Jump to content

When offered the Vaccine, will you take it?


Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2020 at 4:40 AM, slug zitski said:

Only when politics calms down will options become clear

Hahhahahaahaaa

What a completely fucked up comment that is.  Politics are about as reliable as opinions, neither matter two dobs of goat shit.

Slug is a dumb cunt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The private sector has embarked on a major campaign to reassure the public that they will not release a vaccine until they are confident it is safe and effective. We can expect a joint statement from

My employer did similar, but unleashed a new weapon today. We intend to keep the mask requirement for at least another six months. However, anyone who stops by HR and shows proof that they’re fully va

While I appreciate some people’s reluctance to take the vax, I know that once vaccines are fully available, we will start treating it like any other communicable disease at my company. So far, we have

Posted Images

So how many of you self appointed experts participated in, read the materials for, or listened to the Advisory Committee meeting?  Interesting stuff for those with an open and capable mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its time to grant a monitored EUA for 10 million healthcare workers

This thing is hitting new highs again. 80k per day.   It will reach 100k per day. Lets stop this damn thing in its tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Its time to grant a monitored EUA for 10 million healthcare workers

This thing is hitting new highs again. 80k per day.   It will reach 100k per day. Lets stop this damn thing in its tracks.

ha ha..if you can't get people to wear a mask, good luck with getting 10 million to submit to an experimental jab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

ha ha..if you can't get people to wear a mask, good luck with getting 10 million to submit to an experimental jab.

I would  like to be early in line, not because of 10 million people but just to be safe myself (and my family). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IPLore said:

I would  like to be early in line, not because of 10 million people but just to be safe myself (and my family). 

In line for an  EUA? Well you're a braver Man/Woman than I would be.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Its time to grant a monitored EUA for 10 million healthcare workers

This thing is hitting new highs again. 80k per day.   It will reach 100k per day. Lets stop this damn thing in its tracks.

You would risk 10 million health care workers?

Can I ask. Have you ever known a thalidomide affected child?

I've asked before if you have any financial interests in these vaccines? . I don't mean to be rude, but you push this idea of getting a vaccine out before it's fully tested far too often.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Its time to grant a monitored EUA for 10 million healthcare workers

This thing is hitting new highs again. 80k per day.   It will reach 100k per day. Lets stop this damn thing in its tracks.

That is a seriously scared idea in no small part because it would likely be forced upon them. I get you are worried about your business and want a way to keep working but that ain’t the way to do it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wess said:

That is a seriously scared idea in no small part because it would likely be forced upon them. I get you are worried about your business and want a way to keep working but that ain’t the way to do it. 

 

I am not worried about my practice I am worried about myself and my husband ......and also my children. 

After levels going down here, they are climbing again in CT.    Let me be crystal clear.  When the first round of vaccines are available they wont be forced on anyone. There will be a shortage.  Like the poster above, I will be signing up for a vaccine as soon as there is an EUA. Well, to be honest, I already have.

There are lots of social reasons why we should all want to get vaccinated. We have been through that before. I like your analogy Wess about getting vaccinated not for yourself but for your parents. It was endearing, honest and understandable analogy..

BUt this recent urge of mine to get vaccinated is not for the social good. It is purely self-interest for my own health and those of my loved ones. I honestly thought that by October, with all that we knew about the effectiveness of masks, social distancing and tracing, we would have this contained to limited locations and some form of steady state at a lower level with time for  a vaccine.   This recent surge and the loss of a healthy 38 year old colleague to CV19 has scared me personally.

 

In my mind there are 2 ways of getting immune to CV19

1. Getting the disease and recovering

2. Getting vaccinated .

I am  confident that option #2 will be the safer route.

The third option is hoping you can live your life without being immunized.  I think that will be a miserable life or lead to option 1 anyway. I do not want rely on "hope" that I will get lucky and herd immunity will protect me. Hope is not a strategy.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Pfizer’s CEO saying even if they have the results now they will wait a week to complete administrative duties before releasing results to the public. Interesting timing...good corporate stewardship might suggest they have nothing to gain by becoming an October surprise and why not wait a week? I know, I know it’s got nothing to do w politics...

https://apple.news/AVx4kj7qhQMKWHp8OpfjqzQ

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fufkin said:

Here is Pfizer’s CEO saying even if they have the results now they will wait a week to complete administrative duties before releasing results to the public. Interesting timing...good corporate stewardship might suggest they have nothing to gain by becoming an October surprise and why not wait a week? I know, I know it’s got nothing to do w politics...

https://apple.news/AVx4kj7qhQMKWHp8OpfjqzQ

If they have a vaccine that works, it should be full steam ahead on ramping up logistics. All that matters is saving lives and saving the economy. The election result is baked in by now. They are not obliged to make the news public but I hope that delaying the announcement by a week does not delay any part of the process of supplying a vaccine. That would be frankly immoral.....and trying to move the ball forward without an announcement might lead to a leak. I am rooting for Pfizer to succeed but its a shame to have not reached enough data on their original time line.

Cases are spiking and the economy is involuntarily slowing again.

Those, like me, who care about health are concerned by this latest surge

Those who opposed the shut downs etc, should be worried because even without shut downs , society will self direct a slow down and continue to work and recreate from home, avoid social activities etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if their data are stellar, the biggest bottleneck will be initial production volumes and then distribution logistics. They could probably delay data release and FDA application for a month or more without significant delay to the end-to-end workflow of getting jabs in arms in large numbers. Production is undoubtedly the bottleneck right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IStream said:

Even if their data are stellar, the biggest bottleneck will be initial production volumes and then distribution logistics. They could probably delay data release and FDA application for a month or more without significant delay to the end-to-end workflow of getting jabs in arms in large numbers. Production is undoubtedly the bottleneck right now.

Can't recall where I read this but apparently  they've taken a business risk and have been manufacturing millions of doses in anticipation the vaccine works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Can't recall where I read this but apparently  they've taken a business risk and have been manufacturing millions of doses in anticipation the vaccine works.

Not much risk involved, the US gov't has been funding pre-production. Last I heard, they had 15M doses stockpiled so still a long way to go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, IStream said:

Even if their data are stellar, the biggest bottleneck will be initial production volumes and then distribution logistics. They could probably delay data release and FDA application for a month or more without significant delay to the end-to-end workflow of getting jabs in arms in large numbers. Production is undoubtedly the bottleneck right now.

That is true they have several million doses and have guaranteed 40 million doses (so 20 million people) by year end.

We have 10 million survivors.  That brings immunity by year end to only 30 million people, less than 10% of the population.

