Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zyhhuhog t1_j5a1fwu wrote

/r/Conspiracy would like to have a word with you. I personally know people saying that the covid vaccine is responsible for more deaths than the virus itself. Oh well... Sigh..

71

Terminarch t1_j5dpftk wrote

Reporting for duty!

Anyway, this reminds me of a study I reviewed recently. Literally it estimated lives saved from number of DEATHS, vaccination rate, and assumed vaccine effectiveness. When double the people died it gave credit for double lives saved. Fucking brilliant.

And if I'm remembering correctly it was cited on Google Scholar over 60 times in a year. What does that tell you about the quality of "science"?

−8

coffeesharkpie t1_j5gva2d wrote

Welp, if you reviewed the paper, you at least had your chance of critizing the approach. Did you strongly suggest a rejection to the editor? Also, there is a notion that bad or devise papers have a higher chance of being cited. That's one reason why the number of citations is a pretty bad metric to judge the quality of research.

2

Terminarch t1_j5gyedj wrote

>Did you strongly suggest a rejection to the editor?

On what authority, an appeal to honesty? That failed when they wrote the formula.

Seriously, I don't think it was a mistake. Read their conclusion and you'll get the picture. It's one thing to do a rough estimate, but pay attention to their language and tone there. This is meant to push an agenda. I believe it was intentional fraud.

>there is a notion that bad or devise papers have a higher chance of being cited

Source? That would be interesting to look into.

>number of citations is a pretty bad metric to judge the quality of research

Yeah. That wasn't my point. It's not about quality of the paper, it's about quality of the scientific field to uncritically build upon this (and similar) as a compromised foundation.

It is however possible that you're right, that many times it was cited in refutation. I never actually checked.

1

coffeesharkpie t1_j5hc4al wrote

You stated you reviewed the paper. In the review process you should be able to point out methodological flaws to the editor leading to a rejection or a major revision.

Like I said it's a notion not hard science. For a practical example just take a look at the debunked Wakefield (1998) paper incorrectly linking vaccines to authism. 4000+ citations according to Google Scholar. Other examples are papers on water that has a memory, magical stem cells, arsenic DNA, or non-Mendelian genetics. It's actually quite easy to find examples of papers with very high numbers of citations that should have been printed in a tabloid instead of a scientific journal.

Many scientists are really no better than high school gossipers.

4

lllllll______lllllll t1_j5app1z wrote

The mRNA vaccine scientists and researchers should be treated with the highest human accolades in society. Thank you!

41

unhappymedium2 t1_j5cdkot wrote

Like Dr Robert Malone?

20

QristopherQuixote t1_j5eg61t wrote

He squandered any professional accolades he might have deserved after spreading misinformation about the vaccines. He also exaggerated his role, ignoring the research and contributions of others.

3

Obvious-Priority-791 t1_j5alll3 wrote

This data shows nothing. The red line is an estimate based on nothing and isn't reliable data.

28

coffeesharkpie t1_j5bdc9j wrote

You realize that this is a problem that concerns quite a lot of areas when it comes to research in medicine where you can't simply conduct classical experiments? E.g. what would happen if Person X smokes vs. doesn't smoke, takes certain medication vs. don't, stays in his mouldy home vs. moves out, etc. Things where you would put people's lives at risk if you withhold treatment or activly damage them like with taking drugs/smoking, etc. You get the gist.

For this reason, researchers developed sophisticated, statistical methods to get a grip on this. E.g. Rubins Potential Outcomes Framework, Causal Mediation Analysis, etc. Using, for example, prior information or trying to find someone who is as equivalent as possible to Person X in all relevant traits (e.g., age, gender, fitness, social background, etc.) aside from smoking to draw inferences from there. Honestly, there are multiple approaches there.

So, long story short, estimates are not drawn from thin air. They are a product of scientific rigour, commonly used in practical all empirical fields in science (from intelligence tests or personality assessments to climate science or partical physics), and because of this they can be surprisingly accurate. Especially as most of them also have information on uncertainty related to them (e.g. standard errors, confidence or credible intervals, etc.)

