Forum
ยป
Most of misc fails math and statistics
- Results 1 to 20 of 20
-
Page 1 of 1
02-07-2022, 06:53 AM
-
#1
Most of misc fails math and statistics
It always makes me laugh how retarded the average miscer truly is.
So lemme give a quick lesson:
- Per CDC about 212m people fully vaccinated.
- 99.9% of people who get vaccine are completely fine.
- 0.01% of 212 million is 21,200 who either possibly died from vaccine or suffered serious complications, its actually a lot less than this number
- These are what we call STATISTICAL OUTLIERS, as in it is very unlikely that the vaccine actually caused deaths.
So basically, some of you will go on about "99.96% sUrVival rAte" but when it comes to vaccines, it's the other way around.
So lemme give a quick lesson:
- Per CDC about 212m people fully vaccinated.
- 99.9% of people who get vaccine are completely fine.
- 0.01% of 212 million is 21,200 who either possibly died from vaccine or suffered serious complications, its actually a lot less than this number
- These are what we call STATISTICAL OUTLIERS, as in it is very unlikely that the vaccine actually caused deaths.
So basically, some of you will go on about "99.96% sUrVival rAte" but when it comes to vaccines, it's the other way around.
173rd 1-503 U.S. Army Vet (08-13) OEFX
Donate St Judes: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=166820651
02-07-2022, 06:56 AM
-
#2
02-07-2022, 07:01 AM
-
#3
- DesiredUserphag
- 1:12TilTheDayIFukinDie
-
- DesiredUserphag
- 1:12TilTheDayIFukinDie
- Join Date: Sep 2014
- Posts: 40,176
- Rep Power: 397140
-
-
You sound like a retard OP. Go get another shot and LDAR, ****g0t SRS
๐ฃ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ข๐ข๐
ฯฯัโโ ััฮฑฮฝัโัั ศผััฯ โ โ/โโโ
๐ฌ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ยฎ
แชIแแแIแฐIแแฉTIOแ EแญแแชแแIOแ IแแชOแTแIแแฉTIOแ
02-07-2022, 07:07 AM
-
#4
02-07-2022, 07:08 AM
-
#5
02-07-2022, 07:09 AM
-
#6
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
-
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
- Join Date: Feb 2015
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 43,319
- Rep Power: 219409
-
-
Originally Posted By LuvVag⏩
100% minus 99.9% = 0.1% of 212 million = 212,000. strong thread title to content ratio.It always makes me laugh how retarded the average miscer truly is.
So lemme give a quick lesson:
- Per CDC about 212m people fully vaccinated.
- 99.9% of people who get vaccine are completely fine.
- 0.01% of 212 million is 21,200 who either possibly died from vaccine or suffered serious complications, its actually a lot less than this number
- These are what we call STATISTICAL OUTLIERS, as in it is very unlikely that the vaccine actually caused deaths.
So basically, some of you will go on about "99.96% sUrVival rAte" but when it comes to vaccines, it's the other way around.
So lemme give a quick lesson:
- Per CDC about 212m people fully vaccinated.
- 99.9% of people who get vaccine are completely fine.
- 0.01% of 212 million is 21,200 who either possibly died from vaccine or suffered serious complications, its actually a lot less than this number
- These are what we call STATISTICAL OUTLIERS, as in it is very unlikely that the vaccine actually caused deaths.
So basically, some of you will go on about "99.96% sUrVival rAte" but when it comes to vaccines, it's the other way around.
also these numbers are likely to be understated if anything.
the "99.96%" survival rate you quote also takes into account everybody, including old and immunocompromised people. This chance is a lot higher for young healthy people. Conversely the rate of serious complications also takes into account everybody, when we know it is higher for young males, precisely the demographic that is safest from the virus.
i'm sure you thought this thread was a great idea.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
02-07-2022, 07:15 AM
-
#7
- HMFIC_BROWSIN
- Buy high, sell higher.
-
- HMFIC_BROWSIN
- Buy high, sell higher.
- Join Date: Feb 2009
- Location: Arizona, United States
- Posts: 73,524
- Rep Power: 348838
-
-
Hey OP, don't forget to have your 2 year old son jabbed at least 7 times so he doesn't die of covid.
