5 5

# covid-19

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Perhaps he's talking about that tiny blip at the end of the CA death data?  And that FL has been level but is down a fraction since last week?

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

Edited to add: I was also curious about his claim that Florida "has the lowest death rate in the country" so I checked that out as well.  Results below.  Looks like it is well above average.

Are you applying that pesky Mean Value Theorem again?

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, nwt said:

Where exactly are you seeing this data? The JHU data does not seem to agree [link].

On the CDC site CDC COVID Data Tracker

Look at the map and hover on the state to see the data. It shows the FL rate as zero because it is so low. I took there population number and did the math to get the figure.

Edited by billeisele

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Look at the map and hover on the state to see the data. It shows the FL rate as zero because it is so low. I took there population number and did the math to get the figure.

Ah I see the problem.

First off the CDC data isn't up to date.  Oct 22 - Oct 28 is the last week they reported.

Secondly they're not doing averaging.  Take a look at what happens when you don't average the Johns-Hopkins data:

Now if you only look at the last 2 days, Florida looks much better (because they were at zero those days.)  But when you look at the average of deaths, you see the graph I posted previously.

Another lesson that if you choose your data carefully enough you can make it look like whatever you want it to.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, billvon said:

Ah I see the problem.

First off the CDC data isn't up to date.  Oct 22 - Oct 28 is the last week they reported.

Secondly they're not doing averaging.  Take a look at what happens when you don't average the Johns-Hopkins data:

Now if you only look at the last 2 days, Florida looks much better (because they were at zero those days.)  But when you look at the average of deaths, you see the graph I posted previously.

other lesson that if you choose your data carefully enough you can make it look like whatever you want it to.

Bill - The CDC data says as below not Oct 22 - 28.

Edited by billeisele

##### Share on other sites
Just now, billeisele said:

Bill - The CDC data says not Oct 22 - 28.

Right.  I went to the Florida data page, which is listed as the latest data they have.  This is what it said:

"Previous week (October 22, 2021 - October 28, 2021)  Published October 29, 2021"

Page is here: http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid19-data/covid19_data_latest.pdf

##### Share on other sites

Amusing that you used the same quote from "The Boxer" that comes to mind whenever I come up against any strongly entrenched position w.r.t. the pandemic.

I've received three doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but find this unsurprising:

If the vaccines were anything as effective as everyone hoped, herd immunity would be a reality.  As it is, it is not even a consideration at this point.

BSBD,

Winsor

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Right.  I went to the Florida data page, which is listed as the latest data they have.  This is what it said:

"Previous week (October 22, 2021 - October 28, 2021)  Published October 29, 2021"

Page is here: http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid19-data/covid19_data_latest.pdf

Yes, that is data for that time period. The data on the map is data thru 11-2 and the last time reported. In this case it was 1:47 PM. It's interesting that you can drill down further and see detail data.

Regardless, what you show demonstrates one item I was addressing. One can't look at data at any one particular small snapshot of time and draw any accurate conclusions.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, winsor said:

If the vaccines were anything as effective as everyone hoped, herd immunity would be a reality.  As it is, it is not even a consideration at this point.

They are more effective than predicted, a lot more effective. They were one of the most effective vaccines ever developed in human history actually. The problem is 45% of the entire US population is still unvaccinated and probably only 25% of the world population is vaccinated. That's kind of a problem when trying to get to herd immunity... If all this antivaxxer bullshit would cut the shit and get with the program, the virus would be extinct in the USA by now. I hope the vaccine mandates and restrictions for the unvaccinated keep piling on. The more pressure to get people to listen to science instead of Facebook, the better.

Edited by Westerly

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Westerly said:

They are more effective than predicted, a lot more effective. They were one of the most effective vaccines ever developed in human history actually. The problem is 45% of the entire US population is still unvaccinated and probably only 25% of the world population is vaccinated. That's kind of a problem when trying to get to herd immunity... If all this antivaxxer bullshit would cut the shit and get with the program, the virus would be extinct in the USA by now. I hope the vaccine mandates and restrictions for the unvaccinated keep piling on. The more pressure to get people to listen to science instead of Facebook, the better.