28

unhappymedium2 t1_j5cewak wrote

Sure, but those methods often have to make assumptions about significant variables or bring together variables with wide tolerance bands. The resulting "estimates", therefore, have very low confidence and should really be taken with a grain of salt, but many people see it and seem to think our species has figured out how to predict the future.

−5

coffeesharkpie t1_j5e1g0z wrote

Well, you know it's a common notion in statistics that "All models are wrong, but some are useful". This means no model will ever capture reality as is, but we can make sure the model is good enough to be useful for the particular application. This is possible because we can actually quantify uncertainty about prior information, estimates and predictions (e.g. through credible or confidence intervals) and make sure models are as exact and as complex as needed.

Funnily, we can predict things quite well, especially when it comes to large numbers of people (individuals are the hard stuff). Like how social background influences educational levels for a population, how lifestyle will influence average health, how climate change may affect frequency of extreme weather, even what people may want to write on their smartphones is predicted with these kind of models.

4

nutsbonkers t1_j5dk9q1 wrote

We can predict the future, with a degree of confidence. The statistical models used in this un peer reviewed paper have been peer reviewed. The math they used is sound because it's been peer reviewed and deemed appropriate and accurate enough. I'm sure it will be reviewed in the future, Vice or whoever just wants to get a jump on a good article.

1

B-rizzle t1_j5ar8f3 wrote

"Here's how effective it is compared to an estimate of how bad it would have been." Exactly. It's a graph of actual deaths vs an imagined number of deaths in an imaginary scenario in which there was no vaccine.

15

Rugfiend t1_j5atf0z wrote

Unfortunately, absolutely no one died in the entire year prior to the vaccine. Otherwise, you'd sound like a right tit.

−14

B-rizzle t1_j5au7xa wrote

It's referring specifically to a time when there was a vaccine, comparing to if there wasn't. The graph basically starts around where the vaccine was introduced. People died before and after the vaccine.

5

Rugfiend t1_j5aun2b wrote

From the BMJ "A large US study published by The BMJ today finds that fewer people die from covid-19 in better vaccinated communities. 

The findings, based on data across 2,558 counties in 48 US states, show that counties with high vaccine coverage had a more than 80% reduction in death rates compared with largely unvaccinated counties."

5

nrmonty t1_j5eng5q wrote

Accounting for all other variables? Typically there is a massive difference in some pretty significant factors in countries with high vaccine rates compared to lower.

2

Rugfiend t1_j5foac3 wrote

One reason I picked specifically counties within the US as the analysis to post.

1

stiikkle t1_j5b8ywd wrote

They estimate the number by looking at the death rate in those who don’t take the vaccination vs those that do. They then extrapolate by calculating the number of people who would have died if nobody took the vaccine.

There is some other stuff around transmission but they aren’t just plucking the figures out of thin air.

11

VelcroSea t1_j5cgxsf wrote

Estimates based on a model vs actual numbers is a forecast or an estimate... a best guess scenario.

This date is guessing this us how many lives the shots might have saved.

I live a good forecast but estimating hiw many people didn't get killed is a bit of an odd thing to measure.

It's also interesting to me that all flu deaths were covid related for about 2 years.

Always verify and question the validity and methodology of the date collection.

−1

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5bb6mq wrote

The estimate is not based on nothing, it’s a model put together by scientists based on a peer reviewed methodology according to the article

5

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dhqj9 wrote

The article says the study wasn't peer reviewed...

4

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5dif2w wrote

Read a little further and then look at how I worded my comment

1

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dj29h wrote

Oh... ya you're technically right. They based the study on peer reviewed methodology I guess. I'm honestly not even sure what that means. Would be nice to see something peer reviewed though I don't take non peer reviewed studies seriously. 😕

2

Terminarch t1_j5do7x7 wrote

The review process is compromised.

−2

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dqn50 wrote

Ya... I know... it's pretty depressing tbh. Even if this study was peer reviewed I'd have to take it with a grain of salt. Getting pretty orwellian around here.

−3

ArchdevilTeemo t1_j5dh4u4 wrote

yes, it's an educated guess. nice.

People do that with weather every day and we know how accurate that is.

