And this in translation Professor Ehud Kimron: https://www.mako.co.il/news-columns/2022_q1/Article-dfd99ca599e2e71026.htm This is exactly what my friends in the USA and Australia have been experiencing and observing as patients! My friends in the UK are all compliant and seemingly ok. Except for medically perpetuated somatic symptom disorder called "Long Covid" Lets just take every stubbed toe and add it to the list ... "Long Covid has more than 200 symptoms, study finds" (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/long-covid-has-more-than-200-symptoms-study-finds) More than 2m adults in England have had long Covid for over 12 weeks – study (https://www.theguardian.com/society...d-have-had-long-covid-for-over-12-weeks-study) The doctor told my friend that her missed period was hysteria and refused to report it. She self-reported it. However, doctors are happy to scare people into compliance by calling everyone's somatic symptom disorder "Long Covid". Why not, it fits the narrative. Why 2 million in the UK?! What Causes Somatic Symptom Disorder? https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/somatic_symptom_disorder A history of physical or sexual abuse (typical British school) A poor ability to express emotions (ahh, no, I'm just British!)
Someone smarter than yourself who happens to be an Israeli and you feel quite comfortable dismissing him.
Dunno what you mean.... The Utah graph is made by somebody who clearly wants to create unreasonable fear. To create an age group which is only the first year period and then extrapolating to an amount (100K) which never exists in realty there! Or do you mean that rule/law which never has been broken so far? You haven't got at all what I explained at post #3560 where you've tried that already with another UK expert, but at least it was related to covid variants and not generally to 'viruses'. "Covid variants may not evolve to be less dangerous, says UK expert" You then re-tried it more generally "an expert dismissed the claims that viruses "must" mutate in the "milder" direction " which was never subject of the rule / law. Don't you think I am not aware of Ebola, SARS, MERS which clearly did not become milder? So why should I say 'viruses must mutate in the "milder" direction'? Thank god the posts are publicly available so everybody can clearly recognize it is your inability to understand what I post..or it's your selectivity to pick only that what then as a result of distortion might be contrary to another expert opinion. As I said you are a trouble maker since your primary goal is to kick up a row.... Either you quote me directly or you can stop that. I am teaching more than 20 years and lead lab internships. I can read such games and I am not prone to them.
This is nothing personal to gorski alone I would reply the same way to anybody else playing that game. The unwillingness to deal with content, to select out of context, to try to diminish person instead of to get reasoning of that person questioned or evaluated. Dealing with content...... Such like: But if.......this and that...(details)... Or providing an opposite MOA.....(which BTW I did myself considering SARS-COV-2 is a zoonotic virus, jumps onto animal, mutates there, becomes milder to the animal, but more dangerous for humans, jumps back.....) etc etc... ....would be appreciated, but not game playing...
I know you would but given this first step you made, it's awesome and gratifying, to say the least. Been saying that for too long. Pinkbot watches the landscape for a while. He sees who picks what side, here and there. Then he picks a third fourth or whatever corner it takes to start an "intellectual" war full of verbal acrobatics and sick distorted logics, with a goal of winning small battles, according to him of course, cause the discussion is won by those who have the reason not verborrhea. Ah oh, I missed another factor: he, as a leftist progressivist of hell promoting a Ill view of the world, loves to share and defend government propaganda not actual science based data.
Quebec bans unvaccinated from buying groceries at Walmart, Costco https://tnc.news/2022/01/24/quebec-bans-unvaccinated-from-buying-groceries-at-walmart-costco/ Those who predicted this in 2020 were called conspiranoids.
What's your prediction for 2022/23? I predict that a city or a division of a nation (like a state or province) imposes non-optional forced vaccinations. I hope I'm wrong!
And this is for those who haven't had their third vaccination. They'll be injecting all their lives at this rate. - No 20\30 vaccination, you can't buy anything? If you don't have time to do the fine, that's a health tax and you can't buy anything. Is it really that bad? I mean the morals of people! In a society with strong moral standards such things as these simply will not happen! So this is not a society, i.e. it has no right to be called a society? It's a collection of people who don't care about each other. This music will last forever.
Funny, this, Yen. When you needed it for your narrative you dismissed the context just like that and I was the one mentioning it, warning this is methodologically unforgivable - while you kept ignoring it... It was just "pure science", "only numbers"... But hey, whatever makes you happy... Somebody "created an age group"? Just to spite you, right? Too funny for words... SF, reported your post as lying, defamatory, hate peddling BS!!! All to their own...
