COVID: By The Numbers
 

A closer look at the numbers related to COVID. Statistical analysis that tells a different story than what we hear from the CDC, politicians and media types.

Enjoy!

https://rationalground.com/perspective-look-up-your-risk-of-dying-of-covid-19/

Statistical analysis :D

Liars, damn liars, statisticians ...

What are "these statistics" proving.... serious question fwiw?

Being adept with stats is like being adept at lying imo.

....and I can lie like an ol' hound dawg :D

KC, your response is most impressive. Time from initial post to your response: ten minutes. That is a great deal of information to read, absorb and make a reasoned value judgement beyond the usual bromide of "liars, damn liars....

LOL... it took me less than 1 second to not read it ;). When you post an obviously political thread here in PPOT... I give it all the attention it deserves.

Again I ask.... what do the "statistics" prove, and how should they be interpreted?

It's your thread Sam ... carry on :)

The real numbers are easy to understand, very easy to understand.

My Masters thesis at Johns Hopkins was on statistical analysis in Program Management, exactly how numbers are manipulated to shape arguments.

The real numbers will emerge, are emerging. Sam's link is just the beginning.

what is new about this and how does this differ from the CDC analysis?

breaking things down by age doesn't change the numbers, just you perceive them. since your chances of dying doesn't change significantly based on your age from one year to another, the only reason to break it down by age, is to make it seem safer than it is. ie, a person who is 34 and 35 years old does not have a significant difference in there chance of dying, so breaking them down that way can only serve to water down the analysis.

this is why in such cases you typically would use binning. you would use brackets of ages, based on realistic age gaps/changes in health statistics.

you know, if you wanted to be honest.


if you want to further dilute the numbers, you could break it down by age, month of the year you were born, and your hair color, AND eye color ... i mean really get those numbers to be small.




this is the same data analysis of the corvette owner at the car show with the "one of only 34 made, super rare!" sign, because no one else bought a yellow, with leather, manual, sport package, cold weather package, with the rubber mats.

is it rare? no, nothing about it rare. but it SEEMS rare because as you add meaningless smaller and smaller filters, it seems rarer and rarer.

breaking down your chance of dying by your age, is equally meaningless. and why stop at one year? keep putting filters on, month of birth, hair color, etc ... i mean really get those numbers down.

I'm no lightweight when it comes to statistics, methodology, and the whole 6 yards ;).

I do know this much tho':

Wow, you know quite a bit:cool:

The "numbers" have been politicized since the beginning. I won't go into for the hundredth time but if someone knows anything about data gathering and analysis they understand what a cluster foxtrot this has been from day one.

I've been on the GIGO bandwagon since the very beginning .... driving it actually :D. Any conclusions based upon GIGO data is suspect imo....

Move over dawg.... I wanna lie there :D!

Obvious politically biased website. BS sensors set to maximum.

I took a speed-reading course in college.
Made me dizzy...never recovered. :D

The old saying.
Numbers never lie.
Liars use numbers.

Anyone can skew statistics to support their theory. That doesn’t make what they find correct.


Reading that site, it’s clear they looked at how they could twist the data to say that it’s no big deal, which to be expected for an opinion site, especially one that has been consistently posting articles minimizing covid.

But sure, believe whatever alternate reality you want. May the odds be ever in your favor.

What I want to know is why no one is discussing Nikki Minaj and #ballgate

Are the numbers wrong?

If so, how?

Are the numbers wrong?

If so, how?

Run the totals. Are they wrong?

I’m sure that the relatives of the 670,000 that have died so far in the USA will take great comfort in your article.

“99.9% chance of survival!”

“It’s the flu!”

“The vaccine will change your DNA”

Ad nauseum…:rolleyes:

I added up the numbers- I came up to 656,971 in one attempt, which is close to the current total.

The thing is, this is much more infectious now than it was from 1/1/2020 to this summer due to the Delta variant. What do we have now- 80 million people rolling the dice going unvaxxed? It's pretty clear that our healthcare system is to the point of rationing care now in a lot of places and choices have to be made between who lives and who dies.

What that chart focuses on is the death rate. What about the rate of people who go into the hospital, suck up the ICU bed space, and spend huge sums of other people's money on the care and the monoclonal antibodies? What about all the people with long term side effects? What about all the children that are going to die because they're too young to get vaxxed?

This is an exercise in selfishness in the name of freedom and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and millions of severe illnesses. [hyperbolic]How are the unvaxxed (that could get vaxxed) and those without natural immunity any different than lepers? I wish we could have unvaxxed/no natural immunity colonies.[/hyperbolic]

^^^^ This. My minor was Quantitative Methods... easy peasy stuff if yer worth a damn in Maf. Gimme a side... and I can "prove it" ;).

What are Nikki's stats?

