5 ms·

Same take for me as well. Screams of cherry picking. The stats in favor of vaccines take a sentence to explain (like “of the 1000 people with the vaccine 2 died

Same take for me as well. Screams of cherry picking. The stats in favor of vaccines take a sentence to explain (like “of the 1000 people with the vaccine 2 died, vs the 1000 people with placebo, 187 died”). This is a long term rambling wall of text. Another part is how individual doctors mention individual patients who develop problems after the vaccine. Statistically, that is guaranteed to happen. There is a guarantee that someone will have their first heart attack today. The overlap between vaccine doses and heart problems is statistically guaranteed but does not imply causation.

389dsf3479 5y ago
> The stats in favor of vaccines take a sentence to explain (like “of the 1000 people with the vaccine 2 died, vs the 1000 people with placebo, 187 died”) Are those real numbers? At least according to table S26. Death summary in Blinded Phase (https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_f...) it should be “of the 15184 people with the vaccine 16 died, vs the 15162 people with placebo, 16 died”. Unless I'm mistaken.
ripper1138 5y ago
Numbers are cherry picked on both sides. Read the results and draw your own conclusions!
nostromo 5y ago
Read the results in the paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_f... Group A and Group B had the same amount of deaths. Group B also had more adverse reactions, some serious and some minor. Given these details in isolation, I would want to be in Group A. But then you look at what that Group A is, and it's actually the control group.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Some statistics about the table: There were 30,000 participants, and in both test and placebo, there were 16 deaths. The test arm had 3 covid deaths, and the control arm had 1, but it was an HIV patient who was not fully vaccinated so they are arguing it’s 0 deaths for the fully vaccinated cohort. So, the numbers we’re looking at here are pretty small. So what can we learn from this? Basically, if you remove all the covid deaths, it’s 13 deaths in test and 15 in placebo. These are statistically equivalent. In both test and control you’re equally likely to die of something other than covid in that window. Now onto the covid deaths. There were 3 in placebo and 0 in control. These are horribly small numbers. More data would be useful. However.. you can do the stats anyway. The placebo group suggests that the death rate is .02%, with some error. Having 0.00% death rate in the test group is unlikely, but within that error. So this data is too weak to draw much of a conclusion.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  But why would you go look at the results of a year old study with 30,000 participants when there is recent data covering many more people where protection from death among the vaccinated is blatantly obvious? That's the trick, focus on the evidence that paints a particular picture instead of actually evaluating the available evidence.
raxxorrax 5y ago
The greatest point of failure in these studies is the quality of data. If it isn't ensured to be accurate any further analysis is useless. And this is the core point the article tries to make. Not saying it is correct or not, but you did not respond to the criticism.
native_samples 5y ago
Firstly, as others pointed out, your numbers are wrong so your one sentence explanation is just misinformation. The number of deaths in the trial arms were about the same, actually a bit higher in the vaccine arm. The official explanation for this is that COVID is not deadly enough to show up in a trial population of 'only' ~60-70,000 participants especially because the trials failed to recruit many over 80 year olds, who are by far the most at risk. Secondly, the article is broken down into sections with proper titles, and many links to evidence. It's not a "wall of text" and it's not "rambling", it's well structured. Thirdly, the doctors and nurses in question are saying explicitly that they found the sudden prevalence of these events surprising and concerning. They are front line workers, they aren't sitting in an office reading Excel for Dummies, they're saying they noticed a qualitative change in the situation. Finally, I only got about half way down but I actually found statements that were underplaying the extent of the problem, like this one: "the English data, though difficult to interpret, contains some worrying signals that all-cause mortality could be higher in the vaccinated, especially in those under 60 years of age" It doesn't contain "worrying signals" that all cause mortality "could" be higher. It shows outright that the all-cause death rate in the vaccinated has been much higher than in the unvaccinated in 2021. You can find a graph of it here: https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-time-on-non-covid-deaths https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-time-on-non-cov... And that article links to the original ONS report, if you want to read that.
- mint2 5y ago
  that comment is an excellent example of why these articles get flagged rather than debated. They become an incessant Sisyphean slog through every minor detail that has between twisted or cherry picked in ways that really seems intentional on the part of the pro-death anti vax movement in order to prove their narrative at any cost. 210 million America are vaccine as of today. Are you trying to say the number I mentioned in my comment was wrong because I said “few hundred million” instead of “a couple hundred million plus change” when even if it were just “one” hundred million my point would be valid? Quibbling over whether it should be a couple or few when either of them support the point is 100th level nitpicking on the unimportant. Of course the point I made has been ignored because it was valid. > show up in a trial population of 'only' ~60-70,000 participants Why are you looking at the number of participants? It’s not relevant to your point there. The number that had covid is needed to answer the question you’re posing.

