4 ms·

You’re right - I’m anti-vaxx when it comes to mRNA vaccines and I often link to mainstream articles like this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-m

You’re right - I’m anti-vaxx when it comes to mRNA vaccines and I often link to mainstream articles like this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dying-170117640.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi... Mainstream articles are biased with the spin of the situation but the facts are there. It goes over some causes of deaths - mostly heart/clotting issues, exactly what you’d expect from the vaxx. That’s why we call it the “clot-shot” In England people who took the vaxx are twice as likely to die as those who don’t: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adults-under-60 https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adult... If you want an opposing view of that data read this fact-check: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britain-idUSL1N2RP28I https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britai... Notice how they don’t deny the statistic. They just say it’s taken “out of context” because covid deaths, and vaccines save lives. No matter how they spin it they can’t deny government data says vaccinated 18-59 are much more likely to die. That’s a fact, even though it’s marked as false by Reuters.

jack_squat 5y ago
Doesn't that all make sense? I'm not sure what the issue is here. The statistic that vaccinated people 18-59 are dying at twice the rate presumably true, so of course the reuters article doesn't deny it. The Reuters article presents a totally believable explanation, which is also in the original article's comments. What they are saying is that this can be true for the age range 18-59, but simultaneously not be true for any specific age brackets within that range. This is called Simpson's paradox. The explanation is that vaccination rates are higher among the elderly than among the young, and that the elderly have a higher baseline rate of death, and the Reuters article breaks out the numbers to demonstrate this. What's the big mystery exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
- halfjoking 5y ago
  Yes that explanation is plausible. I replied to another comment below what I take away from that statistic… mainly that vaccine mandates are BS given other factors such as age has such an impact on mortality and spread.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Vaccines reduce the spread significantly, ergo, the mandates for even young people have a dramatic effect in reducing risk for everyone. They are not BS.
    - checkyourbias 5y ago
      Do you have a source showing vaccines significantly reduce the spread of the current dominant variant?
- joshuahedlund 5y ago
  Simpson’s paradox is fascinating. If the result above does not seem intuitive, think of an extremely simplified version: imagine that half of everyone in their 50’s is vaxxed and no one on their 20’s is. Next imagine that of 1000 people in their 50’s, 100 of 500 vaxxed people die from non-covid sources, 100 of 500 unvaxxed people die from non-covid sources, plus 50 unvaxxed people in their 50’s die from covid and no vaxxed people do. And imagine that 0 out of 2000 people in their 20’s die from anything. 150 out of 2500 unvaxxed deaths in 18-59 100 out of 500 vaxxed deaths in 18-59 (higher rate) But: 150 of 500 unvaxxed deaths in 50-59 100 of 500 vaxxed deaths in 50-59 (lower rate) It would be true that more vaxxed people died than unvaxxed in the 18-59 age group without the vaccine causing any death, but only because the larger number of surviving young people swamps the higher relative death rates among the higher relative vaxxed elderly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
You are confusing your data badly. Each of your references are saying completely different things. 1) non-covid excess mortality 2) mortality rate between those vaxxed and not vaxxed. 3) Reteurs was not 'debunking' point 2 or point 1. They are 'debunking' crap statements on Joe Rogan Podcast about the absollute numbers of those dying from COVID in general. Alex Berenson is terribly misrepresenting information. So when you say "That's a Fact" - you don't even seem to be sure what facts you're referring to, and they are obviously taken out of context, at face value. A) For point 3, the Reuters debunking of 'Most of the COVID deaths are those vaccinated' (Alex Berenson on Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation). Suppose 100% of the citizens of the UK are vaccinated. The vaxx is good, but not perfect - so some will die. Are you going to run around saying '100% of those dying were vaccinated - therefore the vaxx is crap'. That would be 'a fact' i.e. '100% of deaths are those who are vaccinated'. But how helpful is that fact? It's not. It'd be like saying '99% of those dying from car accidents were wearing seatbelts, therefore seat-belts are dangerous' B) Data point 2, which shows that 'Vaxxed people aged 10-59 are dying at 2x the rate those unvaxxed' - is also misleading. (FYI they are talking about 'death rates' not absolute deaths, which is why it's different than the Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation.) The likelihood of someone being vaccinated goes up dramatically with their likelihood of dying from COVID. 59-year-olds are vaxxed at a much higher rate than 10 or 20 year olds. Especially those with underlying conditions. And it's going to be overwhelmingly people in those situations that die from COVID. Here's an analogy: People aged 50+ and those 30+ with underlying conditions are going for a 'dangerous car ride'. Everyone else is going for a 'safe car ride'. Everyone is asked to wear their seatbelts. Some people, particularly those going on the 'safe car ride' - are not wearing seatbelts. As a result: all the 'big crashes' are in the 'dangerous car-ride' cohort. That means almost all of the deaths will be among those who are wearing seatbelts, because, well, they were going on a 'dangerous car ride'. The kids who didn't bother to wear seatbelts, were mostly going on the 'safe ride' and there were not many accidents at all. If we popularized the notion of 'People with seatbelts more likely to die' - it would be totally misleading, because people would come to believe that 'Seatbelts Kill You' - when, the total opposite is true - seatbelts save lives. ... People that are smart enough to know the difference, and continue to propagate it, are deliberately misleading people. People that aren't bright enough (or don't have the time) to spot the difference ... shouldn't be propagating information.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
[flagged]