They aim to have 100 million doses by March 31. = 50 million people + 10 million = 60 million = 20% of the population.

Herd immunity will eventually require 60-70% , so 220 million people need to be vaccinated.  That implies 440 million doses.  If Pfizer is the only succesful vaccine , it will take nearly 2 years at current rates of production to meet demand.  

So we have two hopes:

1. There will be more than one vaccine

2. The most successful vaccine will have a lot more resources thrown at it.  There is almost no price that governments will not be prepared to spend to get vaccines available world wide.

Governments should be thinking right now  how to maximize vaccine production and distribution.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

During the last Presidential debate, both candidates were asked how they would handle the pandemic going forward:.

Biden:  "What I would do is make sure we have everyone encouraged to wear a mask, all the time. I would make sure we move in the direction of rapid testing, investing in rapid testing. I would make sure that we set up national standards as to how to open up schools and open up businesses so they can be safe, and give them the wherewithal and financial resources to be able to do that. "

Trump:  We're fighting it and we're fighting it hard..... there were some spikes and surges in other places. They will soon be gone. We have a vaccine that's coming, it's ready. It's going to be announced within weeks, and it's going to be delivered. We have Operation Warp Speed, which is the military, is going to distribute the vaccine. I had something that they gave me a therapeutic, I guess they would call it. Some people could say it was a cure. ..we're rounding the turn, we're rounding the corner, it's going away. 

Moderator : Your own officials say it could take well into 2021 at the earliest for enough Americans to get vaccinated, and even then they say the country will be wearing masks and distancing into 2022. Is your timeline realistic?

Trump : we have our generals lined up, one in particular, that's the head of logistics. .. we expect to have 100 million vials as soon as we have the vaccine, he's ready to go.

Eye notes, 100 million is not close to enough, that will vaccinate 50 million people.

Biden: there's no prospect that there's going to be a vaccine available for the majority of the American people before the middle of next year.

 

I listened carefully. Combined they mentioned the right things....Masks, rapid testing , therapeutics and vaccines.

But they were so busy sniping at each other, neither of them spoke in a measured way about a real strategy and the importance of getting a vaccine out there.

If Eye was president:

  • Government budget for funding the fastest and biggest build of vaccine manufacturing in history. Working 24:7  so that 300 million vaccines can be produced by March of next year.
  • Strict requirement for masks between now and next year.  Any federal support for states will depend on a compulsory mask law.  No masks = No federal funding. Its that simple. 
  • Rapid testing for the work place. Grants so that all employers can do rapid testing of employees and  in healthcare situations, patients as well. Rapid test or vaccine required for ALL air travel
  • Hi Tech tracing so that if someone tests positive, it is followed up immediately . Privacy laws to allow a limited window of a year when your phone will tarce all contacts. Apple and Google have built the technology, lets use it.
    • Federally funded single mandate CV19 coverage. Temporary....whatever political side of the spectrum should not mind.....just get everyone who thinks they have CV 19 to come in quickly for testing.
    •  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

EyeSailor what is your view on this opinion piece written by the joint editor of the British Medical Journal/BMS Peter Doshi.

Titled:  Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us  https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

 

As phase III trials of covid-19 vaccines reach their target enrolments, officials have been trying to project calm. The US coronavirus czar Anthony Fauci and the Food and Drug Administration leadership have offered public assurances that established procedures will be followed.1234 Only a “safe and effective” vaccine will be approved, they say, and nine vaccine manufacturers issued a rare joint statement pledging not to prematurely seek regulatory review.5

But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.6

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”7

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

EyeSailor what is your view on this opinion piece written by the joint editor of the British Medical Journal/BMS Peter Doshi.

Titled:  Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us  https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

 

 

My view is that this id excellent piece

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if answers to the original question have changed.    When available to you, will you take a CV 19 vaccine?

1. Yes.  I was yes before and I’m still a yes 

2. Yes.  I was a no before because I was worried that political pressure could interfere with the vaccine approval process. With election over, and Biden as President elect I will be more confident in approval process.

3. Yes . I was a no before but the huge second wave has increased the risk and shown that we have to adopt a vaccine.

4. No. My view has not changed. 
 

5. No. I was a yes before but the trial delays have me worried about the safety and:or efficacy of the vaccine.  
 

6. I am going to wait and make a judgment when I see trial results.  I’m open to taking vaccine if it is safe . 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I wonder if answers to the original question have changed.    When available to you, will you take a CV 19 vaccine?

 

6. I am going to wait and make a judgment when I see trial results.  I’m open to taking vaccine if it is safe . 

 

I'm waiting until Tony Fauci says it is safe and effective. Then, I'll be the first in line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclosure. I am a 1 and a 6.

I was a yes because when it is available to me, it will have been reviewed and deemed safe and effective by the FDA and OVRR.

The trial results will be published when submitted , but my analysis of the results will not be as thorough as OVRR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, accnick said:

I'm waiting until Tony Fauci says it is safe and effective. Then, I'll be the first in line.

I doubt you will be first in line :rolleyes:.   Unless you are a healthcare worker or first responder or member of cabinet. 

It will be one of the biggest challenges to distributing the vaccine.....deciding how to allocate, Demand will way outstrip supply.

Tony is very credible. I think he will base his personal recommendation on the OVRR approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I doubt you will be first in line :rolleyes:.   Unless you are a healthcare worker or first responder or member of cabinet. 

It will be one of the biggest challenges to distributing the vaccine.....deciding how to allocate, Demand will way outstrip supply.

Tony is very credible. I think he will base his personal recommendation on the OVRR approval.

You're right, there will be rightfully many ahead of me. But as one in the high-risk category because of age, I'm hoping we don't get kicked to the curb in the rush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, accnick said:

You're right, there will be rightfully many ahead of me. But as one in the high-risk category because of age, I'm hoping we don't get kicked to the curb in the rush.

Good luck Nick.

Wear a mask. Stay separated.  We still have a long road until a vaccine is widely available.  Based on the research companies' statements, we should hear phase 3 trial results this month. Although they were formerly expecting to be in October.

We were previously expecting rapid approval so that immunization could start late November/Early December . I am now hearing a whisper that the immunization will not start until January.   That is too bad.

We will reach 200,000 per day here at this rate. Without any intervention, that will lead to a doubling of the number of cases between now and January. Hospitals in the US are starting to feel stretched again. The USA has had 10 million cases in the 9 months  from February to October. The forecast climb as high as  8-10 million for the next 3 months November - January.  Although we are not talking about it, this will lead to lock-down lite at the very least.

Australia's focus on elimination has proven to be the right track until a vaccine is available.