...and who is she :D

I lost count when I reached 50 people I know that have died. Including relatives. That was several months ago.

Wow... that just sux. I can't fathom what some have experienced :(....

Sorry for everyone's experiences. I am sure it has been traumatic.

Back to the OP.

In order to prepare for the next CV strain or iteration, the numbers must be collected and analyzed in such a way that "science" can occur.

So, what are the "numbers"?

What are the leading indicators of CV we can start to collect now, not wait? How do we collect data in an open and transparent manner? What medicines and treatments actually work? Is there such a thing as herd immunity? Get the data!!!

I could go on: The question on everyone's mind should be what is next and how to we mitigate has much impact has possible. With any airborne virus it is not a zero sum game.

^^^ I'll defer to the experts we have here in NC that are so far ahead of the Feds and any so called experts on the web it isn't worth debating. The scientists, statisticians, Drs, healthcare networks/providers, etc.

Are they perfect .... naw.

Are they biased.... we all are to some degree.

To a pure numbers guy like myself...

I just work here and don't give a schit about the politics ... 99.9486% of the time :D

The only science that concerns me right now is that we have vaccines that work, not perfectly but pretty darn well considering the timeline. Like the flu vaccine, it does not prevent illness 100% but they prevent severe illness and death to a very high degree. That's the only thing that matters.

There have been plenty of detailed, statistical analysis studies done over the years modeling a worldwide pandemic such as this one. The one thing that none of them took into account, (NOT ONE!), was a political response in the United States to the virus and/or the treatments and vaccines.What we have now is a very significant part of the population that does not trust any information from official sources and does not trust vaccines that were developed quickly under the leadership of Donald Trump, ironically. These people are determined to get the U.S. to herd immunity the hard way.

As for other numbers, I really don't care at this time. We are in a war against a virus and it is worldwide. Worrying about data in 2021 is a little like worrying about data in 1942, with all due respect. It's like saying, "Pearl Harbor did not happen the way they said it did! The data sucks! How many planes? How many bombs? They are counting surfing accidents as PH deaths! I don't believe any of it!"

Better data will come later and it will show a lot more deaths from Covid-19, I will be willing to bet. We are at war right now and the people working in ICUs and labs right now can be excused for less than perfect record keeping.

I believe you Keith. You are the type to avoid cognitive dissonance at all cost. As the saying goes; ignorance is bliss.

50? wow.

For me even 5 is enough.

Like remember when 5 died and 69 are injured after Ride the Ducks amphibious tour vehicle collided with charter bus on Aurora Bridge in Seattle on September 24, 2015?

- this is why buses are too dangerous for me to ride. :cool:



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1632323764.JPG

IIRC the initial trials showed 90% efficacy (excluding the J&J lower efficacy.) Here we are now and the real world numbers seem to be no where near that (90%) good. Of course with tens-of millions of people exposed and the very susceptible having been pushed over the edge, fewer deaths should be occurring. ...which should help the vax look good statistically. -and yet it's not looking all that (90%) great. :-/

What definition of efficacy are you using?

Why are the hospitals full and every icu bed filled and every ventilator in use? Why are the hospitals rationing Monoclonal Antibody treatment? A statistic relying on death rate doesn’t tell the whole story although there are 650,000 reasons why the story that it tells is depressing as hell.

The 90% efficacy was for 2 weeks from second dose. But what is happening (apparently) is that it doesn't have the expected durability beyond that - most people expect a vaccine to carry on, not needing "boosters" every few months.

What definition of efficacy are you using?

Seriously? context is not sufficient for you?

Try searching "Pfizer and Moderna trials showed 90% efficacy" :rolleyes:

When you use numbers and a word in an argument, the word sort of matters.

You’re hanging your hat on the wrong definition. Try looking up what efficacy officially means with regards to Covid, then let me know what you think the reduction of serious illness and death is for those that have been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity.

There are a lot more medical risks to COVID than simply death and that doesn't account for the overall discomfort and inconvenience of any extended illness in your household.

^ agree. I’m waiting for island911 to have an “ah ha” moment.

I've known of a few deaths but I do know quite a few people who had COVID symptoms that lasted for weeks if not months, most notably fatigue, brain fog, and taste/smell issues.

I assume I'm not alone in not having the time to take weeks off of work to be sick, let alone attempt to return to a massive workload suffering from sustained fatigue.

Also, if one person in your household gets it, you all effectively "have it" which can be a huge inconvenience to a myriad of life obligations.

Let's say 100% of folks who are vaccinated (or acquired natural immunity) get infected (we may actually achieve a high percentage, eventually). That's not the measure of a vaccine's failure. The odds of not getting seriously ill or dying are dramatically reduced. That's a result of protection vs efficacy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-expected-to-become-more-common-in-coming-months/ar-AAOH52V?ocid=BingNewsSearch