−7

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5dhluo wrote

Accurate enough for weather apps to be standard issue on tons of consumer technologies and for many television news stations to employ someone for weather forecasts?

1

ArchdevilTeemo t1_j5dijed wrote

some informations are better than no informations. And it's also used to check what the current weather in different locations.

Also forcasts drop in accuracy very fast. the forecasts for tomorrow are very accurate, the forecasts for next week are very inaccurate.

−1

reality_czech t1_j5am0pa wrote

According to you?

0

Obvious-Priority-791 t1_j5anqq1 wrote

According to the chart. It literally says its an estimate

−4

junkmailredtree t1_j5ar2te wrote

If you actually read the article it says that the estimate is based on a peer-reviewed model, so it is pretty authoritative.

4

DaRandomStoner t1_j5dhmih wrote

It actually doesn't say that... if you read the article it states pretty clearly the study was not peer reviewed.

−2

Lolleka t1_j5e0rt1 wrote

Ye, if these were calculations made with a model that had been tuned using an analogous dataset instead of a large number of assumptions and correlations, maybe we can give it way more credit. But this, this is wild speculation.

0

unhappymedium2 t1_j5cdg7w wrote

"The study wasn't peer reviewed". What a surprise.

27

upthevale t1_j5eb9ad wrote

Im literally amazed in the comments the number of "experts" who know about data correlation, virology and the difference between causation and causality...

Wonder how much they cared about science before the pandemic??

Get a grip

6

pemigarca t1_j5hfgb5 wrote

But that data really doesn't match with reality. Facts.

I'm just reading and comparing graphs and statistics.

Unless Google is a lie. The Google conspiracy. Maybe conspiracy lovers could start a new conspiracy novel about the Google conspiracy 🧐

2

Exiled_From_Twitter t1_j5cltsa wrote

This is absolute trash. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate that deaths would have climbed astronomically like that. Good lord.

5

thatpretzelife t1_j5c73yz wrote

And here I was hoping for some interesting/insightful comments. Didn’t realise how easy it was to get everyone’s set off on covid conspiracies again 🤦‍♂️

4

Superb-Ad9949 t1_j5casid wrote

Did the Pfizer intern draw this?

4

rashaniquah t1_j5dc86e wrote

No it was Neil Degrasse Tyson who did a quick derivation

−1

UrmomisKindaGay_ t1_j5dfaej wrote

You should look at my graphs that predict Miami will be a foot underwater by 2005, 2006, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032

3

Tanagrabelle t1_j5nw0vu wrote

I chatted with friends recently. They are GPs with a small passel of kids. They haven’t had meals with anyone outside the family in three years. Haven’t had anyone over or been to other people’s homes. This was their way of saying they would really rather that I not stop by for a visit. They’ve gotten their vaccinations and are strict about masking, so no one in the family has caught it yet, that they know of.

2

grapangell0 t1_j5chmk7 wrote

Vox totally never ever posts propaganda and everything they say is true

1

insufferablyaverage t1_j5drm7v wrote

Without vaccines covid would have caused more deaths in 2021 then cancer + heart disease combined

0

nrmonty t1_j5el0oi wrote

Can you link the study for that?

4

insufferablyaverage t1_j5ew54p wrote

The title? If it prevented a million deaths then that would have ment it would have caused ~1.4 million deaths in 2021 without the vaccine, heart disease and cancer kill ~1.1 million combined each year

0

snowalker t1_j5cqc1a wrote

oops sorry I forgot to read this with my tinfoil on

−1

pukabi t1_j5ce96y wrote

The Commonwealth study wasn’t peer-reviewed, but it builds on a methodology that was. - Legit

−2

tules t1_j5de4ai wrote

The entire article is based on an estimate.

−2

SoftPenguins t1_j5dnkn5 wrote

I estimate I am going to go back in time and marry Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner at the same time in 2001. My estimate has not been peer reviewed.

−3

BobRussRelick t1_j5az8ki wrote

what's missing from this conversation as per usual is the discussion of widely disparate covid risks among various groups

when combined with the fact that it was made public in August of 2021 (when delta became prevalent) that the vaccine no longer prevented infection, and soon after that it was seen that the partial protection waned quickly, yet the vaccine was still mandated to young healthy groups who had practically no risk from covid, and for children had greater risk from the vax side effects than from covid. as a result, the excess death data from actuaries shows a huge spike at over 200% in excess deaths among young people in fall of 2021 right when the mandates came out compared to elevated background excess deaths of around 130% at the time.