The vaccine is critical to re-starting the economy,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matagi said:

News from Biontech/Pfizer, looks promising: 90% efficacy.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-effective/index.html

See chart noting EU is 27 countries so big spread.

And Biontech/Pfizer have got the large bulk of pre-orders in, noting the UK went skinny favouring their own Oxford/AstraZen.

What's the logistics on medical grade freezers to maintain doses of the Biontech/Pfizer at a steady 80C necessary for GP practices around the world?

I haven't followed production schedules but I know Australia has taken a bet on the Oxford/AstraZen one getting through trials and so has already started production. However for the bulk they are backing a home grown UQQ/GSK.

Any others taken a punt on trials??

EmYn3BvW8AYIm3-.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

This is the UK's Top 10 priority for the first 40m doses/2 doses per person.

1. Care home residents & staff
2. 80+/ health/ social care
3. 75+
4. 70+
5. 65+
6. High risk adults <65
7. Moderate risk adults <65
8. 60+
9. 55+
10. 50+

You missed 0, politicians first they just have to demonstrate it's safe first.. AKA jumping the queue.. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You gents may want to google inclusion and exclusion criteria and have a good look at the data - or better yet ask your doc to - before you jump on this bandwagon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Matagi said:

News from Biontech/Pfizer, looks promising: 90% efficacy.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-effective/index.html

Where does the Pfizer trials sit in relation to the others in terms of the range of testing they are doing?

For example I posted an article earlier in this Topic that highlighted that those most at risk from Covid-19 i.e. the old and high risk cohorts are not included in the trials or at a level that would provide sufficient data.  This being for ethical and risk reasons.  Obviously you can't deliberately expose those cohorts to Covid-19.  Indeed all the trials have a flaw in this aspect.  As my understanding is you can't deliberately expose vaccine trialists to the virus - is that correct? Also the vulnerable who have compromised immune systems aren't likely to develop an immune response and may react badly to the vaccine.

So in light of this aspect of the trials wouldn't a safer approach be to vaccinate health workers and care home workers first and then all the low risk groups.  That may actually eliminate the virus by creating herd immunity.

But I guess the Government Health "Experts" know best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where does the Pfizer trials sit in relation to the others in terms of the range of testing they are doing?

For example I posted an article earlier in this Topic that highlighted that those most at risk from Covid-19 i.e. the old and high risk cohorts are not included in the trials.  This being for ethical and risk reasons.  Obviously you can't expose those cohorts to Covid-19.  Also the vulnerable who have compromised immune systems aren't likely to develop an immune response and may react badly to the vaccine.

So in light of this aspect of the trials wouldn't a safer approach be to vaccinate health workers and care home workers first and then all the low risk groups.  That may actually eliminate the virus by creating herd immunity.

But I guess the Government Health "Experts" know best.

People in care homes are not inmates, you know. They get visitors, they go outside, venturing out a bit from your herd... so that bubble will not be there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matagi said:

People in care homes are not inmates, you know. They get visitors, they go outside, venturing out a bit from your herd... so that bubble will not be there.

That's why I said care workers at the top of the list.  But if you vaccinate the young and the working population (i.e. the "visitors") don't you get economies moving quicker?  Plus aren't some posters now being hypocritical?  Those that banged on about how "this virus affects all ages" and causes "lasting heart and organ damage" in those that never had any. 

Why should there be any priority for any subset of the general population? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's why I said care workers at the top of the list.  But if you vaccinate the young and the working population (i.e. the "visitors") don't you get economies moving quicker?  Plus aren't some posters now being hypocritical?  Those that banged on about how "this virus affects all ages" and causes "lasting heart and organ damage" in those that never had any. 

Why should there be any priority for any subset of the general population? 

In Germany, the median age of dying from Covid is 82. No kidding. 

So the number of people you can protect through direct vaccination is smaller than the number of people you would need to vaccinate in order to protect the vulnerable via herd immunity.

That's why I think we should go to care homes first. There is a massive psychological effect: if you get death rates down very quickly (and care homes are the place to go for that), than the whole thing loses its horror. Well, for 95p of the people at least...

But I agree, that I don't know the answer to the question to what extent the vaccine will be tested in that age group. Maybe there is a risk we need to take in order to move ahead. Imagine the trials you would need to do in that age group... you basically would drown in post-mortems to find out, if your vaccine worked or not. Not feasible, I think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Matagi said:

So the number of people you can protect through direct vaccination is smaller than the number of people you would need to vaccinate in order to protect the vulnerable via herd immunity.

But you are assuming that for that vulnerable group the vaccine will elicit an immune response and will be safe.  Not only that but that the immune response will be lasting.  It is these areas that the current testing regimes are lacking in.  Eyesailor seems to know more about this so perhaps they could comment.

So I'm not sure that giving the vaccine to the most vulnerable who are the most vulnerable because of compromised immune systems is the most effective way of nailing the virus.  It is also the riskiest approach in my opinion.

Now if you listen to all the doomsayers that have told us that Covid-19 has a huge impact on initiating cardiovascular disease (I'm not convinced it is any greater than other respiratory viruses) then shouldn't we be protecting everyone?  Otherwise all we are doing is shifting a disease burden into the future and reducing younger peoples effective lives in order to marginally extend the life of those who we CURRENTLY see as the most vulnerable.

That latter group we can protect better by vaccinating their care givers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can assume things, so can I. So if you assume herd immunity to be protecting our elders, I can assume a vaccine to be safe and working just the same.

The whole discussion centers 99% on the death rate, not on long-term effects. Like it or not ( I'don't).

Get deaths down and 99% of the sheep in your herd will be sooo relieved,  they can't stop buying new cars and holidays... you saw the stock market today? Wow. Just on the mere idea we could get a grip...

And you know what? By now, I'm fine with that. People are people. We survive on caution, but we thrive on hope, and that beats it.

So how do you get deaths down fast? Vaccinate the most vulnerable first.

I don't say forget the others. But they have way more time. In Germany, only 1% of all deaths is < the age of 50. I can see your point and there is logic in it. But almost a year into that thing, you know as well as me that logic has taken quite a shellacking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Matagi said:

So how do you get deaths down fast? Vaccinate the most vulnerable first.

 I don't say forget the others. But they have way more time. In Germany, only 1% of all deaths is < the age of 50. I can see your point and there is logic in it. But almost a year into that thing, you know as well as me that logic has taken quite a shellacking.

OK so you haven't bought into the hysteria that said that there are lasting effects on the young and middle aged.  If the disease toll is just as great why write off the young generation?

