Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

The latest vaccine grift is out this morning. CNN is reporting that a new modeling study shows that vaccines have saved 3.2 million lives in the US. So I made a graphic using data from Our World in data to show what they're claiming.

The red line represents the actual number of cumulative deaths in the US from COVID. The blue line represents what they claim would have happened without vaccines. If you look at the red line, you see seasonal increases and plateaus like you would expect to see with any virus. If you look at the blue line, it is a precipitous increase that exceeds the deaths at the beginning of the pandemic, BEFORE there were vaccines. There simply is no reason to believe that the curve of deaths would have looked anything like what this "model" claims. Like most of THE SCIENCE™!, it's hot garbage that I have no doubt the media will uncritically amplify for days on end.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The latest vaccine grift is out this morning. CNN is reporting that a new modeling study shows that vaccines have saved 3.2 million lives in the US. So I made a graphic using data from Our World in data to show what they're claiming.

What made you assume a linear model? I don't think you're accurately reflecting their claim.

ETA: Having clicked the link to the study, I know you're not accurately reflecting their claim.

 

[rambot]

Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths
This data does seem....a bit.....unbelievable.

As I read through the methodologies there was only one sentence that really stuck out as potentially problematic:

Vaccine efficacies against infection, and symptomatic and severe disease for different vaccine types — for each variant and by time since vaccination — were drawn from published estimates.

I wonder if it was the FIRST published estimates OR of it was something 6months down the line which gave better "real world" data?

I feel confident that the vaccines WERE generally helpful, but these numbers seem.....reaaaaaaaaaally high.

 

[probinson]

What made you assume a linear model? I don't think you're accurately reflecting their claim.

ETA: Having clicked the link to the study, I know you're not accurately reflecting their claim.

Certainly there would have been curves and variations. It was easiest to draw a straight line to show just how out of proportion this estimate is, which would indeed end up where I showed in on the chart. In fact, if the line were to show those curves, there would be even STEEPER spikes necessary to reach that level.

Side note: I said to myself when I posted this, someone is going to take issue with the straight line and focus on that rather than the ridiculousness of the model. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

 

[probinson]

I thought you might enjoy this video. It discusses relative risk vs. absolute.

But it also looks at the issue we had with the data of lumping in the first two weeks after the vaccine with the unvaccinated.

This is an example of someone in the field, who publishes, wishing they would open up the full data as well.

Thank you for this excellent video. Anyone who wants to understand ARR, ARI, RRR, RRI and NNT should set aside an hour to watch it. That way the next time someone tells you that something is "95% effective" you'll have a better understanding of what that really means.

 

[essentialsaltes]

... how out of proportion this estimate is.
... rather than the ridiculousness of the model.

Presenting misinformation about the model does not demonstrate that it is ridiculous or out of proportion. You'll have to make a good faith effort at demonstrating your claim.

 

[rambot]

There simply is no reason to believe that the curve of deaths would have looked anything like what this "model" claims.

You cant JUST dismiss a model because the results are "ridiculous" though.

What would be the problem with the study as presented?

 

[probinson]

Presenting misinformation about the model does not demonstrate that it is ridiculous or out of proportion. You'll have to make a good faith effort at demonstrating your claim.

It's not misinformation. The model claims that 3.2 million lives were saved. I showed what that would look like by showing actual deaths vs. what they say would have happened without vaccines.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's not misinformation. The model claims that 3.2 million lives were saved.

And how is it you know that number is ridiculous?

 

[probinson]

You cant JUST dismiss a model because the results are "ridiculous" though.

What would be the problem with the study as presented?

Sure you can.

How about this one (I can't take credit for this image. I found it online)

This guy claims to have figured out how to stop global warming bu Turing on a fan in his garden.

What's the problem with this "model"? If you can answer that question, then you'll have the answer to why the claim of 3.2 million lives saved is utter nonsense.

 

[renniks]

If they want to take over the board they will have final control over every major decision, personnel included.