The endless references to 'science' are more reminiscent of Thomas Dolby than Louis Pasteur.

It would be refreshing to have data to support the various stances, hopefully correlated with a vanishingly small P value.

Enough of the papers I've come across indicate that the mRNA vaccines are both leaky and allow further spread of infection at a pace identical to that of the unvaccinated.  Hardly 'the most effective vaccines ever developed in human history.'

The hysteria surrounding the pandemic seems to be augmented by the Dunning Kruger effect, if anything.

BSBD,

Winsor

##### Share on other sites

Nothing like moving the goalposts:

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccine: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, winsor said:

Nothing like moving the goalposts:

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccine: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

What was the definition from August 27th through August 31st?

And these definitions were changed because of the anti-vax crowd, because 'scientists" like yourself would scream: it is not making me immune, so it isn't a vaccine so nobody should get it.

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, winsor said:

Nothing like moving the goalposts:

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccine: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Apparently, prior to the over the top, insane resistance to the vaccine and widespread forced study of how vaccines actually work no one previously noticed the imprecision in the description. So they fixed it. Good deal.

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, winsor said:

Nothing like moving the goalposts:

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccine: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

These two things both mean the same thing. Nothing moved.

##### Share on other sites

A funny take on NIH and COVID

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

Nothing like moving the goalposts:

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccine: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Don't forget the 1796 definition:

Vaccine: A preparation of the Vaccinia virus (VACV or VV) derived from the variolae vaccinae virus, the virus that causes cowpox.  When injected, it causes an immune response that is protective against smallpox.

So the conspiracy to deceive everyone, and to move those goalposts for nefarious reasons, must have started sometime between 1796 and August 2021.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:

Don't forget the 1796 definition:

Vaccine: A preparation of the Vaccinia virus (VACV or VV) derived from the variolae vaccinae virus, the virus that causes cowpox.  When injected, it causes an immune response that is protective against smallpox.

So the conspiracy to deceive everyone, and to move those goalposts for nefarious reasons, must have started sometime between 1796 and August 2021.

Woke - a disease of denial.  Shown here at its finest.

##### Share on other sites

750,000

A very large fraction of those  completely preventable.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

Woke - a disease of denial.  Shown here at its finest.

We all know you're prone to rambling but now you've straight up gone and jumped threads!

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, winsor said:

The endless references to 'science' are more reminiscent of Thomas Dolby than Louis Pasteur.

It would be refreshing to have data to support the various stances, hopefully correlated with a vanishingly small P value.

Enough of the papers I've come across indicate that the mRNA vaccines are both leaky and allow further spread of infection at a pace identical to that of the unvaccinated.  Hardly 'the most effective vaccines ever developed in human history.'

The hysteria surrounding the pandemic seems to be augmented by the Dunning Kruger effect, if anything.

BSBD,

Winsor

Yea and are those ‘papers’ you’re reading postings on the comments section of Fox News?

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
19 hours ago, Westerly said:

They are more effective than predicted, a lot more effective. They were one of the most effective vaccines ever developed in human history actually. The problem is 45% of the entire US population is still unvaccinated and probably only 25% of the world population is vaccinated. That's kind of a problem when trying to get to herd immunity... If all this antivaxxer bullshit would cut the shit and get with the program, the virus would be extinct in the USA by now. I hope the vaccine mandates and restrictions for the unvaccinated keep piling on. The more pressure to get people to listen to science instead of Facebook, the better.

There are dozens of clips of Fauci claiming 97% percent effective and saying we'd have herd immunity by summer.

How is 45% effective and constant boosters the most effective vaccine in the world?

Edited by base698

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, base698 said:

There are dozens of clips of Fauci claiming 97% percent effective

That was Pfizer - not Fauci.  (And the Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective against the strains it was developed to protect against, not against strains that arose after it was developed.)

