1,053 thoughts on “Open Thread – Weekend 11 Dec 2021”

  1. JCsays:
    December 12, 2021 at 11:58 pm

    If there’s substantial anecdotal evidence of people who were exposed to covid before the vaccination (in the 409 group) how can you argue that vaxxes cause covid over the short term. There is absolutely no basis for your claim. None.

    There is no point endlessly discussing a single study without reference to other studies. The idea that immunosuppression is specific for one pathology is nuts. All of us are carrying occult infections from bacteria, viruses, and fungi; and probably have micro-tumours as well. Those pathologies should skyrocket with any severe immunosuppression. When a single study can’t provide the solutions you want stop diving down rabbit holes in the data as a diversion. Find supporting evidence.

    JC, get your booster shot.

    Protection of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster against Covid-19 in Israel

    RESULTS
    At least 12 days after the booster dose, the rate of confirmed infection was lower in the booster group than in the nonbooster group by a factor of 11.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.4 to 12.3); the rate of severe illness was lower by a factor of 19.5 (95% CI, 12.9 to 29.5). In a secondary analysis, the rate of confirmed infection at least 12 days after vaccination was lower than the rate after 4 to 6 days by a factor of 5.4 (95% CI, 4.8 to 6.1).


    Report comment

    1
  2. Same thing again this year, no backpackers, no interstate agricultural workers due to WA border closure, so I got volunteered to go farming again

    Well done, Pedro. Oh, and for what it’s worth, if it wasn’t for expat South Africans, expat Kiwi’s and all the old hands, the West Australian wheatbelt would have ground to a halt twenty years ago.


    Report comment

    3
  3. It’s correct. Over the sample size these numbers are tiny. You can tell use why the difference is significant. You won’t though because you can’t.

    Poor old logic fail JC. I never expressed an opinion whether it was or wasn’t. So I don’t have to tell you anything. All I’ve ever asked is for you to tell us your grounds for asserting that in a clinical trial of this type and this size 287/409 is “nothing out of the ordinary”.
    But you can’t.


    Report comment

    2
  4. That’s a straight out lie.

    No it isn’t. You’re pretending you’re a mind reader as you normally do. The assumption was always that the sample size was robust as reputable people entities were discussing it.

    I never “doubted” that the sample dover was talking about was of a reasonable size – I just asked you to give your grounds for saying that 287/409 was “nothing out of the ordinary”.

    Course you did.


    Report comment

    2
  5. Winston,
    As Zulu almost said, a 60mm mortar training bomb.
    Definitely not a shell.
    Puzzling as I thought the Canadians still used the 2” mortar at that time.
    If they had published the maker’s name it would clear things up.
    Anyway blue painted ordnance doesn’t make a Big Bang.


    Report comment

    2
  6. There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.

    If there’s substantial anecdotal evidence of people who were exposed to covid before the vaccination (in the 409 group) how can you argue that vaxxes cause covid over the short term. There is absolutely no basis for your claim. None.

    I think I see the problem.


    Report comment

    1
  7. The assumption was always that the sample size was robust as reputable people entities were discussing it.
    And you’ve failed to point to anything I said where I expressed doubt about that. I just asked you what parameters you regarded as applicable to clinical studies of this type and size.

    Course you did.

    Evidence?
    As in, refer to where I said any such thing?


    Report comment

  8. There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.

    If there’s substantial anecdotal evidence of people who were exposed to covid before the vaccination (in the 409 group) how can you argue that vaxxes cause covid over the short term. There is absolutely no basis for your claim. None.

    I think I see the problem.

    Yes, the sentence doesn’t say that the anecdotal “priors” were “in the 409 group”, in fact it suggests (though it doesn’t say so clearly) that they were excluded from it.


    Report comment

    2
  9. John H

    Here’s where I come out about the booster.

    We don’t know if the latest variant is worryingly bad or not. If it isn’t, risk reward suggests there’s no reason to get a booster because the variant is less risky than the vax. If it’s found to be problematic then I will consider it. Let’s not pretend there’s no risk with the vax. There is.