You seem to be focussed on what looks good and what builds morale I thought what achieves the best health outcomes now and for the future is what we should be focussed on?

Personally I'd rather my 14 year old granddaughter was vaccinated before I was so she can get back to studying full time, playing all the sport she loves and developing socially with her peers with fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Btw

From Reuters, re the Pfizer Biontech approach:

'The trial, which is being conducted in four countries including the United States, has enrolled 37,864 participants as of Monday, with 42% overall participants from ages 56 to 85.'

 

That's all well and good but have you read this:  https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wess said:

You gents may want to google inclusion and exclusion criteria and have a good look at the data - or better yet ask your doc to - before you jump on this bandwagon.

That is a big decision for families of the elderly I suppose. 

You got any thoughts on medical grade freezers logistics?

7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

What's the logistics on medical grade freezers to maintain doses of the Biontech/Pfizer at a steady 80C necessary for GP practices around the world?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

OK so you haven't bought into the hysteria that said that there are lasting effects on the young and middle aged.  If the disease toll is just as great why write off the young generation?

You seem to be focussed on what looks good and what builds morale I thought what achieves the best health outcomes now and for the future is what we should be focussed on?

Personally I'd rather my 14 year old granddaughter was vaccinated before I was so she can get back to studying full time, playing all the sport she loves and developing socially with her peers with fear.

I think I am focussed on making decisions based on what is known. There is risk in action. There is also risk in inaction.

Currently, we are close to losing 9,000 people a day worldwide. Do you know what that is? That is almost the military death rate per day of WWII. Almost double that of WWI. 

We can really need some speed here. 

As per the professionals: I think they ought to be concerned. That is there job. And they have to protect standards for future diseases. But given these figures above, these are not normal times and they should also acknowledge that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Covid Tracking Project they Tweet.

Being sick enuf to be hospitalized is no picnic, costs society and sick person money, lost work, pain, fear, suffering, maybe strokes or damaged lungs,, etc. Death is not the only downside.

 

20201109_204150.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matagi said:

I think I am focussed on making decisions based on what is known. There is risk in action. There is also risk in inaction.

Currently, we are close to losing 9,000 people a day worldwide. Do you know what that is? That is almost the military death rate per day of WWII. Almost double that of WWI. 

We can really need some speed here. 

As per the professionals: I think they ought to be concerned. That is there job. And they have to protect standards for future diseases. But given these figures above, these are not normal times and they should also acknowledge that.

Using daily deaths from over 100 years ago....This is a pretty bad comparison.....

As of 2019:  ~160,000 people die each day, worldwide.


9,000/160,000 = 5.6%.


Vaccine is very exciting, and will certainly stop some people dying with Covid.
This is good thing, to help our world get back to normal.
Wonderful news all around.

But, 94% of people, right now, this week - who die each day, don't have anything to do with Covid.
94% of deaths each day, no Covid.  Just think about that.


Trying to over-hype something by using war death statistics from 70 and 105 years ago... is not super helpful in my opinion.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlatantEcho said:

Using daily deaths from over 100 years ago....This is a pretty bad comparison.....

As of 2019:  ~160,000 people die each day, worldwide.


9,000/160,000 = 5.6%.


Vaccine is very exciting, and will certainly stop some people dying with Covid.
This is good thing, to help our world get back to normal.
Wonderful news all around.

But, 94% of people, right now, this week - who die each day, don't have anything to do with Covid.
94% of deaths each day, no Covid.  Just think about that.


Trying to over-hype something by using war death statistics from 70 and 105 years ago... is not super helpful in my opinion.

 

It's simple: 

It is either 5.6 per cent excess mortality which is ... a lot.

Or it is nothing, nada, not to worry about.

But in that case maybe you stop caring and also direct your time, thoughts and opinions to sth. different and start exercising evil spirits somewhere else.

You can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Matagi said:

It is either 5.6 per cent excess mortality which is ... a lot.

 Or it is nothing, nada, not to worry about.

It is most likely neither.

Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric.  It may take two or three years to determine the true effect of Covid-19 on mortality rates.  Some people will have died months earlier than they would have - is that truly excess mortality? 

For example when a person enters the advanced stage of dementia they have a median life expectancy of 1.3 years.  They are particularly vulnerable to respiratory diseases and often die of pneumonia because the brain stops managing their ability to breathe and eat properly.  Sadly people with this disease have been hit hard by Covid-19.

What about the people who have had their medical treatment delayed or deferred for illnesses other than Covid-19?  Or have had serious but treatable illnesses not diagnosed because of Covid-19 induced health care delays?  Some will die when they may have normally live many more productive years.  These deaths are considered to be excess deaths but should they be assigned Covid-19 as the cause?  Some estimates have these deaths representing at least 20% of the current excess deaths.

If look at excess mortality in Sweden, which in my opinion has become unnecessarily the most controversial Covid-19 country, we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative.  Yes those negative numbers are far outweighed by the months where the excess mortality is above zero.  But in my opinion it just serves to highlight that the measure of excess mortality at this stage of the pandemic is pointless regardless of what side of the debate you sit.  Not that there should be sides.  

Also there are different algorithms used by different analysts to measure excess mortality and they rarely agree with each other.  Excess Mortality scores are skewed by the age distribution of a country for example those with an older population which is more affected by Covid-19 will display a higher excess mortality.  The first graph below shows the overall excess mortality for Sweden with a peak of 47% and 23 weeks negative excess mortality - the sum is + 202.  The second graph is for the age group 15-64.  The peak is 27% with 31 weeks negative.  If you added up the pluses and minuses for this age group you get a total of -172 i.e. a significant negative excess mortality.  Note:  There are over 100,000 people in Sweden aged over 90.

image.png.0d0f1777b11b0f4621d492dcaabee6fd.png

image.png.06925a2d9e129baeeb47465e3509f7ed.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric.  There are too many variables and factors that have to be retrospectively analysed.  For example the negative excess mortality early in the year pre-pandemic might be attributable to comparatively benign seasonal influences e.g. a warmer winter/lower incidence of influenza and subsequently less mortality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric.  It may take two or three years to determine the true effect of Covid-19 on mortality rates.  Some people will have died months earlier than they would have - is that truly excess mortality? 

37 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric. ..

 

"Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric."

"To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality  at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric..."

Really....when is your paper; "Why excess deaths are NOT the 'gold standard' for pandemic mortality count," due out?

Epidemiologists world wide are in the edge of their seats.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine "Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?"

"Excess mortality is a measure that encompasses all causes of death and provides a metric of the overall mortality impact of COVID-19."

