We've all seen how data are manipulated to serve a topic or position. People have been doing this for a couple hundred years and it often comes down to omitting probability.

Back in the day, data showed that more people died from smallpox inoculations than from smallpox itself. Naturally, some people used this information to argue that inoculation should be banned, when in fact it was saving lives by eradicating smallpox. Let’s look at some fictitious data to illustrate the effect and settle the dispute.

Suppose that out of 1 million children, 99 percent are vaccinated, and 1 percent are not. If a child is vaccinated, he or she has one chance in one hundred of developing a reaction, and the reaction has one chance in one hundred of being fatal. On the other hand, he or she has no chance of developing smallpox. Meanwhile, if a child is not vaccinated, he or she obviously has zero chance of developing a reaction to the vaccine, but he or she has one chance in fifty of developing smallpox. Finally, let’s assume that smallpox is fatal in one out of five cases.

I think you would agree that vaccination looks like a good idea. The odds of having a reaction are lower than the odds of getting smallpox, and the reaction is much less dangerous than the disease. But now let’s look at the data. Out of 1 million children, 990,000 get vaccinated, 9,900 have the reaction, and 99 die from it. Meanwhile, 10,000 don’t get vaccinated, 200 get smallpox, and 40 die from the disease. In summary, more children die from vaccination (99) than from the disease (40).

I can empathize with the parents who might march to the health department with signs saying, “Vaccines kill!” And the data seem to be on their side; the vaccinations indeed cause more deaths than smallpox itself. But is logic on their side? Should we ban vaccination or take into account the deaths prevented?

When we began, the vaccination rate was 99 percent. We now ask the counterfactual question “What if we had set the vaccination rate to zero?” Using the probabilities I gave you above, we can conclude that out of 1 million children, 20,000 would have gotten smallpox, and 4,000 would have died. Comparing the counterfactual world with the real world, we see that not vaccinating would have cost the lives of 3,861 children (the difference between 4,000 and 139). We should thank the language of counterfactuals for helping us to avoid such costs.

The above is fromJudea Pearl's The Book of Why. It's a great book that was written and published well before 'rona was around.

The leftist needs thousands upon thousands of words to convince himself of things which are not true, in order to better digest the lies he has swallowed whole. The normal man can feel when he is being lied to and the long diatribes like in the OP make him feel unsettled. Simple things like memes appeal to dumb and smart alike, for different and similar reasons.

The virgin essayist vs the Chad meme maker. Guess which one you are?

If you want to talk about data, what happened to the flu?! Cool thing about data is if you stop inputting or reporting certain data then you can make something seem like it no longer exists.

Here's my observation explaining that COVID is one of the largest (and most successful) marketing scams of all time, using Australia as an example (images are large so put them in Spoiler):

Spoiler!

So you don't think considering probability is relevant?

I'd rather have covid 500 times than smallpox once.

Same.

I was thinking the relevance is how disease risk versus vaccine risk has been spun by politicians and media.

I don't see how the calculation would differ based on political leaning. I also don't see the relevance of whether or not Pearl has had sex.

A lot of people are misconstruing this as anti-vax vs vax when in reality it's the issue of the government (and many government backed organizations, like hospitals, pharma, etc) lying about the data. The mortality rate and risk of serious side effects of something (vax or virus) is an important data point when making decisions and is absolutely a logical point of contention (which is why the data is being lied about).

In the case of RNA viruses the mutation rate is so high vaccines never truly work well and the virus itself is incredibly easy to spread. It wasn't until covid came around that I'd ever even seen anyone with the flu. I've only ever seen people get sick from the vaccine itself. That doesn't mean neither exist, just that in young healthy people the larger risk is the vaccine itself, especially when the virus on its own isn't deadly (and it's not, neither is covid).

It's simple biology, if a virus cannot infect its host it will mutate. This is why I keep saying getting infected but being asymptomatic is the optimal out-come and the beneficial antibodies of this out-come are far better than any other choice (unless you are a high-risk fat fuk, diabetic, or geriatric).

And I just wanna point out, I've worked for the government for almost 20 years. They absolutely only care about themselves and their financial interests. Any government policy that caters to morality, is a lie. The more we fight amongst ourselves the less we question their decisions.