    Report comment

    4
  10. You’re still ignoring the elephant you yourself brought into the room which is from your own excerpt:

    No, I asked you to spell out what you thought it meant.

    There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.

    If there’s substantial anecdotal evidence of people who were exposed to covid before the vaccination (in the 409 group) how can you argue that vaxxes cause covid over the short term. There is absolutely no basis for your claim. None.

    Where in that statement does it say that the ‘substantial anecdotal evidence’ (and what is this evidence anyway) is limited to the trial group? The statement says they were tested before vaccination, the tests were negative, but were meant to believe that they contracted the virus just before being vaxxed. That is a very short window we are talking about.

    The basis for the claim is the 40% difference in the groups. Complaining about the numbers being tiny absolutely is neither here nor there, we are always dealing with small numbers in absolute terms re COVID vaccine trials.


    Report comment

    4
  11. areff says:
    December 13, 2021 at 12:45 am

    JC: Notice that the virtue-signalling perv drives a Tesla?

    Of course he does. He’s attempting to emissions while degrading young kids.


    Report comment

  12. At best Dover’s own linked study is inconclusive for the argument he’s made, in that the vaccinations cause people to contract covid a short interval after the jab. At worst if the evidence was true, it invalidates everything he’s said. There is not a shred of even an atom in favor of the argument being made that the vax helps people get the virus very shortly after being jabbed.

    Two things, firstly, I’ve put up two studies, the Danish study and the Pfizer study. Both showed similar things. Secondly, how do you get “At worst if the evidence was true, it invalidates everything he’s said”?


    Report comment

    1
  13. Where in that statement does it say that the ‘substantial anecdotal evidence’ (and what is this evidence anyway) is limited to the trial group?

    Here Dover:

    There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.

    Why else would the above sentence be included? There’s no other reasons and there’s no ambiguity.

    The statement says they were tested before vaccination, the tests were negative, but were meant to believe that they contracted the virus just before being vaxxed. That is a very short window we are talking about.

    Dunno Dover. You posted the excerpt to defend your argument, but now appears you’re arguing against your own excerpt.

    The basis for the claim is the 40% difference in the groups. Complaining about the numbers being tiny absolutely is neither here nor there, we are always dealing with small numbers in absolute terms re COVID vaccine trials.

    Yea 40% sounds like a lot until we see its 122 people over 43,651. People often quote percentages in order to disguise the actual number being really tiny.


    Report comment

    1
  14. Two things, firstly, I’ve put up two studies, the Danish study and the Pfizer study. Both showed similar things. Secondly, how do you get “At worst if the evidence was true, it invalidates everything he’s said”?

    The sentence I’ve quoted here about 20 times from your excerpt and I’m not doing it again because it’s boring.


    Report comment

    1
  15. Here Dover:

    No it doesn’t. It gives no reason why only the trial group might get infected at a greater rate at that moment and not the placebo.

    Why else would the above sentence be included? There’s no other reasons and there’s no ambiguity.

    Possibly to provide cover for the 40% higher number in the trial group. I agree there could be no other reason than that.

    Dunno Dover. You posted the excerpt to defend your argument, but now appears you’re arguing against your own excerpt.

    Am I? I’m only arguing against the claim that the 40% higher case number was just bad luck.

    Yea 40% sounds like a lot until we see its 122 people over 43,651. People often quote percentages in order to disguise the actual number being really tiny.

    That was the point I made. The vast majority of the people in the trial, vaxxed or placebo, never got COVID. But I added that you can’t complain about me or anyone else using a relative number when vaccine efficacy itself is given as a relative number too.


    Report comment

    3
  16. You’ve never argued about stats and it’s supposed to be your forte. Perhaps you could come out of your ivory tower and impart your wisdom.

    I’m not a statistician and stats is definitely not my forte. I did however do a rough calculation while lying in bed and came out with about one in two thousand as a generous estimate of the probability of getting those two sample numbers from the same process by chance.

    If you want a hint, look at the standard deviation of the binomial distribution.