 CDC - Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race

"Estimates of excess deaths can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic"

UK - ONS Excess Mortality VERSUS ONS Registered & DHSC Official Covid Deaths 

El6Y5exXgAE1ZSb.png

US Excess Mortality - Total & State

Ek7_lGNVkAAgeRL.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If look at excess mortality in Sweden, which in my opinion has become unnecessarily the most controversial Covid-19 country, we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative. 

"in Sweden,....we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative.

Really....Sweden for around 5 months excess mortality has exceeded the mean, the highest in weeks 15 and 16. 

Your bullshitting has no bounds.

Excess Mortality - 1 January to 2 August 2020

IMG_20200822_110731.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Also there are different algorithms used by different analysts to measure excess mortality and they rarely agree with each other. 

"..there are different algorithms used by different analysts to measure excess mortality..."

Excess mortality is derived by counting ACTUAL bodies, past and present, NOT a algorithm. 

"..and they rarely agree with each other."

'Excess mortality' is counted according to an agreed international statistical standard.

You really are excelling yourself today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

That is a big decision for families of the elderly I suppose. 

You got any thoughts on medical grade freezers logistics?

 

Cold storage transport and logistics are not nearly the biggest challenge re vaccines.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-elililly/exclusive-fda-faults-quality-control-at-lilly-plant-making-trump-touted-covid-drug-idUSKBN26Z0CH

Above is covid therapy related; not specifically vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wess said:

Above is covid therapy related; not specifically vaccine.

So manufacturer short cut on a therapeutic similiar to what Trump got. 

Maybe this guy was one of the testing volunteers data that was hidden there....and this is what we can expect from Trump shortly. :lol:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"..there are different algorithms used by different analysts to measure excess mortality..."

Excess mortality is derived by counting ACTUAL bodies, past and present, NOT a algorithm. 

"..and they rarely agree with each other."

'Excess mortality' is counted according to an agreed international statistical standard.

You really are excelling yourself today. 

I think everyone agrees, excess mortality clearly is the gold standard for this entire episode.

But, I think KSFB's point is, the timescale matters.
 

ie, if you look at excess mortality only in April, then... it's the end of the world.
But, if we look at it for a year... that tells a different story.

And I think what will be most telling, is if we look at 2018/2019/2020/2021/2022.
 

I think that's only when we'll understand if Covid-19 actually generated 'excess mortality' over 5 years.. or not.
I obviously am in the camp that over 5 years, you won't see a change at all. I could be wrong... but looking at excess mortality just in 2020, seems... academically silly at best, and more like cherry picking data at worst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"in Sweden,....we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative.

Really....Sweden for around 5 months excess mortality has exceeded the mean, the highest in weeks 15 and 16. 

Your bullshitting has no bounds.

Excess Mortality - 1 January to 2 August 2020

IMG_20200822_110731.jpg

Thanks for proving my point Jack.  How can a measure be a "Gold Standard" when there are so many different methods AND algorithms to measure it?

Flies in the face of the definition of "Gold Standard".  Which of the following graphs is correct - one uses a z-score the other a p-score?  I guess you just choose which one suits your argument.

Quote:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-excess-mortality

However, to obtain cross-European comparisons requires data collation from individual national agencies to construct P-scores or variant P-scores, which are largely comparable, see section 4.1. Another alternative are the Z-scores compiled by EuroMOMO5 for 24 states, see Box 1. EuroMOMO’s measures of weekly excess mortality in Europe show the mortality patterns between different time-periods, across countries, and by age-groups. The Z-scores standardise data on excess deaths by scaling by the standard deviation of deaths. EuroMOMO are currently not permitted to publish actual excess death figures by country and do not publish the standard deviations used in their calculations. However, they graph the Z-scores and the estimated confidence intervals back to 2015 providing a visual guide to their variability. In contrast to the P-scores, the Z-scores are a measure that is less easily interpretable. Moreover, if the natural variability of the weekly data is lower in one country compared to another, then the Z-scores could lead to exaggeration of excess mortality compared to the P-scores. Strictly, the Z-scores are not comparable across countries, though see the caveats in section 4.1.

At least five separate journalistic endeavours have recently engaged in the time-consuming effort of collating and presenting more transparent excess mortality data, see Table 1. The Financial Times plots numbers of excess deaths, and the P-score or percentage of deaths that are above normal deaths. The Economist shows figures and graphics for excess deaths but not P-scores. However, the published estimates of P-scores in newspapers give only a recent snapshot, missing the context of historical variability provided by EuroMOMO. And we only have P-scores for some countries, regions and cities. A third measure of excess mortality is per capita excess mortality, where excess deaths (actual deaths minus ‘normal’ deaths) are divided by population, see Box 1, is used by the BBC (Table 1).

Do you choose this one:

image.png.9adf9a6014d090a5c27ebe039b781126.png

Or this one:

image.png.0d0f1777b11b0f4621d492dcaabee6fd.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

I think everyone agrees, excess mortality clearly is the gold standard for this entire episode.

 But, I think KSFB's point is, the timescale matters.

Yes the timescale matters but how can you have a "Gold Standard" when there are so many different ways to measure it?  It would be like comparing against a 24 carat gold or if you choose an 18 gold ingot or one that was 50% lead.

These researchers https://ourworldindata.org/covid-excess-mortality make a cogent argument for using their methodology as opposed to Euromomo which Jacko refers to.  The linked article details different methods (algorithms) and the how they are affected by the different definitions of the underlying data.  Essentially if you can't even define universally what gold is how can you have a standard based on it?

Yes theoretically Excess Mortality might by the "best" measure but at this stage of the pandemic is purely academic and problematic.  Presumably the collection of data and its global publication is to assist public health policy and subsequent action in response to the pandemic.  In its current state and at this stage of the pandemic in my opinion it doesn't serve that purpose very well.

8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"..there are different algorithms used by different analysts to measure excess mortality..."

Excess mortality is derived by counting ACTUAL bodies, past and present, NOT a algorithm. 

"..and they rarely agree with each other."

Euromomo, the source that Jacko refers to, specifically refers to an algorithm!

Model

Mortality baseline is modelled using a glm poisson corrected for over dispersion. The model is fitted on valid historical period as defined by the user, with a maximum of 5 years, excluding

  • The period to correct for delay (defined by user)
  • The data after week 2009-34 (this to exclude data before the possible influence of H1N1 pandemic. That condition may be modified in the future according to the epidemiological context after consensus with the EuroMOMO hub and partners).

Requirements of the algorithm

Requirements were defined based on consensus of the EuroMOMO partners.

