Steerzing in a New Direction...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3721

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Apples wrote: Wat's up, everybotty? It's been awhile

Code: Select all

 :hankey: 
Got a lil catching up to do.
Stick to the posts discussing the definition of female and associated metaphysics. Nothing else was worth bothering with.
:-) Particularly since the moving finger, having writ, has moved on - to coin a phrase.

And more particularly since Apples' own conclusive and quite welcome summation - before your time, I expect - of my thorough, not to say "exhaustive", analysis of the nigger-cunt dichotomy in the context of pejorative slurs ... ;-)

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 82#p145682

Which may well be worth reprising given the recent efforts of the Woke to give a pass to "cracker" while anathematizing "nigger":

Tweets_ZachKim_CrackerSlur_1A.jpg
(61.39 KiB) Downloaded 201 times

But you may have something of a point - if an inadvertent one - about "associated metaphysics". The problem is, as Belgian virologist Mark Van Regenmortel has argued or at least suggested, the definition for female, and the question of whether sex is a binary or a spectrum "lies at the interface between ... science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students":
► Show Spoiler
Fact of the matter is that far too many so-called scientists - PZ Myers in particular though even Jerry Coyne, Colin Wright, and Massimo Pigliucci might join him in that docket - are engaged more in scientism than in science. Some radio commentator - in his "One Man's Journal" if I'm not mistaken - once argued that elevating either science or plumbing over the other is unwise as it leads to a state where neither plumbing fixtures and pipes nor scientific theories would hold much water.

And one might say the same about philosophy and science: while a great many so-called "philosophers" are clearly engaged in muddying the waters to make them seem deep, there are still a great many useful concepts and perspectives that are more or less the bailiwick philosophy but are yet still foundational to the rational progress, theory, and practice of science. Even if you may not be much of a fan of "rationalism" ... ;-)

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3722

Post by fafnir »

Lsuoma wrote: Dogging means something entirely different in the UK...
Ironically, she looks like exactly the kind of person people are dogging in the UK.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3723

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Apologies to Tom of Finland, but how about some Samantha Fish on Friday?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWay64IgMc
Nice tits - never pass up gratuitous titillation, so to speak.

But quite an accomplished artist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Fish

That song of hers qualifies as bluegrass? Catchy in any case.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3724

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: But you may have something of a point - if an inadvertent one - about "associated metaphysics". The problem is, as Belgian virologist Mark Van Regenmortel has argued or at least suggested, the definition for female, and the question of whether sex is a binary or a spectrum "lies at the interface between ... science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students"
That would only matter if the discussion was an honest dialogue about meaning rather than an attempt to use language to win political battles. We over think these things.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3725

Post by Steersman »

Lsuoma wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>
Stick to the posts discussing the definition of female and associated metaphysics. Nothing else was worth bothering with.
What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???

There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
:-) "Eqvalan Paste (Canada) for veterinary use" :lol:

Ah, the good olde days when rewriting history was all the rage ... ;-)

But kind of amusing that your "all-points-bulletin" has brought a whole bunch of Pitters - & ex-Pitters, those who flounced and then returned ... ;-) - out of the woodwork. To maybe rally round the flag, to commendably defend the Foundations of the Slymepit Empire? To coin a phrase ... ;-)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3726

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But you may have something of a point - if an inadvertent one - about "associated metaphysics". The problem is, as Belgian virologist Mark Van Regenmortel has argued or at least suggested, the definition for female, and the question of whether sex is a binary or a spectrum "lies at the interface between ... science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students"
That would only matter if the discussion was an honest dialogue about meaning rather than an attempt to use language to win political battles. We over think these things.
Certainly a dearth of "honest dialog about meaning" - the aforementioned "discussion" that I had with the inimitable HJ Hornbeck being a case in point. He's so bloody desperate to grant "female" status to transwomen that he's lost sight of those epistemological concepts; from his aforementioned GoogleDocs & YouTube video:
Page 28: Transfeminism holds that sex and gender are both socially constructed; furthermore, the distinction between sex and gender is artificially drawn as a matter of convenience.

Page 28: So far as I know, no-one's done a poll to figure out the share each view has within feminism. Based on my peers and my readings, however, the transfeminist view seems to be the majority one, so it'll be the view I defend.