−4

thunder-thumbs t1_j5bsgeu wrote

> August of 2021 (when delta became prevalent) that the vaccine no longer prevented infection

Completely false and nonsensical, to the point that “not even wrong” applies. No vaccine ever was purported to “prevent” infection; instead, they reduce the probability, and lessen severity if you do catch it. Even the first vaccine still has efficacy along those lines. It’s true that efficacy is reduced after the first few weeks, but there is still plenty of benefit left over.

13

TracyMorganFreeman t1_j5bxvtt wrote

That is done by reducing viral load. They also didn't claim it stopped all infection, but reducing probability of infection has the effect of reducing infections.

9

BobRussRelick t1_j5f6fh8 wrote

the vaccine did not reduce viral load when delta became prevalent, this was mainstream news in August of 2021 https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people

and yes there are literally millions of instances where they claimed it reduced infection https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/

1

pukabi t1_j5ceoi2 wrote

Which is not a vaccine definition

−8

surreal_mash t1_j5dba6j wrote

Which part do you think makes it “not a vaccine by definition”?

1

pukabi t1_j5dc4us wrote

It neither prevents nor treats the disease in question.

−6

QristopherQuixote t1_j5elmmh wrote

Reducing severity and increasing the survival rate by stimulating the immune system of the recipient is absolutely consistent with the definition of a vaccine. 🤦🏻‍♂️

2

surreal_mash t1_j5fjug2 wrote

Which vaccines “treat” disease?

Are you claiming that a “true” vaccine must prevent 100% of infections? If not, can you tell me what you mean by “prevents”?

1

grapangell0 t1_j5ci18n wrote

They’re not ready to understand that the powers that be change the definition of shit to make themselves right.

−2

greatdrams23 t1_j5e8fdb wrote

Yes, it is odd that anti Vaxxers say they don't need the vaccine because they have an immune system, but don't realise their immune system only works AFTER the virus has entered the body.

2

surreal_mash t1_j5g1bpo wrote

This. Either way, the immune response only happens after infection. The question is whether the immune system has been armed and trained to fight possible intruders (vaccinated) or will be caught completely off-guard (exposure to an unknown pathogen; unvaccinated).

1

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j5bcvh1 wrote

The vaccine prevented serious hospitalization and/or death. New Zealand handled that vax advantage with proper masks correctly, and to date has only 2437 covid deaths! (US has 1,111,004 covid deaths.)

8

BobRussRelick t1_j5be1u2 wrote

correlation is not causation sorry, Africa had minimal vaccination or masking and also low covid deaths

2

coffeesharkpie t1_j5bflc0 wrote

Are you seriously comparing the US to Africa? Just look at stats of mean age, obesity, climate, time spent outside, and those immunsystems hardend by things like malary...

2

BobRussRelick t1_j5bljdf wrote

exactly my point with New Zealand

3

coffeesharkpie t1_j5bzuc7 wrote

While I see your point and agree with it mostly. One could still make a case that at least in some key metrics like average age, life expectancy, physicians per 1000 inhabitants NZ and the USA are rather similar. While e.g. the average South African is roughly 10 years younger (38 vs 28 yrs)...

5

dog_eat_god t1_j5cuuoz wrote

New Zealand is an unfair comparison because the initial variations of COVID and their higher mortality rates never got there. Better to compare the US to Canada or any number of Western European countries that actually had to deal with COVID from the beginning. Not saying the US did well, just that there are better comparisons.

−1

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j5dgohm wrote

It is a more than valid leadership comparison. For example, at the very beginning of covid our “president” ordered US sailors to not be let off their ship to receive covid treatment, leading to unnecessary contraction/sicknesses and preventable deaths. And why? He condemned them to sickness and death to ‘keep down the numbers.’

1

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5bapgr wrote

Source on those claims?

2

BobRussRelick t1_j5bblcx wrote

which ones are you disputing, all of them?

