a part of me that wants to say this last statement kind of justifies the editors' stance, but I think it's more accurate to extend your position further and say that NYT readers are more committed than the average to reality and more willing to be brought face to face with the limits of their knowledge. Given the Sunday crossword as a social phenomenon, you might even suspect that's what they want from the Times. Pity if the editors are less committed than their readers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Potential cross-post to the Amuses Me thread :
It is hilarious that a person who is on a high percentage of Ignore lists is butt-hurt that he can’t find someone who cares about his prior posts.
This guy here is doing it right. [emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by subtle plague
Bit of a difference between surgeons sticking unwashed fingers inside a wound and spreading of a respiratory virus amongst people. We know that spread of COVID from surfaces is minimal, so it makes sense hand washing would have little effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
There is plenty of evidence that mask use in medical settings is unnecessary - I posted studies on this a few days ago.
What are these studies from idiots with some ideology? There were some anti-mask zealots pre COVID publishing studies to support their views?!?!
They are spread the same way (scroll down): https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by jono
It says "Hand Hygiene" right above the section you quoted. There is a a section labeled "Face Masks" lower down.Quote:
I never saw any "section on hand washing" as you say. But I'll admit I did read a little more than just the abstract. You're keeping your interaction with it to a minimum, though, and I applaud that. It's very on brand. Highlighting combined is like some sort of savant-level, though--you write it as if it really means something even though it's obviously irrelevant. Genius.
The sentence you quoted is for both hand washing and mask wearing combined. And yes the word combined is significant in this instance.