Pg 29: If there are two sexes, how do you explain the existence of people that don't fit neatly into either sex? For advocates of the two-sex model, there was only one choice: these "intersex" people were the defective ones, deviating from the ideal male or female form.
Too bad in a way as he seems fairly knowledgeable about important aspects of science, quantum mechanics in particular.

But I wonder exactly who you had in mind while you were mentally tarring a bunch of people with that brush. Me? Kinda think that you're far more guilty of that than I - as you correctly, and somewhat amusingly, surmise, what it means to be female is the root and at the crux of a whole pile of rather mephitic and toxic "debate". Women's vanity and transwomen's envy, not to mention the Lysenkoism of various "scientists": what a witches' brew.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3727

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Lsuoma wrote: Dogging means something entirely different in the UK...
https://babylonbee.com/news/embarrassin ... of-things/

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3728

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: But I wonder exactly who you had in mind while you were mentally tarring a bunch of people with that brush. Me?
No, I wasn't thinking about you for once when I wrote that.
Steersman wrote: Kinda think that you're far more guilty of that than I - as you correctly, and somewhat amusingly, surmise, what it means to be female is the root and at the crux of a whole pile of rather mephitic and toxic "debate". Women's vanity and transwomen's envy, not to mention the Lysenkoism of various "scientists": what a witches' brew.
In as much as it's the crux of anything, it's because:
1. The mind virus we are dealing with is very well adapted to exploit differences, and tensions between groups. Sex and gender are just a convenient battlefield to make progress on.
2. Men have all sorts of outgroup biases in favour of women, rather like white liberals. This makes sex and gender a fertile ground for the mind virus.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3729

Post by John D »

fafnir wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???

There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
All of these problems stem from having given women the vote, and hence are digressions from the conversation about the definition of female.
What I find funny is that the problem is not women. Women are using all the tools in their tool box to optimize their outcomes. Men... on the other hand... are too stupid to see what is happening to them. haha.

I distinctly remember when one of the hottest girls in my high school asked me to take her out for Halloween. She said she didn't have a date and wished I could take her to a party she knew about. Haha. So... I was a 125 pound 5 foot 6 inch tall dork in high school. I spotted this deception right away. She was trying to drag me into a fight with her boyfriend or something. I told her I was busy because I was not stupid. I was not about to get stabbed by her fucking boyfriend. And... everyone knew her boyfriend... he was the guy that was kicked out of school for having a switch blade.

So... really. I have no pity for women who use their looks when they are young and then cry when they get old. Yep... you got old bitch. Now what will you do? You can't fuck with stupid men anymore. And really... some men can live an entire life and not figure this out.... haha. Thinking with your dick might get you stabbed. Don't be the guy that gets stabbed!

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3730

Post by fafnir »

John D wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???

There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
All of these problems stem from having given women the vote, and hence are digressions from the conversation about the definition of female.
What I find funny is that the problem is not women. Women are using all the tools in their tool box to optimize their outcomes. Men... on the other hand... are too stupid to see what is happening to them. haha.
At best, that optimisation is a tragedy of the commons type optimisation. Anyway, it's not about women being smart and men being dumb. The dynamic between men and women can work, it's just that the natural balance has been destroyed. Women as a class didn't do that any more than men as a class did.
John D wrote: So... really. I have no pity for women who use their looks when they are young and then cry when they get old. Yep... you got old bitch. Now what will you do? You can't fuck with stupid men anymore. And really... some men can live an entire life and not figure this out.... haha. Thinking with your dick might get you stabbed. Don't be the guy that gets stabbed!
Resenting pretty women for using their looks is as much a battle with reality as formerly pretty women who lose their looks complaining that people treat the differently now. The problem is that the commons have been intentionally destroyed.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3731

Post by Service Dog »

Lsuoma wrote: What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???

There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
https://media.patriots.win/post/bgw4Ryh0OB80.jpeg


https://media.patriots.win/post/rA3HsjebBO3W.jpeg

https://media.patriots.win/post/oJB0X6BRVAte.jpeg

European Medicines Agency admits Boosters cause VAIDS

https://twitter.com/N625662/status/1481203014845276161



https://media.communities.win/post/Ntk5qiBUh7MF.jpeg

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3732

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???