02-07-2022, 07:52 AM
-
#8
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
Oppsies, I forgot the extra 9.100% minus 99.9% = 0.1% of 212 million = 212,000. strong thread title to content ratio.
also these numbers are likely to be understated if anything.
the "99.96%" survival rate you quote also takes into account everybody, including old and immunocompromised people. This chance is a lot higher for young healthy people. Conversely the rate of serious complications also takes into account everybody, when we know it is higher for young males, precisely the demographic that is safest from the virus.
i'm sure you thought this thread was a great idea.
also these numbers are likely to be understated if anything.
the "99.96%" survival rate you quote also takes into account everybody, including old and immunocompromised people. This chance is a lot higher for young healthy people. Conversely the rate of serious complications also takes into account everybody, when we know it is higher for young males, precisely the demographic that is safest from the virus.
i'm sure you thought this thread was a great idea.
I work with data ERRRYDAY. I'm a quantitative analyst, its my job, I got the job due to having a masters in mathematics and statistics. I work for a top 4 advisory firm in the US and work strictly with federal government agencies and can examine statistics in almost everyday life matters.
One conclusion we came up when cross examining is that in everyday issues, if its 98%+ effective, there's almost a unaminous consensus among the population that its effective. With the vaccine, the data is pretty much conclusive as well but there is still this small percentage of the population that is hesitant and that is confusing.
What you are doing is controlling for parameters, you can do the same thing with the vaccine and control for different demographics and you would get the same result.
Again, you fail at statistics.
173rd 1-503 U.S. Army Vet (08-13) OEFX
Donate St Judes: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=166820651
02-07-2022, 08:08 AM
-
#9
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
-
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 28,218
- Rep Power: 130149
-
-
Always makes me laugh how these ****git vaxcels crawl out of a hole to post major cope about a terrible decision they made
02-07-2022, 08:09 AM
-
#10
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
-
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
- Join Date: Feb 2015
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 43,319
- Rep Power: 219409
-
-
Originally Posted By LuvVag⏩
right .... making a thread saying how the misc fails at statistics, literally fails the most basic of statistics the 3rd bullet point in, then posts a whole bunch of unsubstantiated cope.Oppsies, I forgot the extra 9.
I work with data ERRRYDAY. I'm a quantitative analyst, its my job, I got the job due to having a masters in mathematics and statistics. I work for a top 4 advisory firm in the US and work strictly with federal government agencies and can examine statistics in almost everyday life matters.
One conclusion we came up when cross examining is that in everyday issues, if its 98%+ effective, there's almost a unaminous consensus among the population that its effective. With the vaccine, the data is pretty much conclusive as well but there is still this small percentage of the population that is hesitant and that is confusing.
What you are doing is controlling for parameters, you can do the same thing with the vaccine and control for different demographics and you would get the same result.
Again, you fail at statistics.
I work with data ERRRYDAY. I'm a quantitative analyst, its my job, I got the job due to having a masters in mathematics and statistics. I work for a top 4 advisory firm in the US and work strictly with federal government agencies and can examine statistics in almost everyday life matters.
One conclusion we came up when cross examining is that in everyday issues, if its 98%+ effective, there's almost a unaminous consensus among the population that its effective. With the vaccine, the data is pretty much conclusive as well but there is still this small percentage of the population that is hesitant and that is confusing.
What you are doing is controlling for parameters, you can do the same thing with the vaccine and control for different demographics and you would get the same result.
Again, you fail at statistics.
not to mention you're literally confused of how people are hesitant when fauci, CDC and the NIH have flip-flopped constantly, made misleading statements, studies, etc.
yeah, now I know this is a troll thread, thanks for confirming.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
02-07-2022, 08:11 AM
-
#11
- exxtracool
- Registered User
-
- exxtracool
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2018
- Location: Canada
- Age: 34
- Posts: 20,766
- Rep Power: 77972
-
-
Whatever your reasoning is, i still do not need a vaccine for covid.
Statistically, yes i agree, the vaccine wouldnt give me any sort of side effects... but that still doesnt change the fact that i dont need it.
Why should the government, which is supposed to serve and protect the interest of the people btw, mandate that i get something i do not need lol?
Statistically, yes i agree, the vaccine wouldnt give me any sort of side effects... but that still doesnt change the fact that i dont need it.
Why should the government, which is supposed to serve and protect the interest of the people btw, mandate that i get something i do not need lol?
02-07-2022, 08:18 AM
-
#12
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
Nah, the confusion is in the data. How the data supports a conclusion yet there is hesitancy.right .... making a thread saying how the misc fails at statistics, literally fails the most basic of statistics the 3rd bullet point in, then posts a whole bunch of unsubstantiated cope.
not to mention you're literally confused of how people are hesitant when fauci, CDC and the NIH have flip-flopped constantly, made misleading statements, studies, etc.
yeah, now I know this is a troll thread, thanks for confirming.
not to mention you're literally confused of how people are hesitant when fauci, CDC and the NIH have flip-flopped constantly, made misleading statements, studies, etc.
yeah, now I know this is a troll thread, thanks for confirming.
