4 ms·

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 ori

by 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
No, you are adding to it. Literally. Their data shows that vaccinated has a wider and higher 95% CI for exhaled. There are larger outliers in unvaccinated, but the signal in the data that they can isolate shows that you cannot claim vaccinated shed less. Which is why they don't claim that. You may have tried to go to the land of academics, but you are injecting stronger claims into what this paper reports than they are making. They never say anything about controlling for severity. They only show that self reported severity correlates with more shedding. Though, again, that is with a very high variance across the board for the other severity. Their chart showed, and all they claim, is that there is a correlation of "severe" with higher shedding over the other reported values. Note that this is not reporting that self reported symptoms correlates. It is specifically self reported "severe" does. Indeed, their data shows that folks that report "none" have higher 95% ranges than "mild" reports do.
- mint2 3y ago
  This is the quote where they state they controlled for severity aka “accounted for”. I already posted it btw. Have a good day. Keep denying it. “ We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, and if you read the data they use to make this claim, you see that it supports the fact that vaccinated shed as much as unvaccinated. If you restrict your claim to "vaccinated don't get severe symptoms, and therefore don't have the highest shedding," I agree with you. What you cannot claim, is that vaccinated shed less. At the 95% CI of the data, vaccinated is actually higher for the sample size they have here. Again, their data literally shows that, outside of samples outside the 95% CI, you can't tell vaccinated from unvaccinated. I think if you are arguing that this is only breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals, the stronger claim probably sticks, but they don't have the data to make that claim in this study.
    - mint2 3y ago
      Bonjour. It is clear the proverbial horse does not want water.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Am I misstating the data? Which literally shows more virus exhaled by 95% of all vaccinated versus 95% of unvaccinated? And where do they state that vaccinated exhale less than unvaccinated? Specifically, where do they say that? They show the total range of exhaled values is larger for unvaccinated, but the 95% range is higher for vaccinated. It looks dangerously like you are forcing the reading for what you want the truth to be. Not for what the data supports. Note that i want that same value for the truth. I just don't see the data supporting it. And the paper seems to agree, as they are not making as strong of a claim as you are.

by mint2 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

No, you are adding to it. Literally. Their data shows that vaccinated has a wider and higher 95% CI for exhaled. There are larger outliers in unvaccinated, but the signal in the data that they can isolate shows that you cannot claim vaccinated shed less. Which is why they don't claim that. You may have tried to go to the land of academics, but you are injecting stronger claims into what this paper reports than they are making. They never say anything about controlling for severity. They only show that self reported severity correlates with more shedding. Though, again, that is with a very high variance across the board for the other severity. Their chart showed, and all they claim, is that there is a correlation of "severe" with higher shedding over the other reported values. Note that this is not reporting that self reported symptoms correlates. It is specifically self reported "severe" does. Indeed, their data shows that folks that report "none" have higher 95% ranges than "mild" reports do.

mint2 3y ago
This is the quote where they state they controlled for severity aka “accounted for”. I already posted it btw. Have a good day. Keep denying it. “ We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
- taeric 3y ago
  Right, and if you read the data they use to make this claim, you see that it supports the fact that vaccinated shed as much as unvaccinated. If you restrict your claim to "vaccinated don't get severe symptoms, and therefore don't have the highest shedding," I agree with you. What you cannot claim, is that vaccinated shed less. At the 95% CI of the data, vaccinated is actually higher for the sample size they have here. Again, their data literally shows that, outside of samples outside the 95% CI, you can't tell vaccinated from unvaccinated. I think if you are arguing that this is only breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals, the stronger claim probably sticks, but they don't have the data to make that claim in this study.
  - mint2 3y ago
    Bonjour. It is clear the proverbial horse does not want water.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Am I misstating the data? Which literally shows more virus exhaled by 95% of all vaccinated versus 95% of unvaccinated? And where do they state that vaccinated exhale less than unvaccinated? Specifically, where do they say that? They show the total range of exhaled values is larger for unvaccinated, but the 95% range is higher for vaccinated. It looks dangerously like you are forcing the reading for what you want the truth to be. Not for what the data supports. Note that i want that same value for the truth. I just don't see the data supporting it. And the paper seems to agree, as they are not making as strong of a claim as you are.