There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
<snip>

European Medicines Agency admits Boosters cause VAIDS
https://youtu.be/6SzCpAlnNqo

https://twitter.com/N625662/status/1481203014845276161

:roll:

Pray tell, exactly where in the original of that EMA video (below) does its head, Marco Cavaleri, say that "VAXXXINES and BOOSTERS will and do cause VACCINE VAIDS" (!!11!!)? :roll:



All very well to be critical and skeptical. But methinks that you have your thumbs - to the shoulders - on the scales. You might note the "misleading" in that guy's tweet which I expect Twitter included:

Tweets_n3636_VaccineMisinformation_1A.jpg
(92.98 KiB) Downloaded 199 times

John D
.
.
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3733

Post by John D »

fafnir wrote:
Resenting pretty women for using their looks is as much a battle with reality as formerly pretty women who lose their looks complaining that people treat the differently now. The problem is that the commons have been intentionally destroyed.
Start of boring comments >

Yeah. A few thoughts. First is that resentment is a terrible way to live. Resentment is driving much of the current discontent in politics today. I can become resentful and when I am...well... things go poorly. Best to be free and open with your life. But this is easy to say and not always easy to do. When I start to think I am becoming resentful I stop myself. This is a path to destruction.

I would be lying if I said I have not been resentful of beautiful women. I am as attracted by beautiful women as the next guy... but... I have never been attractive to these women. For much of my life I have been very happy with my life partner and wife. She is fairly plain... but I accepted this. We had really good sex when she was in good physical condition. Now that she is very ill... well... there is no pleasure in sex with her. We still tolerate each other. I try to help her without being resentful. She tries to be polite to me. It is a condition I can live with.

I remember a girl, Debbie Smith, when I was a Junior in High School. I had such a crush on her. She was trim and graceful. She had beautiful red hair and fine white skin with a few freckles. She was in an art class with me and she was really talented and made great sketches. She had dark round eyes and perfect lips. I can still picture her in my head. But, I was a good six inches shorter than her. I had not developed any of my more "manly" qualities at that time. I was a very late bloomer. I am not a stupid guy. Debbie would have never wanted to hang out with me. I just let it go.

And then... four years later... I met Debbie at a General Motors office. We were both working at suppliers and visiting clients. We recognized each other. God... she still looked so great, but... I was now taller than her. I was well dressed for business and obviously successful. She said... "wow... John... you are so much taller!" Yeah... well... she had a boyfriend and I had a girlfriend. We just chatted and left. I am far to honorable to cheat on my girlfriend. But I still think about it from time to time. God... I would have really enjoyed having sex with Debbie Smith... over and over.

But... and to conclude. I am not resentful. It is very unlikely Debbie and I would have had as good a run as my wife and I have. Things are rough, but we keep ploughing away.

To finish... I am listening to a audio book of "Middlemarch". It was written in 1871 by a woman (Mary Evans) under a male name of George Eliot (sexism being what it was). I highly recommend it.... even though it is about 30 hours long. I love reading old books that really have insight. The stories cover topics of beauty and honor and resentment. I am always a bit surprised when a novel from 150 years ago captures the human condition so well. Our ancestors where not so dumb after all. I think they had as keen an insight as anyone today.

end of boring comments>

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2318
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3734

Post by Keating »

Unknown.png
(74.02 KiB) Downloaded 196 times

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3735

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote: ↑
European Medicines Agency admits Boosters cause VAIDS
https://youtu.be/6SzCpAlnNqo
:roll: All very well to be critical and skeptical. But methinks that you have your thumbs - to the shoulders - on the scales. You might note the "misleading" in that guy's tweet which I expect Twitter included:
Twitter has put an Orwellian label on this video clip-- but I don't think Twitter is being transparent about the basis for their judgement. And so their label is meaningless.