Also, I just completed my fellowship with the NIH a few months ago as a Data Scientist. Science is ever evolving and changes every few months when there is new research that supports a new theory. That's something called the scientific method. That's not flip flopping.
Also my third bullet point, please elaborate on how that fails. You can't make conclusions based on a small percentage of the population, when a large portion of the population 98%+ suffers no consequences as the result of the vaccine and less than 1 % do. It can be SUGGESTED that the vaccine is effective not killing people.
173rd 1-503 U.S. Army Vet (08-13) OEFX
Donate St Judes: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=166820651
02-07-2022, 08:20 AM
-
#13
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
I support freedom of choice 100% and don't support mandates.. You don't want the vaccine, I don't give a crap. But I do have a problem with people saying that the vaccine is killing people. Because the data doesn't support that conclusion at all. And people tend to have an extremely tiny percentage represent the entire picture, which is human nature I suppose.Whatever your reasoning is, i still do not need a vaccine for covid.
Statistically, yes i agree, the vaccine wouldnt give me any sort of side effects... but that still doesnt change the fact that i dont need it.
Why should the government, which is supposed to serve and protect the interest of the people btw, mandate that i get something i do not need lol?
Statistically, yes i agree, the vaccine wouldnt give me any sort of side effects... but that still doesnt change the fact that i dont need it.
Why should the government, which is supposed to serve and protect the interest of the people btw, mandate that i get something i do not need lol?
173rd 1-503 U.S. Army Vet (08-13) OEFX
Donate St Judes: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=166820651
02-07-2022, 08:22 AM
-
#14
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
-
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 28,218
- Rep Power: 130149
-
-
Originally Posted By LuvVag⏩
Propaganda works both ways, media and government post corona fear porn and others post vax fear porn to try to balance it out. I'm glad they do, take the thong out ya bussy, stop crying, fist yourself and deal with it ****gitI support freedom of choice 100%. You don't want the vaccine, I don't give a crap. But I do have a problem with people saying that the vaccine is killing people. Because the data doesn't support that reasoning. And people tend to have an extremely tiny percentage represent the entire picture, which is human nature I suppose.
02-07-2022, 08:29 AM
-
#15
- miscerForLulz
- Join Date: Aug 2016
- Posts: 8,465
- Rep Power: 51479
-
-
first mistake is believing the cdc
2:136
Say, หนO believers,หบ We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to Allah we all submit.
02-07-2022, 08:31 AM
-
#16
02-07-2022, 08:57 AM
-
#17
02-07-2022, 09:06 AM
-
#18
- IronFeta
- Preregistered User
-
- IronFeta
- Preregistered User
- Join Date: Aug 2020
- Posts: 15,572
- Rep Power: 95979
-
-
Just going to say the fact that OP missed a 9 is a typo error, it doesn't invalidate his argument.
He wrote 0.01% below that not 0.1, indicating he meant 99.99. Also, regardless, why wouldn't it be assumed that there is another decimal and that it just so happens to be 99.90% to make the 0.1 = 212 k figure correct? That's unlikely.
The only relevant point to dispute is whether the 99.9 or 99.99% is accurate, or if it's another number entirely.
Expect to be dogpiled for this post but whatever srs
He wrote 0.01% below that not 0.1, indicating he meant 99.99. Also, regardless, why wouldn't it be assumed that there is another decimal and that it just so happens to be 99.90% to make the 0.1 = 212 k figure correct? That's unlikely.
The only relevant point to dispute is whether the 99.9 or 99.99% is accurate, or if it's another number entirely.
Expect to be dogpiled for this post but whatever srs
02-07-2022, 09:18 AM
-
#19
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
-
- sooby
- WOATbrah of peace :)
- Join Date: Feb 2015
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 43,319
- Rep Power: 219409
-
-
Originally Posted By LuvVag⏩
as i mentioned, there is hesitancy for numerous reasons, outside of data. even in data there's been a lot of misleading bullchit and mandates put in that isn't supported by any credible data. i.e: masking in children. not to mention cdc putting out terrible studies, ignoring previous studies, etc. trust in these scientific institutions are at an all time low causing hesitancy. it doesn't take a data scientist calling miscers retarded yet failing at their own math to realize this.Nah, the confusion is in the data. How the data supports a conclusion yet there is hesitancy.
Also, I just completed my fellowship with the NIH a few months ago as a Data Scientist. Science is ever evolving and changes every few months when there is new research that supports a new theory. That's something called the scientific method. That's not flip flopping.