When Rohe said vaccine mandates were government's attempt to own your body that was conspiracy theory, not science.

The definition if assault is "a physical attack." Is the weapon for target practice? Hunting? No. Its purpose is physical attack. Almost every major school shooting was committed with an AR-15.
Is he trying to pretend people own them to march in parades?

Oh my. Of course the only reason to own an AR15 is if you are a mass murderer!
Is shooting wild hogs an assault? Does owning a gun for self-defense make it an assault gun? How about a baseball bat? If you keep it for self-defense does it become an assault bat?

 

[renniks]

In other words, science deniers. Or do you believe all the studies on the efficacy of the vaccine are not science?

Now you are getting it.

 

[rambot]

Sure you can.

How about this one (I can't take credit for this image. I found it online)

This guy claims to have figured out how to stop global warming bu Turing on a fan in his garden.

View attachment 324905

What's the problem with this "model"? If you can answer that question, then you'll have the answer to why the claim of 3.2 million lives saved is utter nonsense.

I'm sorry. I disagree that these two are in any way comparable. I'm sure you'll have something to say about it but I just can't be bothered to address the problems I see in this comparison.

Which is weird because I essentially was open to agreeing with your point. But this? It makes me feel stupider.

 

[rambot]

Oh my. Of course the only reason to own an AR15 is if you are a mass murderer!
Is shooting wild hogs an assault? Does owning a gun for self-defense make it an assault gun? How about a baseball bat? If you keep it for self-defense does it become an assault bat?

Are you only able to shoot wild hogs with an assault rifle?

 

[probinson]

And how is it you know that number is ridiculous?

Let's take a look at cumulative confirmed deaths in one of the least vaccinated countries continents in the world, Africa. Just over 25% of their population is vaccinated.

Do you see any precipitous spikes like what is predicted in the model? No? In fact, the curve looks very similar in shape to the US. Now if we're to believe that vaccines are the only reason the US curve is at 1.08 million is because of the vaccine, it would logically follow that countries with lower vaccination rates would have steeper spikes. But they don't.

 

[probinson]

I'm sorry. I disagree that these two are in any way comparable.

Why?

I'm sure you'll have something to say about it but I just can't be bothered to address the problems I see in this comparison.

Probably because there aren't any. Both are observational "studies" that are ludicrous on the surface.

Which is weird because I essentially was open to agreeing with your point. But this? It makes me feel stupider.

No comment...

 

[renniks]

Are you only able to shoot wild hogs with an assault rifle?

Are you only able to shoot people with any gun?

 

[Pommer]

Let's take a look at cumulative confirmed deaths in one of the least vaccinated countries in the world, Africa. Just over 25% of their population is vaccinated.

View attachment 324906

Do you see any precipitous spikes like what is predicted in the model? No? In fact, the curve looks very similar in shape to the US. Now if we're to believe that vaccines are the only reason the US curve is at 1.08 million is because of the vaccine, it would logically follow that countries with lower vaccination rates would have steeper spikes. But they don't.

I’m having trouble finding the country known as “Africa” on Google Earth.

 

[probinson]

I’m having trouble finding the country known as “Africa” on Google Earth.

Oops. Continent. My bad.

 

[rambot]

Why?



Probably because there aren't any. Both are observational "studies" that are ludicrous on the surface.

Well, the study you initially included was not an observational study but a modelling study. So that is a pretty huge and fundamental difference between the two.... "studies". Also, arguably, the observational study you did include didn't really use "observation" to come up with their prediction. Lastly, the first study you deride so much, has included all pertinent information as to how they have created their models. The second one, does not.

Also, you still haven't REALLY explained what is fundamentally "ludicrous" about the first study. Maybe it's the results that you think are ludicrous? Cause I'd agree they seem pretty crazy.
But that doesn't help me.
Generally, I have seen you provide some very interesting and thought provoking critiques on commonly accepted COVID information but this one....I'm not really seeing it as much as I'd like. There MUST be a problem with the methodology somewhere to have number THAT weird.