I looked at AP's 'fact-check' of VAIDS-- and I see only word games. AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS. Then AP jousts their own strawman. This is especially ridiculous-- considering-that AP quotes a definition which is not dependent on HIV/AIDS in any way: "gradual destruction of the human immune system by vaccines.” One month ago-- AP was smug & broad in their claim that 'no such thing' exists: https://archive.fo/yC2No 31 days later, The European Medicines Agency clip spoke openly about the reality of the risk.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3736

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: However, it is still the case - to a first approximation - that 75 out of every 100 cases of hospitalizations (and deaths) were among the unvaccinated or recently vaccinated, while the balance of 25 were among the vaccinated. Those numbers don't change - only the susceptibility rates do, those dependent on the sizes of the different populations being exposed. Populations which, as you correctly point out, have changed substantially over that one year interval.
This is one of the two ways that the media most commonly lies about Covid at the moment. Lots of the deaths occurred towards the beginning of 2021 when practically nobody was vaccinated. By taking the deaths and hospitalisations over the course of the year and then speaking in the present tense about it, they inflate the benefit of the vaccines.
Don't think that argument holds a lot of water. Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated. Interesting article and graph from Time that underlines that argument:

Time_PandemicOfUnvaccinated_Y220113A.jpg
(71.18 KiB) Downloaded 182 times

https://time.com/6138566/pandemic-of-un ... n=20220105

Note the "10x higher" through October and November and the "14x higher" over the last month.

And that that "10x higher" matches my earlier calculations, though I have to admit I'm still not sure how accurate they are. Couple of interesting if convoluted and complex articles from Wikipedia on epidemiology and the "attack rate" which I certainly don't fully understand. But the latter at least suggests that going from hospitalizations and deaths to the attack rate by vaccination status isn't easy, but is still an important measure of how effective Covid vaccines really are. Apparently could be a lot better, but probably substantially better than nothing.
fafnir wrote: What they also do is quote random hospital administrator, or nurse giving their subjective impression about what is going on at their hospital. Probably after they tell their story, their 5 year old asks them why people don't just take the vaccine and everybody claps. All the while there are actual stats that show what the current skew of hospitalisations and deaths are amongst the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Weirdly they always seem to find random nobody's to ask about random hospitals who are seeing the unvaccinated dropping in far greater numbers than the average.
And, pray tell, where are those "actual stats" you talk of? That contradict the ones from Time I quoted above? In case you or others late to the party - or even more frequent commenters - missed this, or would welcome a refresher ... ;-), you might reflect on this summary of the problem, both with your argument and more generally:

And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
(44.2 KiB) Downloaded 178 times
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Think I mentioned earlier something from Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain - highly recommended:
He was the subject of the rape panic at the JREF that finally woke me up to what bed hopping, alcoholic, lunatic degenerates they all were.
"All"? :shock: Shocking! Far better to go with the "tradition" of The Catholic Church and their predilection for diddling prepubescent boys! Who haven't even been issued their "male" membership cards yet! And particularly given that we can't possibly be good without Gawd, can't possibly survive the "moral vacuum" left by abandoning that tradition! ;-)

No doubt more than a few in the Atheist/Skeptic community might fit the "suit" that you've cut out there. But rather remarkably shortsighted - akin to judging a book by its cover - to be insisting, or even suggesting, that Shermer's book is entirely worthless because he may have strayed from the straight and narrow.

Think you need to make more of an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. FWIW and to meet you half-way, I'll generally concede - at least to a first approximation - that there may well be some worthwhile elements in religion. For instance, I remember reading that Jung argued that Jesus represents something in the way of the exemplar for the individual which may have some social benefits. But likewise an effort to learn not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; something underlined by a Canadian priestess who likewise sees, with some justification, some value in that tradition:

Vosper_NewViewsOfChrist_Sctn_1A.jpg
(85.38 KiB) Downloaded 180 times


Traditions often have some values. They also often have more than a few poisonous or toxic aspects to them - Delenda est.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3737

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: ...Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated. Interesting article and graph from Time that underlines that argument:

Time_PandemicOfUnvaccinated_Y220113A.jpg
https://time.com/6138566/pandemic-of-un ... n=20220105


....