Also my third bullet point, please elaborate on how that fails. You can't make conclusions based on a small percentage of the population, when a large portion of the population 98%+ suffers no consequences as the result of the vaccine and less than 1 % do. It can be SUGGESTED that the vaccine is effective not killing people.
Also, I just completed my fellowship with the NIH a few months ago as a Data Scientist. Science is ever evolving and changes every few months when there is new research that supports a new theory. That's something called the scientific method. That's not flip flopping.
Also my third bullet point, please elaborate on how that fails. You can't make conclusions based on a small percentage of the population, when a large portion of the population 98%+ suffers no consequences as the result of the vaccine and less than 1 % do. It can be SUGGESTED that the vaccine is effective not killing people.
you talk about data is "pretty much conclusive" yet make statements such as "science is ever evolving". that's cope for being wrong and misleading on various fronts in an attempt to evade responsibility and actually admitting to being WRONG. Science around masks shouldn't suddenly change according to what is politically popular. Or science in general. But clearly it has been. you accuse me of "making conclusions" when you have done the same using very surface level analyses and faulty assumptions. i.e: saying 99.9% of people who take the vaccine are fine, when in reality, we don't really know the extent because there is evidence that incidences go underreported. Lol @ a vaccine causing problems in 0.1% of the population that is supposed to remedy a virus that causes zero problems to a comparable percentage of people, and that doesn't even stratify by age, sex, comorbidities.
you made this thread in bad faith saying how most of the misc fails in math and statistics, saying how retarded miscers are so we know you didn't make this thread in an attempt to have a legitimate debate but just to troll. not to mention you failed at your own basic math and statistics so start spouting off your supposed credentials as if anybody is supposed to believe you afterwards. Just lol.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
02-07-2022, 09:26 AM
-
#20
I didn't know there was a math test required to misc.
I understand fear and disappointment about the shots. The anger at anyone who points out that they are in fact not so safe and effective? That is frustrating because we need to get you past denial before there can be an honest evaluation of what was done, how that worked for us, and what we should and shouldn't do going forward.
I think Heather nails the vax believer side well...not 10 minutes; more like 2.5 minutes- runs to 9:44:
Some math to check out OP. From military medical data for 2021:
The military did not plan for this information to be leaked and have since claimed that the numbers are wrong due to a glitch in the system for the previous years. However this excuse doesn't hold up to scrutiny as the only health issues that "glitched" seem to be ones that are also reported in VAERS for the injections. Also the "corrected" numbers do not align with established norms across the population and if they are "correct" said numbers would imply that our military forces were already in very poor health given that they are mostly younger.
^^^
As a self proclaimed numbers guy can you come up with a reasonable explanation for this other than "something changed in 2021"?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/t...rom-the-us-dod
I understand fear and disappointment about the shots. The anger at anyone who points out that they are in fact not so safe and effective? That is frustrating because we need to get you past denial before there can be an honest evaluation of what was done, how that worked for us, and what we should and shouldn't do going forward.
I think Heather nails the vax believer side well...not 10 minutes; more like 2.5 minutes- runs to 9:44:
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
It is looking that way regarding negative effects from the shots.100% minus 99.9% = 0.1% of 212 million = 212,000. strong thread title to content ratio.
also these numbers are likely to be understated if anything.
the "99.96%" survival rate you quote also takes into account everybody, including old and immunocompromised people. This chance is a lot higher for young healthy people. Conversely the rate of serious complications also takes into account everybody, when we know it is higher for young males, precisely the demographic that is safest from the virus.
i'm sure you thought this thread was a great idea.
also these numbers are likely to be understated if anything.
the "99.96%" survival rate you quote also takes into account everybody, including old and immunocompromised people. This chance is a lot higher for young healthy people. Conversely the rate of serious complications also takes into account everybody, when we know it is higher for young males, precisely the demographic that is safest from the virus.
i'm sure you thought this thread was a great idea.
Some math to check out OP. From military medical data for 2021:
The military did not plan for this information to be leaked and have since claimed that the numbers are wrong due to a glitch in the system for the previous years. However this excuse doesn't hold up to scrutiny as the only health issues that "glitched" seem to be ones that are also reported in VAERS for the injections. Also the "corrected" numbers do not align with established norms across the population and if they are "correct" said numbers would imply that our military forces were already in very poor health given that they are mostly younger.
^^^
As a self proclaimed numbers guy can you come up with a reasonable explanation for this other than "something changed in 2021"?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/t...rom-the-us-dod
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts