28 ms·

The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise. Spain has a universal healthc

by croon 2mo ago

The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise. Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study. The healthy people at home aren't "outside the cohort". You are arguing against a methodology you don't understand. The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form. It has nothing to do with retrospective seroprevalence studies, which the CDC (and WHO, and every major health organization in the world) itself uses to track population spread.

trimethylpurine 2mo ago
Do you have the prevalence numbers or not? You're not going to convince me that LATER we got better at testing and so you're using those test estimates to plug into this older study. That's not what was discussed in this research, obviously. That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it? I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that claim. You have provided no evidence other than your personal hearsay that the CDC and WHO agree on something that they never said. Go ahead and link to it if they did. I'll wait. Separately you keep saying I misunderstand when it's clearly the opposite. Let me break it down for you clearly because, from my perspective, you are just plugging random bullshit into the wrong place in a math problem: >The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise. Right! But that's not what you're claiming. How does this tell us how many people were infected and asymptomatic? You are aware that "registered citizens in the district" is not the same is "infected people with no symptoms" right? So why are you plugging it into a math problem where "infected people with no symptoms" is the expected variable for substantiating your claim? > Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study. Great! So tell us how many people were infected with no symptoms in 2020 so that we can make an effort to believe your claim that vaccines are less harmful than infection! It's pretty simple math, you just need the data that you claim to already have but refuse to share! You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge? > The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form. It implies something about the data, even if you twist like you did. I personally prefer to go with the exact quote, which I gave you. But your twist on it isn't any better for your argument. It, in both cases, draws significant doubt about the accuracy of the test. Let's pretend I have an allergy to the COVID protein. Should I use that test to make a decision about my vaccination? I think you should go to prison if you said yes. Don't you? You'd be a murderer. But you're going to use it to make a broader, less evidence based claim than that? Summary: Please provide the prevalence data. A bunch of people that you didn't test, whether you call them the cohort or not, does not establish prevalence. You need to include "asymptomatic infected" numbers to make your claim. As far as we know so far, you don't have those numbers. And, the CDC and the WHO don't even claim to have them, which is why your claim sounds so implausible. I mean, unless you're at the forefront of research at the CDC or something. But I don't see that this is the case.
- trimethylpurine 2mo ago
  EDIT: "tell us when you tested people with asymptomatic infection" Also, I'm mind bogglingly curious how you think those people would be discovered to perform a test on! So let me know why you even think that's possible! It seems like common sense that it wouldn't be because they don't exactly line up for testing and treatment when they feel perfectly fine.
  - trimethylpurine 2mo ago
    Sanity check for yourself. This study finds a mechanism of action for vaccine caused myocarditis, and rate of incidence. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v... My interpretation of the Spanish study allows for both articles to be totally valid. Your interpretation requires that you think you are smarter than one of these groups of researchers. It requires that Stanford's study is wrong. Honestly, which is more likely? It's okay to learn something here. You thought the denominator was people that weren't infected. You didn't think that it might be a group of 100% infected. But it could be. We simply don't know. It's okay to not have realized that. The scientific thing to do here is learn from your mistake.
    - croon 2mo ago
      This is so incredibly tiresome. I quoted Dr Wu in this literal thread, the actual author of the Stanford study. You're the one disagreeing with him.
      - trimethylpurine 2mo ago
        Dr Wu does decent math. You're taking him out of context chronologically. That's on you. Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population. You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others. Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?

by croon 2mo ago

trimethylpurine 2mo ago

Do you have the prevalence numbers or not? You're not going to convince me that LATER we got better at testing and so you're using those test estimates to plug into this older study. That's not what was discussed in this research, obviously. That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it? I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that claim. You have provided no evidence other than your personal hearsay that the CDC and WHO agree on something that they never said. Go ahead and link to it if they did. I'll wait. Separately you keep saying I misunderstand when it's clearly the opposite. Let me break it down for you clearly because, from my perspective, you are just plugging random bullshit into the wrong place in a math problem: >The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise. Right! But that's not what you're claiming. How does this tell us how many people were infected and asymptomatic? You are aware that "registered citizens in the district" is not the same is "infected people with no symptoms" right? So why are you plugging it into a math problem where "infected people with no symptoms" is the expected variable for substantiating your claim? > Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study. Great! So tell us how many people were infected with no symptoms in 2020 so that we can make an effort to believe your claim that vaccines are less harmful than infection! It's pretty simple math, you just need the data that you claim to already have but refuse to share! You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge? > The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form. It implies something about the data, even if you twist like you did. I personally prefer to go with the exact quote, which I gave you. But your twist on it isn't any better for your argument. It, in both cases, draws significant doubt about the accuracy of the test. Let's pretend I have an allergy to the COVID protein. Should I use that test to make a decision about my vaccination? I think you should go to prison if you said yes. Don't you? You'd be a murderer. But you're going to use it to make a broader, less evidence based claim than that? Summary: Please provide the prevalence data. A bunch of people that you didn't test, whether you call them the cohort or not, does not establish prevalence. You need to include "asymptomatic infected" numbers to make your claim. As far as we know so far, you don't have those numbers. And, the CDC and the WHO don't even claim to have them, which is why your claim sounds so implausible. I mean, unless you're at the forefront of research at the CDC or something. But I don't see that this is the case.

trimethylpurine 2mo ago
EDIT: "tell us when you tested people with asymptomatic infection" Also, I'm mind bogglingly curious how you think those people would be discovered to perform a test on! So let me know why you even think that's possible! It seems like common sense that it wouldn't be because they don't exactly line up for testing and treatment when they feel perfectly fine.
- trimethylpurine 2mo ago
  Sanity check for yourself. This study finds a mechanism of action for vaccine caused myocarditis, and rate of incidence. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v... My interpretation of the Spanish study allows for both articles to be totally valid. Your interpretation requires that you think you are smarter than one of these groups of researchers. It requires that Stanford's study is wrong. Honestly, which is more likely? It's okay to learn something here. You thought the denominator was people that weren't infected. You didn't think that it might be a group of 100% infected. But it could be. We simply don't know. It's okay to not have realized that. The scientific thing to do here is learn from your mistake.
  - croon 2mo ago
    This is so incredibly tiresome. I quoted Dr Wu in this literal thread, the actual author of the Stanford study. You're the one disagreeing with him.
    - trimethylpurine 2mo ago
      Dr Wu does decent math. You're taking him out of context chronologically. That's on you. Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population. You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others. Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?