The algorithm must be able to:

  • Compute all causes weekly observed, expected and excess mortality
  • Total, by age group
  • Be applicable for countries with various mortality pattern
  • Be robust for short historical period, low counts
  • Correct for delay in data transmission
  • Compute standardised indicators for comparison between population subgroups

Additionally, the algorithm should be able to:

  • Compute all cause weekly observed, expected and excess mortality by sex, sub-national level (NUTS 2)
  • Compute cumulative excess over chosen time period
  • Be run retrospectively in order to test the performances of delay correction and detection on past events

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Thanks for proving my point Jack.  How can a measure be a "Gold Standard" when there are so many different methods AND algorithms to measure it?

 "How can a measure be a "Gold Standard" many different  methods AND algorithms to measure it?"

You are a moron or are insane.

They are NOT measuring using algorithms.

Algorithms are ONE method for ANALYSING the raw data. EuroMOMO do it for their 24 Euro states that participate to be able to compare excess deaths between those states.

Another comparison is NO ALGORITHM and compare states simply by population. 

You made NO MENTION of state/country by state/country data comparisons in your post. 

They are not measurements of  'actual' excess deaths.

You were told that yet you wrote that all that shit.

13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Excess mortality is derived by counting ACTUAL bodies, past and present, NOT a algorithm. 

That shit was to dig another burrow to get away from your original bullshit statement.

"Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of  the pandemic is not a very useful metric."

You are both a moron AND insane PLUS a pathological liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given there are different methods AND algorithms for the calculation of "excess mortality" it cannot be classed as a "Gold Standard."

In the example I gave above there are two different methods used and they have produced contrasting results.  Which one is the "Gold Standard"?

One reason is that the CALCULATION of the base line mortality is different.  One doesn't have to be a moron nor insane to grasp that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

They are NOT measuring using algorithms.

Algorithms are ONE method for ANALYSING the raw data. EuroMOMO do it for their 24 Euro states that participate to be able to compare excess deaths between those states.

Another comparison is NO ALGORITHM and compare states simply by population. 

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Given there are different methods AND algorithms for the calculation of "excess mortality" it cannot be classed as a "Gold Standard."....

In the example I gave above there are two different methods used and they have produced contrasting results.  Which one is the "Gold Standard"?

5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Euromomo use a different algorithm/model to measure influenza excess mortality! 

 

"there are different methods AND algorithms for the calculation of "excess mortality" ....in the example I gave above there are two different methods used.."

Your dishonesty has no boundaries. 

When you suddenly DON'T quote is the sign you are escalating that dishonesty.

Firstly you CARVE OUT the THIRD method which uses NO algorithm, being simply basing excess mortality on a per capita basis. This is despite you even citing it.

6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A third measure of excess mortality is per capita excess mortality, where excess deaths (actual deaths minus ‘normal’ deaths) are divided by population,

The escalation in your dishonesty is you have now moved from "measurement" of excess mortality, starting in your original post to SUDDENLY now using the word; "calculation."

15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric. 

15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric. 

6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Thanks for proving my point Jack.  How can a measure be a "Gold Standard" when there are so many different methods AND algorithms to measure it?

 

Yet you are doing this AFTER it was pointed out to you made no reference to country country comparisons in your original two posts.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

You made NO MENTION of state/country by state/country data comparisons in your post. 

Why you have done this has also been pointed out, being that was to dig a "straw burrow" to get away from your original bullshit statement that excess deaths were NOT a useful means of measurement.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

You were told that yet you wrote that all that shit.

That shit was to dig another burrow to get away from your original bullshit statement.

"Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of  the pandemic is not a very useful metric."

Now to your last potential escape route which will be 'weasel words' suggesting your use of "measurement" and "calculation" are the SAME, despite 'comparing' data was NOT in your original two posts. 

Your own words crucify youself. This is "which is the "Gold Standard" of TWO out of the THREE methods for comparing excess mortality, NOT excess mortality as a measure.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

Quote

Given there are different methods AND algorithms for the calculation of "excess mortality" it cannot be classed as a "Gold Standard."

One reason is that the CALCULATION of the base line mortality is different.  One doesn't have to be a moron nor insane to grasp that fact.

You simply IGNORE cites posted yesterday  describing excess mortality as the "Gold Standard" and you now make that a measure of each excess mortality calculation used for comparisons.

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric."

"To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality  at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric..."

Really....when is your paper; "Why excess deaths are NOT the 'gold standard' for pandemic mortality count," due out?

Epidemiologists world wide are in the edge of their seats.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine "Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?"

"Excess mortality is a measure that encompasses all causes of death and provides a metric of the overall mortality impact of COVID-19."

 CDC - Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race

"Estimates of excess deaths can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic"

You are a lying cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of using your usual tactic of selective cut and paste of quotes and resorting to personal abuse just answer the simple question:  If Excess Mortality is the "Gold Standard" then why are there so many different methods that come up with different results for the same country?  Hardly even a "Standard" let alone a gold one.  Incidentally why do you choose to use Euromomo over the p-score model?  Is it just because the latter doesn't support your favoured narrative with regard to Sweden's performane.

If it IS the "Gold Standard" that the article's headline proclaims it is only useful as a comparative time some time AFTER mortality events had passed.  In terms of guiding health policy or more importantly timely intervention it is useless.  

Note that the term "Gold Standard" is only mentioned ONCE in the article that you provide a link to.  Even then it is a headline posed as a question - 

Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?

 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

I think everyone agrees, excess mortality clearly is the gold standard for this entire episode.

But, I think KSFB's point is, the timescale matters.

6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Yes the timescale matters but how can you have a "Gold Standard" when there are so many different ways to measure it?  It would be like comparing against a 24 carat gold or if you choose an 18 gold ingot or one that was 50% lead.

 

The different method refers to "calculation" for comparative purposes NOT "measurement" by the source country of RAW DEATHS as already outlined above. 

These cites explains "gold standard" in a nutshell. 

16 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine "Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?"

"Excess mortality is a measure that encompasses all causes of death and provides a metric of the overall mortality impact of COVID-19."

 CDC - Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race

"Estimates of excess deaths can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic"

UK - ONS Excess Mortality VERSUS ONS Registered & DHSC Official Covid Deaths 

El6Y5exXgAE1ZSb.png

 A practical example for "measurement" of excess mortality by RAW DEATHS is the UK. You can clearly see the difference between ONS stats and daily official stats (DHSC) for daily media consumption.

The UK also have the most glaring example of changing their daily official or DHSC count to further underpin the gold standard label.