Here's what Fauci actually said in an interview in Dec 2020:

"Well, the answer is unless you get the overwhelming majority of the country vaccinated, and protected, and get that umbrella of what we call herd immunity, there's still a lot of virus out there.  So just because you're protected, so-called protected, by the vaccine, you should need to remember that you could be prevented from getting clinical disease, and still have the virus that is in your nasopharynx because you could get infected.  We're not sure, at this point, that the vaccine protects you against getting infected. We know for sure it's very, very good, 94 percent, 95 percent in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease, and almost a 100 percent in protecting you for severe disease."

Which was true in Dec 2020.

Quote

saying we'd have herd immunity by summer.

June 2020, Fauci: "The best we've ever done is measles, which is 97 to 98 percent effective.  That would be wonderful if we get there. I don't think we will. I would settle for a 70, 75% effective vaccine."

He was asked if such a vaccine would get us to herd immunity if only 2/3 of the population took it.  "No.  Unlikely." he said.

Dec 2020, Fauci: "I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact.  But I would say 75 to 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that blanket of herd immunity."  (Note - we are now at 58%) "Once we get there, if in the subsequent months, April, May, June, July, we get as many people vaccinated as possible, we could really turn this thing around before we get towards the end of the year."

Again, true.  And again, we didn't get to 75%.  We're not even at 60% yet due to the anti-vaxxers.

##### Share on other sites

Well hopefully the whip crack will become even harder and more vaccine mandates come into play to move us along.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, billvon said:

That was Pfizer - not Fauci.  (And the Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective against the strains it was developed to protect against, not against strains that arose after it was developed.)

Here's what Fauci actually said in an interview in Dec 2020:

"Well, the answer is unless you get the overwhelming majority of the country vaccinated, and protected, and get that umbrella of what we call herd immunity, there's still a lot of virus out there.  So just because you're protected, so-called protected, by the vaccine, you should need to remember that you could be prevented from getting clinical disease, and still have the virus that is in your nasopharynx because you could get infected.  We're not sure, at this point, that the vaccine protects you against getting infected. We know for sure it's very, very good, 94 percent, 95 percent in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease, and almost a 100 percent in protecting you for severe disease."

Which was true in Dec 2020.

June 2020, Fauci: "The best we've ever done is measles, which is 97 to 98 percent effective.  That would be wonderful if we get there. I don't think we will. I would settle for a 70, 75% effective vaccine."

He was asked if such a vaccine would get us to herd immunity if only 2/3 of the population took it.  "No.  Unlikely." he said.

Dec 2020, Fauci: "I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact.  But I would say 75 to 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that blanket of herd immunity."  (Note - we are now at 58%) "Once we get there, if in the subsequent months, April, May, June, July, we get as many people vaccinated as possible, we could really turn this thing around before we get towards the end of the year."

Again, true.  And again, we didn't get to 75%.  We're not even at 60% yet due to the anti-vaxxers.

Ok. Here's dozens of headlines and clips of Fauci saying it would be 97% effective. https://mobile.twitter.com/joshfontanilla/status/1449184261811154949

Fact check using the claim he said it would be 100% effective against covid from March for comments on CNN in December https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9996141232

Edited by base698

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, base698 said:

Ok. Here's dozens of headlines and clips of Fauci saying it would be 97% effective. https://mobile.twitter.com/joshfontanilla/status/1449184261811154949

That's an outright lie - I watched the link and he said:

• "quite effective"
• "highly effective"
• "extraordinarily efficacious...94-95% for mild to moderate disease"

Nowhere in the clip did he say 97%. So not dozens of clips - zero clips. The rest of the video is just various media headlines. Now I need that 2 minutes of my life back...

Edited by olofscience

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That's an outright lie - I watched the link and he said:

• "quite effective"
• "highly effective"
• "extraordinarily efficacious...94-95% for mild to moderate disease"

Nowhere in the clip did he say 97%. So not dozens of clips - zero clips. The rest of the video is just various media headlines.

Here he says 94%.  Outright lie is strong language for a 3% difference.

Considering it's more like 40% at the end of the five month window. Anything in the 90s seem more like the lie.

Edited by base698

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5