1

PhysicsCentrism t1_j5bbqt7 wrote

The last ones regarding the excess death numbers of youths

3

BobRussRelick t1_j5bg9cx wrote

check out table 5.7 on page 23 https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf

also the graphs on page 9 here https://www.soa.org/4a55a7/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/excess-death-us.pdf

6

Molsar t1_j5bz043 wrote

Did you by chance read the rest of the report. I mean just a few graphs above show the increases in excess deaths is FL, GA, TN, and TX. All of which had no vaccine mandates, just the opposite of what you are implying. Just more anti vax clap trap

3

BobRussRelick t1_j5f6vb9 wrote

that is not true, the mandates were mostly at schools, universities and workplaces not statewide. and plenty in those states.

and please explain the increase in excess deaths if not from the vaccine, and also this- I'd love to see someone post this to dataisbeautiful but I know they won't https://twitter.com/EU_Eurostat/status/1615289083311575041

0

Molsar t1_j5fc878 wrote

Don't be daft .. maybe COVID. Show me stats that show states with the highest increases in excess deaths are in the highly vaccinated states and not the Dumb states.

Tell you what I'll make it easy. US soldier where mandated and they are right in that age group. Show the increases of military members deaths.

0

BobRussRelick t1_j5fdjfb wrote

The stats I linked have datasets excluding covid, so clearly no.

And I showed you that data you are requesting in Europe, clearly the least vaccinated nations have the fewest excess deaths today, is that due to climate change or?

0

schmowd3r t1_j5bg85x wrote

Just different from normal anti vax talking points for you to disavow them, but similar enough for you to be utterly full of shit.

1

BobRussRelick t1_j5bomwj wrote

I am vaccinated, a believer in vaccines and a proponent of the vaccines for those who benefit, rather than these "spray and pray" policies that follow the political science more than the medical science and cause more anti-vax sentiment in the long run

6

QristopherQuixote t1_j5elty0 wrote

Hmmm… ya, kids returned to day care, school sports, etc in 2021, but don’t let disease vectors get in the way of your awesome analysis. Post the data that showed a 200% jump in excess mortality?

0

BobRussRelick t1_j5f6zuf wrote

>check out table 5.7 on page 23 https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf
>
>also the graphs on page 9 here https://www.soa.org/4a55a7/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/excess-death-us.pdf

kids didn't die of covid, the deaths in that age group were so low the CDC removed it from the dataset

2

InGoodFaith2 t1_j5ckilb wrote

Bullsht and anybody with a functioning brain can see that. You would’ve died if you didn’t eat chicken last week, my prediction model says you would’ve probably had a stomach ache & then hit by a truck. Good job on eating that chicken. Also, Miami will be under water by 2010. although you don’t fly or ride in planes, my model say you have a 5% chance of dying in a plane crash. By the year 2000 most people will have flying cars & if you are a Sagittarius, you will meet a tall blonde woman. If you didn’t take the mRNA shot, you’re probably dead. If you did take it, you probably would have died. We know because we made a model. This shot that doesn’t prevent transmission or sickness saved lives because my crystal ball says so. Proof? I’m a scientist payed by corrupt pharmaceutical corporations, or corrupt government, or corrupt media. So bullsht.

−5

Scorpi0n92 t1_j5b2odp wrote

This is a prime example of how misinformation spreads.

−8

Quant2011 t1_j5b2u6l wrote

YEah sure. no excess mortality in 2020 . But a LOT of it since june 2021. Wonder why?

−9

whoknows12777 t1_j5bnn48 wrote

Bunch of imbeciles in these comments if you believe this bullshit

−9

jkjkjk73 t1_j5akh0w wrote

Yeah, I can't wait to find out about my heart problems when I'm 60.

−11

coffeesharkpie t1_j5bety5 wrote

If you can tell me what mechanism of the vaccine should cause this X years down line, I'm all ears. After a few weeks, there will be nothing left in your body to cause anything. That's why, for all vaccines and medication that is not consumed through years, side effects are commonly found quite close to taking them. Only viable situation would be taking your jab just a bit prior to your 60th birthday...

2