They carved out 5,000 deaths in August by simply moving the date between having a Covid positive test and the actual time of death.

HOWEVER what they CAN'T do is change the method of measuring and reporting 'excess mortality' RAW DEATHS. 

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Excess mortality is derived by counting ACTUAL bodies, past and present, NOT a algorithm. 

"..and they rarely agree with each other."

'Excess mortality' is counted according to an agreed international statistical standard.

That international standard is via various treaties conventions. For instance UN and OECD as examples. My guess the only places where that may differ is where they practise reincarnation. :lol:

If you want to then take those 'measurements' and apply calculations to them for comparison using algorithms or NO algorithms as in excess death by population, fine. 

There are many papers like this attesting to to excess mortality for that purpose of comparison. This is just one. 

12 Oct - "COVID-19 and Excess All-Cause Mortality in the US and 18 Comparison Countries"

"This measure is robust to country-level differences in COVID-19 death coding and captures indirect pandemic effects."

Furthermore the THREE different methods of calculating comparisons is widely known and available. 

The only person not knowing this until today appears to be Kate.

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years, all ages P-scores

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years, by age P-scores

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The raw number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years by Raw death counts.

- EuroMOMO is one of the few that publish (outside researchers) that take RAW DEATHS and do comparisons using Z Scores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Instead of using your usual tactic of selective cut and paste of quotes ...

They weren't selective and required on account you went to NO QUOTE mode.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

When you suddenly DON'T quote is the sign you are escalating that dishonesty.

Then

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If Excess Mortality is the "Gold Standard" then why are there so many different methods that come up with different results for the same country?  Hardly even a "Standard" let alone a gold one. 

There are NO different methods for measuring excess mortality by RAW DEATHS. The 3 excess mortality comparisons of P and Z algorithms and raw deaths are for comparative purposes, NOT the actual excess deaths in each date/country. P and Z algorithms are NOT the original measurements of raw deaths. 

This is explained exhaustively above. I'm not going to repeat myself any fucking further. 

And this horseshit.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Incidentally why do you choose to use Euromomo over the p-score model?  Is it just because the latter doesn't support your favoured narrative with regard to Sweden's performane.

"Incidentally why do you choose to use Euromomo over the p-score model?...."

Didn't choose that graph. You were still in "measurement" mode.  EuroMOMO don't use P scores only Z scores. for state by state comparative purposes. I fucking wonder why?

You will see it only goes to week 31 or early August and I had ALREADY notated the base line/time and ALREADY posted it upthread long ago. It proved conclusively you were bullshitting. I also couldn't be fucked uploading either a fresh P, Z or raw deaths. 

As to Z score if Sweden was 6 months negative as you claim, then in the other Nordic states they were reincarnating the fucking dead. 

17 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If look at excess mortality in Sweden, which in my opinion has become unnecessarily the most controversial Covid-19 country, we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative. 

Now we get to the fucking disengenous or plan fucking weird.

 "Gold Standard" that the article's headline  proclaims it is only useful as a comparative time some time AFTER mortality events had passed.."

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If it IS the "Gold Standard" that the article's headline proclaims it is only useful as a comparative time some time AFTER mortality events had passed.  In terms of guiding health policy or more importantly timely intervention it is useless.  

So excess mortality is useless because it doesn't predict death? :lol:

As for its use, this is the first time you have mentioned its use for health care guidance, so a straw response.

If it was used for that purpose they would be using ACTUAL "raw deaths," not fucking around with Z or P scores. Like this one showing a 40% difference in daily reported against excess mortality by RAW death count.

BTW Google "trend line."

And to finish.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Note that the term "Gold Standard" is only mentioned ONCE in the article that you provide a link to.  Even then it is a headline posed as a question - 

Would you prefer they used Platinum?

BTW Google epidemics - deaths - gold standard. 

Now fuck off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have all gone off on a bit of a tangent.

The good news is that Pfizer's phase 3 interim trial result has got a high degree of statistical significance.

This is still a small sample.  But 90:10 is a very good number. It had to be greater than 73 to have a 90%ile probability of effectiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

I think you have all gone off on a bit of a tangent.

"Bit of a tangent."  :lol:

Eye this what happens when those peddling dangerous shit like; lock-downs don't work, contact/trace doesn't work, they leave herd immunity on the table and now start making vaxer like comments; suddenly apply their 'diversionary' craft.

This is how they do it and I don't mean Mat or Blatant, they were innocent to what was being cooked up from their posts.

On 11/10/2020 at 8:45 AM, Matagi said:

Currently, we are close to losing 9,000 people a day worldwide.....

...We can really need some speed here. 

22 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

9,000/160,000 = 5.6%.

20 hours ago, Matagi said:

It is either 5.6 per cent excess mortality which is ... a lot.

Or it is nothing, nada, not to worry about...

19 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

It is most likely neither.

Excess mortality in my opinion at this stage of the pandemic is not a very useful metric. ..

19 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

To sum up my above post I believe Excess Mortality at this stage of the pandemic is not a useful metric...

 

 

 

 

The firebug has lit their 'diversionary' spark, in this case stating; "excess mortality" in a pandemic is "not usefull" or a USELESS metric and doused it with 'bullshit gasoline' to turn it into a 'diversionary' INFERNO.

Then all it takes is some dickhead throwing on some water on the 'diversionary' INFERNO while the 'diversionary fire bug' keeps pouring on more 'bullshit gasoline'.

The firebug even ignores the customary and recognised professional 'fire retardant cite'.

19 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine "Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?"

"Excess mortality is a measure that encompasses all causes of death and provides a metric of the overall mortality impact of COVID-19."

 CDC - Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race

"Estimates of excess deaths can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic"

 Then many posts later it usually takes with this particular fire bug, around a day to put the 'diversionary' INFERNO out.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Now fuck off.

Then the 'diversionary' fire is out, normality returns and people re-enter the landscape. 

1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

..  The good news is that Pfizer's phase 3 interim trial result has got a high degree of statistical significance.....

An instructive and cautionary tale. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Furthermore the THREE different methods of calculating comparisons is widely known and available. 

The only person not knowing this until today appears to be Kate.

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years, all ages P-scores

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years, by age P-scores

- Excess mortality during COVID-19: The raw number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years by Raw death counts.

- EuroMOMO is one of the few that publish (outside researchers) that take RAW DEATHS and do comparisons using Z Scores.

They produce different results.  Jacko chooses the one that suits his narrative and when one posts a different one he doth protest loudest and calls BS......then cut and paste an manipulation of context by select editing of posts.