jack_squat 5y ago

Doesn't that all make sense? I'm not sure what the issue is here. The statistic that vaccinated people 18-59 are dying at twice the rate presumably true, so of course the reuters article doesn't deny it. The Reuters article presents a totally believable explanation, which is also in the original article's comments. What they are saying is that this can be true for the age range 18-59, but simultaneously not be true for any specific age brackets within that range. This is called Simpson's paradox. The explanation is that vaccination rates are higher among the elderly than among the young, and that the elderly have a higher baseline rate of death, and the Reuters article breaks out the numbers to demonstrate this. What's the big mystery exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

halfjoking 5y ago
Yes that explanation is plausible. I replied to another comment below what I take away from that statistic… mainly that vaccine mandates are BS given other factors such as age has such an impact on mortality and spread.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Vaccines reduce the spread significantly, ergo, the mandates for even young people have a dramatic effect in reducing risk for everyone. They are not BS.
  - checkyourbias 5y ago
    Do you have a source showing vaccines significantly reduce the spread of the current dominant variant?
joshuahedlund 5y ago
Simpson’s paradox is fascinating. If the result above does not seem intuitive, think of an extremely simplified version: imagine that half of everyone in their 50’s is vaxxed and no one on their 20’s is. Next imagine that of 1000 people in their 50’s, 100 of 500 vaxxed people die from non-covid sources, 100 of 500 unvaxxed people die from non-covid sources, plus 50 unvaxxed people in their 50’s die from covid and no vaxxed people do. And imagine that 0 out of 2000 people in their 20’s die from anything. 150 out of 2500 unvaxxed deaths in 18-59 100 out of 500 vaxxed deaths in 18-59 (higher rate) But: 150 of 500 unvaxxed deaths in 50-59 100 of 500 vaxxed deaths in 50-59 (lower rate) It would be true that more vaxxed people died than unvaxxed in the 18-59 age group without the vaccine causing any death, but only because the larger number of surviving young people swamps the higher relative death rates among the higher relative vaxxed elderly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

You are confusing your data badly. Each of your references are saying completely different things. 1) non-covid excess mortality 2) mortality rate between those vaxxed and not vaxxed. 3) Reteurs was not 'debunking' point 2 or point 1. They are 'debunking' crap statements on Joe Rogan Podcast about the absollute numbers of those dying from COVID in general. Alex Berenson is terribly misrepresenting information. So when you say "That's a Fact" - you don't even seem to be sure what facts you're referring to, and they are obviously taken out of context, at face value. A) For point 3, the Reuters debunking of 'Most of the COVID deaths are those vaccinated' (Alex Berenson on Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation). Suppose 100% of the citizens of the UK are vaccinated. The vaxx is good, but not perfect - so some will die. Are you going to run around saying '100% of those dying were vaccinated - therefore the vaxx is crap'. That would be 'a fact' i.e. '100% of deaths are those who are vaccinated'. But how helpful is that fact? It's not. It'd be like saying '99% of those dying from car accidents were wearing seatbelts, therefore seat-belts are dangerous' B) Data point 2, which shows that 'Vaxxed people aged 10-59 are dying at 2x the rate those unvaxxed' - is also misleading. (FYI they are talking about 'death rates' not absolute deaths, which is why it's different than the Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation.) The likelihood of someone being vaccinated goes up dramatically with their likelihood of dying from COVID. 59-year-olds are vaxxed at a much higher rate than 10 or 20 year olds. Especially those with underlying conditions. And it's going to be overwhelmingly people in those situations that die from COVID. Here's an analogy: People aged 50+ and those 30+ with underlying conditions are going for a 'dangerous car ride'. Everyone else is going for a 'safe car ride'. Everyone is asked to wear their seatbelts. Some people, particularly those going on the 'safe car ride' - are not wearing seatbelts. As a result: all the 'big crashes' are in the 'dangerous car-ride' cohort. That means almost all of the deaths will be among those who are wearing seatbelts, because, well, they were going on a 'dangerous car ride'. The kids who didn't bother to wear seatbelts, were mostly going on the 'safe ride' and there were not many accidents at all. If we popularized the notion of 'People with seatbelts more likely to die' - it would be totally misleading, because people would come to believe that 'Seatbelts Kill You' - when, the total opposite is true - seatbelts save lives. ... People that are smart enough to know the difference, and continue to propagate it, are deliberately misleading people. People that aren't bright enough (or don't have the time) to spot the difference ... shouldn't be propagating information.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

[flagged]