389dsf3479 5y ago

> The stats in favor of vaccines take a sentence to explain (like “of the 1000 people with the vaccine 2 died, vs the 1000 people with placebo, 187 died”) Are those real numbers? At least according to table S26. Death summary in Blinded Phase (https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_f...) it should be “of the 15184 people with the vaccine 16 died, vs the 15162 people with placebo, 16 died”. Unless I'm mistaken.

ripper1138 5y ago

Numbers are cherry picked on both sides. Read the results and draw your own conclusions!

nostromo 5y ago

Read the results in the paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_f... Group A and Group B had the same amount of deaths. Group B also had more adverse reactions, some serious and some minor. Given these details in isolation, I would want to be in Group A. But then you look at what that Group A is, and it's actually the control group.

thehappypm 5y ago
Some statistics about the table: There were 30,000 participants, and in both test and placebo, there were 16 deaths. The test arm had 3 covid deaths, and the control arm had 1, but it was an HIV patient who was not fully vaccinated so they are arguing it’s 0 deaths for the fully vaccinated cohort. So, the numbers we’re looking at here are pretty small. So what can we learn from this? Basically, if you remove all the covid deaths, it’s 13 deaths in test and 15 in placebo. These are statistically equivalent. In both test and control you’re equally likely to die of something other than covid in that window. Now onto the covid deaths. There were 3 in placebo and 0 in control. These are horribly small numbers. More data would be useful. However.. you can do the stats anyway. The placebo group suggests that the death rate is .02%, with some error. Having 0.00% death rate in the test group is unlikely, but within that error. So this data is too weak to draw much of a conclusion.
maxerickson 5y ago
But why would you go look at the results of a year old study with 30,000 participants when there is recent data covering many more people where protection from death among the vaccinated is blatantly obvious? That's the trick, focus on the evidence that paints a particular picture instead of actually evaluating the available evidence.

raxxorrax 5y ago

The greatest point of failure in these studies is the quality of data. If it isn't ensured to be accurate any further analysis is useless. And this is the core point the article tries to make. Not saying it is correct or not, but you did not respond to the criticism.

native_samples 5y ago

Firstly, as others pointed out, your numbers are wrong so your one sentence explanation is just misinformation. The number of deaths in the trial arms were about the same, actually a bit higher in the vaccine arm. The official explanation for this is that COVID is not deadly enough to show up in a trial population of 'only' ~60-70,000 participants especially because the trials failed to recruit many over 80 year olds, who are by far the most at risk. Secondly, the article is broken down into sections with proper titles, and many links to evidence. It's not a "wall of text" and it's not "rambling", it's well structured. Thirdly, the doctors and nurses in question are saying explicitly that they found the sudden prevalence of these events surprising and concerning. They are front line workers, they aren't sitting in an office reading Excel for Dummies, they're saying they noticed a qualitative change in the situation. Finally, I only got about half way down but I actually found statements that were underplaying the extent of the problem, like this one: "the English data, though difficult to interpret, contains some worrying signals that all-cause mortality could be higher in the vaccinated, especially in those under 60 years of age" It doesn't contain "worrying signals" that all cause mortality "could" be higher. It shows outright that the all-cause death rate in the vaccinated has been much higher than in the unvaccinated in 2021. You can find a graph of it here: https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-time-on-non-covid-deaths https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-time-on-non-cov... And that article links to the original ONS report, if you want to read that.

mint2 5y ago
that comment is an excellent example of why these articles get flagged rather than debated. They become an incessant Sisyphean slog through every minor detail that has between twisted or cherry picked in ways that really seems intentional on the part of the pro-death anti vax movement in order to prove their narrative at any cost. 210 million America are vaccine as of today. Are you trying to say the number I mentioned in my comment was wrong because I said “few hundred million” instead of “a couple hundred million plus change” when even if it were just “one” hundred million my point would be valid? Quibbling over whether it should be a couple or few when either of them support the point is 100th level nitpicking on the unimportant. Of course the point I made has been ignored because it was valid. > show up in a trial population of 'only' ~60-70,000 participants Why are you looking at the number of participants? It’s not relevant to your point there. The number that had covid is needed to answer the question you’re posing.