2 ms·

This methodology seems sound to me. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before. I'd be interested to hear views on whether it is coherent or what the

This methodology seems sound to me. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before. I'd be interested to hear views on whether it is coherent or what the issues are.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Now would be a good time to review the hierarchy of evidence. Using the hierarchy of evidence, where do you think this lies, and where do you think the evidence that vaccines do in fact save lives lies?
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
The analysis excludes underlying health conditions… junk science.
- verisimi 5y ago
  But that is the case for both vaccinated and unvaccinated - he's intentionally ignoring everything except death. I think the simplicity is a strength.
  - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
    If two cohorts have a different mortality rate you need to control for that. The author specifics does not control for it. Do you also believe bandages cause death or injury? It’s weird. People who are hurt often wear bandages. You would argue band-aids cause injury?
    - native_samples 5y ago
      You can't control for mortality here, that doesn't make sense, because mortality is the variable under investigation. He does control for the most obvious confounder (age). Some people - like the UK HSA and ONS - have tried to argue there must be other confounders like vaccines being given preferentially to unhealthy people, but they're self-contradicting on this point. I've seen them argue for both a healthy vaccinee effect and also an unhealthy vaccinee effect, both times with no direct evidence. They're shooting in the dark to try and avoid the obvious inference. The bandage analogy is illogical. Injuries cause bandages so of course there's a correlation. Vaccines are not meant to cause death, so there should be no correlation. They're meant to prevent death, so the ratio should run in the opposite direction - the unvaccinated should die more often then the vaccinated.

This methodology seems sound to me. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before. I'd be interested to hear views on whether it is coherent or what the issues are.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

Now would be a good time to review the hierarchy of evidence. Using the hierarchy of evidence, where do you think this lies, and where do you think the evidence that vaccines do in fact save lives lies?

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

The analysis excludes underlying health conditions… junk science.

verisimi 5y ago
But that is the case for both vaccinated and unvaccinated - he's intentionally ignoring everything except death. I think the simplicity is a strength.
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  If two cohorts have a different mortality rate you need to control for that. The author specifics does not control for it. Do you also believe bandages cause death or injury? It’s weird. People who are hurt often wear bandages. You would argue band-aids cause injury?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    You can't control for mortality here, that doesn't make sense, because mortality is the variable under investigation. He does control for the most obvious confounder (age). Some people - like the UK HSA and ONS - have tried to argue there must be other confounders like vaccines being given preferentially to unhealthy people, but they're self-contradicting on this point. I've seen them argue for both a healthy vaccinee effect and also an unhealthy vaccinee effect, both times with no direct evidence. They're shooting in the dark to try and avoid the obvious inference. The bandage analogy is illogical. Injuries cause bandages so of course there's a correlation. Vaccines are not meant to cause death, so there should be no correlation. They're meant to prevent death, so the ratio should run in the opposite direction - the unvaccinated should die more often then the vaccinated.