    If you really want a proper analysis and better numbers, I’m willing to do it at mate’s rates. $1,250 and I’ll explain it in detail. Or ten Añejados Romeo y Julietta Churchills. Send the money or cigars to Dover and as soon as he emails me to say he’s got it, I’ll post the full exposition.


    Report comment

    4
  17. Send the money or cigars to Dover and as soon as he emails me to say he’s got it, I’ll post the full exposition.

    Asking me to teach you elementary statistics for free is, shall we say, just a little bit cheeky, JC. My wisdom is pretty cheap, but doesn’t come free.


    Report comment

    2
  18. And Arky is about right, so one of your numbers is about three standard deviations above the expected value, and the other about three standard deviations below. Each of these has a probability of roughly one in two hundred. So the probability of both is around one in forty thousand, much worse than my crude estimate.

    So your judgment is seriously flawed.

    This has been a public service announcement. No charge.


    Report comment

    15
  19. AdBlue situation getting worse according to a spokesman for a large fuel distributor in Victoria.
    Allow qualified mechanics to disconnect the system was his advice.


    Report comment

    7
  20. Powerline reports that at last Chris Wallace is leaving Fox News – with a further rumour that he’s going to CNN! The man himself tweeted something about doing more stuff of interest, and wait for it, “beyond politics”. Yeah, right.
    Tucker’s Originals has got to him.


    Report comment

    8
  21. Gateway Pundit confirms the above, and quotes Wallace as saying he’s honoured to be working with Geoff Zucker at the wonderful CNN.
    That confirms what we thought about his character.


    Report comment

    9
  22. Short farewell video by Wallace at FoxNews.com which at least compliments them on allowing him to do whatever he liked without interference.
    Doesn’t want to burn bridges entirely!


    Report comment

    3
  23. The 44-year-old CNN producer from Stamford CT, who worked ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Chris Cuomo according to the Daily Mail, ‘used Google Hangouts and Kik to convince the mothers that a “woman is a woman regardless of her age,” and that “women should be sexually subservient and inferior to men,” according to a Friday indictment.

    1. What the hell is Kik?
    2. This doesn’t sound like the stuff male feminists openly day on the internet – actually the complete opposite.
    3. The dude gets a walk as soon as the mother is out of gaol.
    4. If 3. pisses you off, then demand the mother gets equal gaol time, or equally to the male offender, Bane’s Court.


    Report comment

    2
  24. I’d vote for Liberal Sherpa over Chris Wallace for a town councilman or dog catcher.

    Bernie Bros are commies but they’re honest, like civil liberties and hate the Clinton machine.


    Report comment

  25. Just got sent pics of CM & Townsville Bulletin. Crowing about the expected tourism from open borders. 10’s of thousands apparently… Talk about counting the chickens before the eggs hatch, IMO be mostly stranded residents or family moving back. Very few I know are crossing any borders until the openings are full and unconditional. Those that are are doing it out of pure necessity for family that haven’t been seen in 2 years and are under no illusions they may be stranded at a whim.

    LOL Voice for Victoria has tweets from Somyurek singing like a canary. Probably the biggest corroboration of political corruption in 30 years and not a peep in News Corpse, Fewfacts or their ABC. Go figure.


    Report comment

    3
  26. “…so one of your numbers is about three standard deviations above the expected value, and the other about three standard deviations below. “

    Not taking any side here, but a univariate analysis of epidemiology data is a pretty poor indicator of anything. And that’s before we even consider that there is almost always a confounding factor that we don’t even have data on. That’s one reason why epidemiology is so frustratingly slow to come to any sort of consensus on even the simplest of cases. It’ll wash out in the end.
    “Prediction is hard – especially about the future.”


    Report comment

  27. Bird strike?

    Anyway, good news from the Courier Mail.

    ………… ……….. ………..

    HOW LONG WILL A BOOSTER LAST?

    Researchers are still studying whether booster shots will last as long, longer or less than the original dual doses. The original clinical trials for the vaccines didn’t account for waning effectiveness or the need for additional boosters to maintain their efficacy. Therefore, the long-term efficacy of the boosters, and whether there will be the need for another shot, and then another or another, is currently unknown.


    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *