5 ms·

It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are co

by mint2 3y ago

It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for. Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.

taeric 3y ago
But they specifically say that differently? As I said in another, you are jumping from severity correlating with vaccine to get to this idea. But, they actually call out self reported severity as correlating. Such that, if the correlations were strong enough it would have also showed up in their control for that variable. Stated differently, you have variables A = self-reported severity B = amount shed C = vaccinated status If A and B are correlated, and A and C are correlated, there will a floor to how correlated B and C can be. Their later sentence is that the correlation between B and C is below the significance floor. They never comment on how correlated A and C are. You could argue there is another variable D = Actual Severity, but that is not covered in the statements I remember.
- mint2 3y ago
  This is where the mistaken reasoning is, they aren’t measuring or reporting on that naive correlation between B and C that you’re focusing on. They are saying after backing out the correlation between A and B to get adjusted B, there is no correlation between C and adjusted B. That is an ELI5 explanation of their statement “controlled for” about the factors like severity. Yes their focus is not on how A and C relate, but we know that relation from other sources. That is what controlled for means. “Hello” means a greeting in English. It’s the definition. Same concept, it’s the meaning of controlled for. It’s what it was defined to mean.
  - taeric 3y ago
    The quote they use is "We found no impact of vaccination status, viral variant, age, sex, or presence of co-morbidities." Specifically, in the section "Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels increased with self-reported symptom severity," they say that they found folks with reported severe symptoms were higher than the others. However, it is worded and presented such that really only "severe" was higher. Indeed, figure 3c shows that vaccinated individuals have similar spikes as otherwise. (The CI is actually higher and wider on the chart for vaccinated?) That chart also highlights that people reporting "none" exhale more than people that report "some" and has peaks as high as those that say severe. Really, the "severe" just shows that at that level it is harder to ignore for anyone. (The min is higher.) Now, the section "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals exhaled similar levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA," calls out the actual high data points for unvaccinated as being actually higher, with a max of 876 to 549. Though, again, it shows the CI is wider for vaccinated. Again, I'm mostly willing to get behind the claim that vaccinated people shed less. But that isn't strongly supported by the data. The data does support that super spreaders of 500+ exhaled breaths are unvaccinated. So, if you want to limit the claim to "vaccinated people are kept from severe symptoms," I feel that is mostly known and agreed with today. If you try to move the claim to "vaccinated shed less than unvaccinated," the data clearly indicates that is not supported. Again the 95% CI is higher for vaccinated individuals on this study.
    - mint2 3y ago
      Look, I’m explaining how to interpret the experiment results they report, which they base their analysis and conclusions on. What I’m doing is going to the original foundation. What you’re looking at is the decorations they put on the foundation. I’ve explained over and over what their foundational experiment showed as described. stop being hung up on the decorations. The decorations are pretty bows and wrapping paper. That’s what you’re focusing on. Stop it. Bob went to France and got annoying no one said “hi” to him. His friend tried to explain what they said, “bonjour” meant hi. He wouldn’t accept it. We went to the land of academics, I explained what the academese means. You’re not accepting it, focusing instead on the wrong thing.
      - taeric 3y ago

by mint2 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

But they specifically say that differently? As I said in another, you are jumping from severity correlating with vaccine to get to this idea. But, they actually call out self reported severity as correlating. Such that, if the correlations were strong enough it would have also showed up in their control for that variable. Stated differently, you have variables A = self-reported severity B = amount shed C = vaccinated status If A and B are correlated, and A and C are correlated, there will a floor to how correlated B and C can be. Their later sentence is that the correlation between B and C is below the significance floor. They never comment on how correlated A and C are. You could argue there is another variable D = Actual Severity, but that is not covered in the statements I remember.

mint2 3y ago
This is where the mistaken reasoning is, they aren’t measuring or reporting on that naive correlation between B and C that you’re focusing on. They are saying after backing out the correlation between A and B to get adjusted B, there is no correlation between C and adjusted B. That is an ELI5 explanation of their statement “controlled for” about the factors like severity. Yes their focus is not on how A and C relate, but we know that relation from other sources. That is what controlled for means. “Hello” means a greeting in English. It’s the definition. Same concept, it’s the meaning of controlled for. It’s what it was defined to mean.
- taeric 3y ago
  The quote they use is "We found no impact of vaccination status, viral variant, age, sex, or presence of co-morbidities." Specifically, in the section "Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels increased with self-reported symptom severity," they say that they found folks with reported severe symptoms were higher than the others. However, it is worded and presented such that really only "severe" was higher. Indeed, figure 3c shows that vaccinated individuals have similar spikes as otherwise. (The CI is actually higher and wider on the chart for vaccinated?) That chart also highlights that people reporting "none" exhale more than people that report "some" and has peaks as high as those that say severe. Really, the "severe" just shows that at that level it is harder to ignore for anyone. (The min is higher.) Now, the section "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals exhaled similar levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA," calls out the actual high data points for unvaccinated as being actually higher, with a max of 876 to 549. Though, again, it shows the CI is wider for vaccinated. Again, I'm mostly willing to get behind the claim that vaccinated people shed less. But that isn't strongly supported by the data. The data does support that super spreaders of 500+ exhaled breaths are unvaccinated. So, if you want to limit the claim to "vaccinated people are kept from severe symptoms," I feel that is mostly known and agreed with today. If you try to move the claim to "vaccinated shed less than unvaccinated," the data clearly indicates that is not supported. Again the 95% CI is higher for vaccinated individuals on this study.
  - mint2 3y ago
    Look, I’m explaining how to interpret the experiment results they report, which they base their analysis and conclusions on. What I’m doing is going to the original foundation. What you’re looking at is the decorations they put on the foundation. I’ve explained over and over what their foundational experiment showed as described. stop being hung up on the decorations. The decorations are pretty bows and wrapping paper. That’s what you’re focusing on. Stop it. Bob went to France and got annoying no one said “hi” to him. His friend tried to explain what they said, “bonjour” meant hi. He wouldn’t accept it. We went to the land of academics, I explained what the academese means. You’re not accepting it, focusing instead on the wrong thing.
    - taeric 3y ago