Dont give out baseless advice Wincel. Unless of course you can prove you have a medical degree relating to this discussion

Not wincel, but you quoted me.

Where do you see advice in what you quoted?

JLC = Justa Larping Cnt

Dunno.

Ontario population is ~15 500 000

I think vaccination rate of about 80%

Vaccinated ~ 12 400 000

Unvaccinated ~ 3 100 000

It looks like they're using an epidemiological model based on average midpoint estimates from the previous 7 days.

The model would suggest ~ 10k cases. Given what we know about ascertainment, that might not be too far off.

If there are:

1028 expected cases in unvaccinated; 1028 / 3 100 000 = 0.00033

768 expected cases in vaccinated: 768 / 12 400 000 = 6.19354838709677E-05

0.00033 / 6.19354838709677E-05 = 0.186

Is that the 18% you're looking for?

You saidYou didn't say why, so I'm trying to guess your process.

Can you share where you get negative 15-18%?

There are ~3 million people in Ontario who aren't vaccinated.

So you won't walk us through their errors? That's unfortunate.

It looks like Ontario is at 80.659% vaccinated of eligible people
https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON

Ontario population is 14,789,778

So 2,860,491 unvaccinated (but eligible), which is less than 3M. Is that what you mean?

So this is incorrect also?



https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON

What's the correct number?

It would be more helpful if you made your point clear and let us know what's incorrect about everything.

'mirin the patience of the saints trying to explain basic statistics to the hysterical COVID crew.

"Ontario reports record 10,412 new COVID-19 cases"

Date: Dec 25, 2021

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-r...ases-1.5719831

You refuse to say what you think is wrong.

It seems the estimate was pretty accurate.

But you're too honest to present your critique?

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/

Here's my take on the model from the Ontario Science Table:

Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = (736.8/1028) - 1
Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = −0.283
Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = −28.3%
That suggests 11 929 287 vaccinated people (about 4X more people).The model estimated 650 cases per 1 000 000 people

total cases / 14 789 778 = 650/1 000 000
total cases = (650 * 14 789 778) / 1 000 000

total cases (estimated) =9613 (rounded)



Unvaccinated cases are estimated to be 1028 / 1 000 000

Unvaccinated cases/2 860 491 = 1028 / 1 000 000
Unvaccinated cases = (1028 * 2 860 491) / 1 000 000

Unvaccinated cases =2940 (rounded)



Vaccinated cases are estimated to be 736.8 / 1 000 000

Vaccinated cases/11 929 287 = 736.8 / 1 000 000
Vaccinated cases = (736.8 * 11 929 287) / 1 000 000
Vaccinated cases =8789 (rounded)

Estimated Vaccinated + Estimated Unvaccinated = 2940 + 8789

Estimated Vaccinated + Estimated Unvaccinated =11 729 (rounded)
Ascertainment estimates vary somewhat, especially with the current load on testing centres, but it still seems to be doing a decent job. The observed cases (10 412) are in between the two estimates [9613, 11 729].


It doesn't seem to be off by a couple million people. Can you clarify?


Is the criticism that the sum of the individual compartments in the model don't equal the total estimate?


You've also suggested the published population size and vaccination rates are lies.Will you share the correct population sizes and vaccination rate so we can try working through it with the numbers you feel are correct?

I look forward to hearing where you see their model breaking down.

Which part is completely out to lunch?

I believe that's called a false dilemma fallacy.

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.

But, since I'm guessing we'll do the usual back and forth to try and push what I wrote out of the most recent page, I guess I'll post it again:



https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/

Here's my take on the model from the Ontario Science Table:

Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = (736.8/1028) - 1
Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = −0.283
Vaccinated/Unvaccinated rate comparison = −28.3%


That suggests 11 929 287 vaccinated people (about 4X more people).


The model estimated 650 cases per 1 000 000 people

total cases / 14 789 778 = 650/1 000 000
total cases = (650 * 14 789 778) / 1 000 000

total cases (estimated) =9613 (rounded)


Unvaccinated cases are estimated to be 1028 / 1 000 000

Unvaccinated cases/2 860 491 = 1028 / 1 000 000
Unvaccinated cases = (1028 * 2 860 491) / 1 000 000

Unvaccinated cases =2940 (rounded)



Vaccinated cases are estimated to be 736.8 / 1 000 000

Vaccinated cases/11 929 287 = 736.8 / 1 000 000
Vaccinated cases = (736.8 * 11 929 287) / 1 000 000
Vaccinated cases = 8789 (rounded)

Estimated Vaccinated + Estimated Unvaccinated = 2940 + 8789

Estimated Vaccinated + Estimated Unvaccinated =11 729 (rounded)


Ascertainment estimates vary somewhat, especially with the current load on testing centres, but it still seems to be doing a decent job. The observed cases (10 412) are in between the two estimates [9613, 11 729].

It doesn't seem to be off by a couple million people. Can you clarify?


Is the criticism that the sum of the individual compartments in the model don't equal the total estimate?

You've also suggested the published population size and vaccination rates are lies.

Will you share the correct population sizes and vaccination rate so we can try working through it with the numbers you feel are correct?

I look forward to hearing where you see their model breaking down.

Fair enough, here's post #101The false dilemma doesn't make sense.

Here is where I walk through my understanding of post #101You've said the estimates from the model are way off. Which estimates? Where do you think the model is off or breaking down?

All this bs for a glorified cold


Now imagine if it was really deadly to everyone

There would be no arguments

They look like reasonable estimates from the model and seem to do a decent job ob capturing the observed total cases.

They look like reasonable estimates from the model and seem to do a decent job of capturing observed total cases.Which estimates do you think are off?

Can you serve up some L's and point out where I went wrong?

^ y’all *****s are gay af

The Misc does say that's a side effect of vaccines.

His critique, I think, is that if the number of infections amongst vaccinated people per million is 736, and the number of infections amongst unvaccinated people per million is 1028, then the number of infection per million people (not separating vaxxed and unvaxxed) should be between 736 and 1028.

But, I think they are accounting for the different population sizes within the compartmental model, so there are 3 estimates:
- cases per million total population -9613
- cases per 1 million unvaccinated -2940
- cases per 1 million vaccinated -8789

I tried to outline those details when i walked through how I'm interpreting the estimates

I suspect it's an adapted SEIR model.

Is the argument that they are grouping (or should be grouping) those populations in the per-group estimates? Or that they shouldn't be using an SEIR model? Both? Or is it just that they don't present the information clearly enough?

I also tried to point out why the individual compartment estimates may not sum to the overall estimate (ascertainment).Is that incorrect?

Why are anachron and jlc arguing? Can’t follow all their back and forth?

It looks like jlc was at first saying unvaccinated have higher rates but above he posted that they are less?

I’m very confused

I think the confusion comes from accounting for differences in population sizes.

The absolute number of estimated infections doesn't account for the 4 fold difference in population sizes.

There are 4x more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people in Ontario.

If there was no effect of anything, and infection was random, we would expect 4x more cases (absolute number) in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated population. The estimates from this model do not support that position.

If vaccines reduce infection than we would expect less than 4x as many cases in the vaccinated population. The estimates from this model support that position.

So you’re saying the rate is higher amongst the vaccinated? Or just that the absolute number is higher because more people have the vax?

Anachron won't clearly state his gripe.

The rate is lower among the vaccinated population.

Although the rate is lower, the number of vaccinated cases is higher than the number of unvaccinated cases because more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated (4x more vaccinated people in the province).