4 ms·
> It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. > In short
by ThunderSizzle 4y ago
> It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease.
> In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions.
I guess it was hard to follow your own advice and not editorialize an opinion that is not qualified medical advice from a personal doctor.
- justinjlynn 4y agoThis is essentially the same as replying "no u". The risk results in question are clear and numerically comparable on their own. It's not a complex diagnosis, analysis, or treatment issue that would require a specialist's medical opinion. All you need is the knowledge of someone who understands basic arithmetic, statistics, and logic. This is not editorialising. This is not misrepresenting data or reports to mislead. I welcome you to try again - preferably with a point beyond "no u" next time.
- raxxorrax 4y agoNot at all as you did not apply the quality control to the data as you suggested it needed to have to come to a conclusion.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agothat post you're responding to was not misleading, but rather quite clear and on point bringing up individual case reports for a population-level question is indeed pretty ridiculous, especially in the comment section of a study which addresses the question much better this also applies to sources of info: if someone is trusting individual doctors they found on the internet instead of a consensus of the population of doctors, they are also likely to mislead or be misled.