What's so funny? Firstly it must be somebody who is creating / outlining age groups and secondly more important: You let yourself get fooled by it. There is only one group that covers one year only, all the other groups contain at least 10 years! An age group of one year is actually no age group at all. (Humans celebrate birthday by years) The narrower the group the less people represent that group. And when you extrapolate all them to 100K you distort the stats since you create more people for those groups <100K being hospitalized than actually are. So are there relatively most hospitalized babies, group <=1 year? Yes! But it's based on extrapolation, not on real hospitalized babies. Edit: One needs to get where absolutes and where relatives make sense. One simple illusion when it comes to statistics is to fool with them! The Utah example would need absolutes: AKA How many babies with the age of <=1 year are in hospitals week by week or day by day... And IF you want a relative value then please related to total amount of babies in Utah <=1 year. Another example that is used to fool: The vaccination rate of a particular group is taken as absolute and not as relative to total vaccination rate of that group IN the corresponding population. For instance 70% of people getting hospitalized are unvaccinated and at the age group 39-70 This says nothing at all about protection. If the vaccination rate in that age group out there (population) is higher than 30% then they protect already, else not at all. (Similar to SA example)... and so on... And probably the best example: Efficacy of vaccines RRR 95% (useless) and ARR <1% (0.84%) The maths of Pfizer study, let's have fun with statistics.: 36,523 people were left at day of un-blinding. 18,198 people in the treatment arm 18,325 people in the placebo arm. 8 got infected in the treatment arm 162 got infected in the placebo arm. 162 out of 18,325 got infected which are 0.8840382% compared to: 8 out of 18,198 got infected = 0.04396% How Pfizer and the vaccine maker do it : 0.04396%/0.8840382%*100% = 4.97% left from 100%. Means 100%-4.97% = 95% efficacy. This is RRR. What is really important is how the overall risk has reduced!!!! 0.8840382%-0.04396% = 0.84% and that is the ARR. Edit: Added maths.
Yen, this is ridiculous: I have to explain the abc of science to you? Seriously?!? Science knows (definitio fiat per...) by noticing similarities (genus proximum) and differences ( et differentiam specificam). So, if there is a marked difference between Delta and Omicron in how it affects 0-1 year olds or even 1 - 10 year olds - well, then what? Suddenly it's "irrelevant", somebody is "inventing" things by noticing differences in how the virus variants operate? It's a conspiracy, is it?!? You really make me laugh sometimes, when you go on a shootings spree, trying to shoot down anything that doesn't fit your pre-judged goal, driven and directed by your current narrative... And you wanna come across as somebody "objective" - by ignoring these facts?!? Wow! So, OBVIOUSLY the doctors and specialists noticed a marked difference in how the Omicron variant affects younger children - but you know better, eh? You have the data to doubt their data? Do you? If not - really, man, c'mon, this is becoming slightly... ahem... I better stop here...
Says a right-wing moron, who will never get up to anything worth noticing - and 'verborrhea' is YOUR department. I stick with thinking critically in notions, on the level of principles, something you know nothing of... What you do is you keep "imagining" things in ugly images of conspiralunacy... 'Nuff said!
Illustrate please as I did and I am open for a debate. Concerning recent Omicron data from Utah I only took your graphs posted. I did not consider any other data about Omicron and babies! The 0-1 year graph peak'ed at around 45 per 100K right? The highest peak right? So most people would think...hmmm why are those babies <= 1 year that high, is Omicron affecting them more? Illusion. Because there are for sure no 100K babies at the age <=1 year living there. 45 is an extrapolated value. 2nd example: "70% of people getting hospitalized are unvaccinated and at the age group 39-70" So most people think 70% is more than half, so most of the people in hospitals are unvaxxinated, so vaccines must protect. Illusion. Depends on population's vaxx rate. >30% yes, else, no. 3rd example: Efficacy of the vaccines is 95% So most people think: When I am vaccinated the protection is 95% means 5% left to get COVID. Illusion. It is only 0.84% reduced since only a few have been infected out of 36,523 people. So tell me where is a fault?
You haven't done anything serious, either in methodological sense or via data! Do you have the data to counter their claims? Yes or no?
That was never subject of my post. You asked me to reply on the graphs you have posted, not whether I can counter the hypothesis: Omicron affects babies more. I dropped a remark saying that we do not known how many babies of that age are living there, have they had co-morbidities and is that confirmed at other places? Definitions such like relative RRR or absolute ARR are not based on 'me'. It are commonly used values at studies. So let me take example 1 more into parts. To understand statistics different ways to look at them makes one being able to categorize them (not just denying). Lets say we have a group which represents 200,000 people in a population. 70 of them are hospitalized. This means 35 per 100K. Lets say we have another group which is small and below 100K. 10,000 and 4 are hospitalized. This means BY extrapolation : 40 per 100K. So is the smaller group relatively more affected? Yes! But based on an extrapolated value which is not a real amount in hospitals. So one now gets out of hospital now from each group. New values per 100K Small group: 3 now out of 10,000. Means 30 per 100K (decreased by 10) Larger group: 69 now out of 200,000. Means 34.5 per 100K (decreased by 0.5 only) So one has left each and the relative affection has switched! 34.5>30 That's what I mean by evaluation / questioning the reasoning.
The graphs cannot disprove the hypotheses H0 "there is no difference" which is always first determined as true. The difference has to be proved, not vice versa. Stats do not lie, but one can always choose values which are looking that way that is intended. So extrapolating is one way.