Which one of these is right Jacko?  They both depict Excess Mortality but one shows 6 months of negative excess mortality for the year.  When that was posted you called bullshit.  You can't have it both ways.

image.png.9adf9a6014d090a5c27ebe039b781126.pngimage.png.0d0f1777b11b0f4621d492dcaabee6fd.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^^^

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Then many posts later it usually takes with this particular fire bug, around a day to put the 'diversionary' INFERNO out.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Now fuck off.

Like any fire you can get flare ups that are easy to put out.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

.then cut and paste an manipulation of context by select editing of posts.

"cut and paste an manipulation of context by select editing of posts."

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

Answered ....fuck off.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Instead of using your usual tactic of selective cut and paste of quotes ...

They weren't selective and required on account you went to NO QUOTE mode.

6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

When you suddenly DON'T quote is the sign you are escalating that dishonesty.

And this.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

They produce different results.  Jacko chooses the one that suits his narrative and when one posts a different one he doth protest loudest and calls BS..

"They produce different results.  Jacko chooses the one that suits his narrative..."

Answered.... fuck off.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Incidentally why do you choose to use Euromomo over the p-score model?  Is it just because the latter doesn't support your favoured narrative with regard to Sweden's performane.

"Incidentally why do you choose to use Euromomo over the p-score model?...."

Didn't choose that graph. You were still in "measurement" mode.  EuroMOMO don't use P scores only Z scores. for state by state comparative purposes. I fucking wonder why?

You will see it only goes to week 31 or early August and I had ALREADY notated the base line/time and ALREADY posted it upthread long ago. It proved conclusively you were bullshitting. I also couldn't be fucked uploading either a fresh P, Z or raw deaths. 

As to Z score if Sweden was 6 months negative as you claim, then in the other Nordic states they were reincarnating the fucking dead. 

And this.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Which one of these is right Jacko?  They both depict Excess Mortality but one shows 6 months of negative excess mortality for the year.  When that was posted you called bullshit.  You can't have it both ways.

 image.png.9adf9a6014d090a5c27ebe039b781126.pngimage.png.0d0f1777b11b0f4621d492dcaabee6fd.png

"Which one of these is right Jacko?  They both depict  Excess Mortality but one shows 6 months of negative excess  mortality for the year.  When that was posted you call e d  bullshit.  You can't have it both ways."

That P chart shows excess deaths ABOVE the O% for 4 months up to mid July with dip above in early Aug

Next you keep carving out this the THIRD one, RAW DEATHS with no algorithm despite being told.

5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Excess mortality during COVID-19: The raw number of deaths from all causes compared to previous years by Raw death counts.

IMG_20201111_161308.thumb.jpg.5703eb7a139f4166350dabfeebb85c78.jpg

That shows excess deaths ABOVE the mean for 4 months up to 12 July with dip above in early Aug. Therefore little different than P chart.

Secondly excess mortality by the Z algorithm shows it ABOVE the mean from week 12 to beyond week 31 or early August or 5 months. Therefore slightly longer BUT the actual raw deaths excess smoothed out. EuroMOMO don't use P scores only Z scores for this and other reasons, noting EuroMOMO statistics are highly regarded by the European community.

image.png.6a16bbc5d7bc290b28f5af17c69333ed.png

Finally there is the comparison to Norway, Finland and Denmark which generated this quip.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

As to Z score if Sweden was 6 months negative as you claim, then in the other Nordic states they were reincarnating the fucking dead. 

Finally it might come as a surprise to you but Sweden's first Convid death was on 11 March not 1 January. It is now 11 November. Or EXACTLY 8 months later. 

By ALL of above 3 measures of excess mortality, Sweden was ABOVE the baseline for OVER 4 months. That leaves it being LESS than 4 months BELOW the baseline.

EVEN year to date last month (last excess death record) including period PRIOR to first death in March it is LESS than 6 months BELOW the baseline. Trend indicates it is now back ABOVE the baseline. 

Hence your claim

"If look at excess mortality in Sweden,.....we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative."

22 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If look at excess mortality in Sweden,.....we see that for 6 months of the year excess mortality has been negative. 

  ...is complete bullshit by ALL excess death calculations.

Fuck off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2020 at 12:12 PM, EYESAILOR said:

I wonder if answers to the original question have changed.    When available to you, will you take a CV 19 vaccine?

1. Yes.  I was yes before and I’m still a yes 

2. Yes.  I was a no before because I was worried that political pressure could interfere with the vaccine approval process. With election over, and Biden as President elect I will be more confident in approval process.

3. Yes . I was a no before but the huge second wave has increased the risk and shown that we have to adopt a vaccine.

4. No. My view has not changed. 

5. No. I was a yes before but the trial delays have me worried about the safety and:or efficacy of the vaccine.  

6. I am going to wait and make a judgment when I see trial results.  I’m open to taking vaccine if it is safe . 

 

Still a 1 for me, plus a little 6, which is easy because when I am going to get the chance for my shot, trials will be much further advanced than now, with even broader test groups and maybe already in review. Maybe, by then, even more than one vaccine.

The reason for my 6 is obvious: there are a few million people further up the line with a higher priority in my country alone.

 

Sidenote: Kate & Jack, can you please turn it down a bit? Signal to noise is about to kill this thread, too. Thanks. :) 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Grog said:

Sidenote: Kate & Jack, can you please turn it down a bit? Signal to noise is about to kill this thread, too. Thanks. :) 

Back to normal programming   

The bullshitting distractor has run out of burrows to run down and I have run out of water to double drown him. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Back to normal programming   

The bullshitting distractor has run out of burrows to run down and I have run out of water to double drown him. :lol:

Much appreciated!

I know this is SA and all, but that Covid thing is quite a bit more serious than winning the internet's day over the America's Cup or the best anchor for sandy beaches. :) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Back to normal programming   

The bullshitting distractor has run out of burrows to run down and I have run out of water to double drown him. :lol:

Seriously if you can compare you mega rant, cut and paste, quote manipulated and edited posts as anywhere normal you have to look in a mirror and pose the question  - insane or a moron?

As for hiding in a burrow - yeah na!  You ruin Topics by flooding them with your repetitive mega rants which amount to nothing more than spam.  It gets to a point where it becomes a Wacko Jacko yawn show.

Then to round off your modus operandi you start promoting the false impression that the poster who challenges your opinions is a denier, anti-lockdowns, anti-masks and a "let it rip" supporter.  You even manipulate quotes to do that and then seek to get the person banned for misinformation.

Sadly it appears that universally the art of rationally debating in a dialectic manner to get to the truth is no more.  

Link to post
Share on other sites