Health and medical concerns shouldn't be politicized, but here we are. I had and have no intention of this becoming a mandate discussion. I don't support mandates and think they do more harm than good.

This thread was inspired by a re-read of an older book that I thought was strikingly relevant years after publication.

I think there's risk in assuming anyone will be symptom free from infection. Death is unlikely, but reduced quality of life during illness and long covid are real possibilities from infection. Risks of complications from the vaccines are much lower.

Rage quit


Sike

The missing link; properly documented and processed data. What political power has control and gains power from COVID and vaccinations? I dont know if they change it, but, originally they weren't documented adverse effects and deaths for the first two weeks after injection. All deaths considered COVID related if decreased was positive. No processing of data to consider comorbidly. Voluntary admission of adverse effect data, which can lead to issues, especially among the uneducated and THOSE WITH A SELF INTEREST IN THE AGENDA. And the list goes on and on.

Politicizing medicine and science is the WORST ETHICAL THING YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO! The proof is in the pudding; they got a fascist, racist, and communist dictator elected as a result. Extremists are very good at hiding their actions and deceiving others. Deception is some satanic chit.

Data integrity and availability are major issues and concerns.

But, those concerns also support the idea that we shouldn't draw conclusions or inference from raw counts or histograms.

Right, so then why was Fauci himself using raw data to make "recommendations"! It wasn't until some misc detectives and scientists in the media found this flaw, used the the CDC's own website, to shw that Fauci was being deceptive.

This is why people will forever have doubts now. The dems tainted science.

Dunno. I wasn't looking to discuss mandates or policy. I'm not American and haven't ever seen Fauci speak.

I was looking to spark discussion on things to consider when drawing inference and/or conclusions from data and analyses.

So then you're just insulting others' intelligence and pretending like it didn't have anything to do with what's going on in the world on the same topic?

Haha, now you can **** off

The difference is that covid isn't smallpox and the smallpox vaccine actually works. The clot shot doesnt. Stupid ****ort.

Where did I insult anyone. Certainly wasn't intended.

The post is timely because many seem to be drawing conclusions regarding the utility of vaccines based on incomplete analysis.

Vaccine efficacy and safety can be discussed separately from social restrictions and mandates, or at least that was the goal.

People still contracted smallpox after being vaccinated. When you say covid vaccines don't work, what do you mean?

Not veiled at all, nor intended to be.

If you're unfamiliar with analysis and model checking, data simulation is an essential step. Pearl used round numbers to easily track the calculations and results.

The math works out the same with different numbers.

Too much reading for me in this thread

Nor entirely relevant, but he's trying to educate us on why it's relevant while denying it's relevant.

It might be relevant for folks who want to interpret data outside of media and political colouration.

Norman Fenton, phd , stats, data analysis , argues that the data isn’t being collected well enough to make any determining factor on the efficacy of vaccines in regards to deaths

So he builds some models using all cause deaths and comes to the conclusion that
- 1 jabbed all causes are significantly higher vs unjabbed
- 2 jabbed all causes are slightly higher than the unjabbed

https://t.co/ZCWSmwbnBq?amp=1

But yet, you neglected to include how to look for processed data and what specific things to look for. You simply gave a generalized, nonspecific account of raw data using ideology.

I guess I don't really consider probability theory to be an ideology, per se.

But there are lots of data here that can be processed and leveraged:
https://github.com/ccodwg/Covid19CanadaArchive

Why does some retard on the internet care if a bunch of other retards don't want to get a shot? You got the shot, you're protected so it doesn't matter if the other retards aren't, correct? Oh yeah, that's not really the case at all.

I can't imagine how empty and devoid of meaning a life has to be to start making posts like this. If trying to own some gay Indians is high on your list then maybe it's time to rope.

Interesting argument OP.

Still not getting vaccinated.

I don't think I suggested caring about people getting vaccinated. Apologies if the post came across that way.

In re-reading Pearl's book, I just noticed similarity in how a pertinent part of analysis often goes without consideration - hundreds of years ago and today.

I know you've been gone awhile, but the misc has been taken over by right-wing proud boys and Q-tards.

Can we MTMGA?