And, pray tell, where are those "actual stats" you talk of? That contradict the ones from Time I quoted above?
First of all, New York State considers the unvaccinated anyone that is partially vaccinated or those in the first 14 days of the second dose. This serves two purposes: it artificially inflates the cases per 100,000 in the unvaccinated and underestimates the cases in the vaccinated. This is a common trick among vaccine enthusiasts, and shields the vaccine from the initial negative effectiveness of the vaccines. Since November 8th, 6.7% of the state population has had their first dose, so the negative effect would be significant. The farther we go into 2022, the less the vaccine enthusiasts will be able to take advantage of this effect.

Also since November 8th, 45% of cases in New York have been fully vaccinated, by their definition. Over that period, around 68% of the State has been fully vaccinated. We have no real anchor to compare the cases against, though. We could point out that 6% of the state population has tested positive for the virus in that period of time and only 3.8% of the vaccinated population has tested positive.

Not bad, right? The vaccines must be working? Well, here’s the rub.

In the absence of good information on who the infections are occurring in, whether they are occuring in the unvaccinated, the partially vaccinated, or the fully vaccinated in the first 14 days, it makes sense to look at where the infections are occurring. Below is a plot of the percentage of the population considered “fully vaccinated” by New York State on the y-axis, and the percentage of the population that has had COVID since November 8th at the county level.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 84x335.png

Interesting, right? The counties with the lowest vaccination rates have had the least infections in this time period. The counties with the highest vaccination rates have had the most.

Well, here’s another graph. This time on the y-axis is the percentage of the population that has had COVID, and on the x-axis is the percentage of first doses per total population since November 8th by county.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 70x339.png

Uh oh. Same effect except to a higher degree. The higher the percentage of first doses in a county, the higher the likelihood that someone gets COVID. That’s not the unvaccinated driving anything, nor is it the vaccine working. That is a pandemic of the vaccinated. Worse still, the proportion of the vaccinated getting omicron is increasing rapidly and will soon look a lot like Canadian provinces (where the vaccines have been holding steadily at negative VE for a couple of weeks now), so not only did the vaccinated drive the wave, they will soon fall victim to it.

Or maybe this trend only exists in New York and only for this period of time. Who wants to take that bet?

https://jestre.substack.com/p/new-york-new-york

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3738

Post by Bhurzum »

Do you like Samurai movies?
Do you like over the top (and very silly) combat movies?
Do you like scifi movies?

Well, feast your eyes upon this bad-boy!



I would give my left nut, my favourite one, for a full length version of this! Ham, cheese, cruddy SFX and all!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3739

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: ...Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated. Interesting article and graph from Time that underlines that argument:

Time_PandemicOfUnvaccinated_Y220113A.jpg
https://time.com/6138566/pandemic-of-un ... n=20220105


....

And, pray tell, where are those "actual stats" you talk of? That contradict the ones from Time I quoted above?
<copied blog post>
If you're going to copy all of a blog post, you might at least put it in a block quote to indicate that.

But it is largely if not entirely unmitigated horse crap. Specifics follow though it's hardly worth the effort it's so bad:
Service Dog wrote:
Jester:
First of all, New York State considers the unvaccinated anyone that is partially vaccinated or those in the first 14 days of the second dose. This serves two purposes: it artificially inflates the cases per 100,000 in the unvaccinated and underestimates the cases in the vaccinated. This is a common trick among vaccine enthusiasts, and shields the vaccine from the initial negative effectiveness of the vaccines. Since November 8th, 6.7% of the state population has had their first dose, so the negative effect would be significant. The farther we go into 2022, the less the vaccine enthusiasts will be able to take advantage of this effect.
For one thing I expect that that "November 8th, 6.7%" is bogus to begin with - New York vaccination rate seems to be close to 80% now; see.

But so what on that "first 14 days"? It's standard:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... oknow.html

That some people might be fully-protected after 7 days might well be balanced out by those who take 3 weeks. You - or [the Court] Jestre - have any evidence to suggest otherwise? And you might note that some CDC documents about the New York statistics explicitly say they generally exclude the partially vaccinated from their calculations:
CDC, MMWR:
Second, the analysis excluded partially vaccinated persons, to robustly assess VE for fully vaccinated compared with that of unvaccinated persons. A supplementary sensitivity analysis that included partially vaccinated persons as unvaccinated yielded conservative VE for laboratory-confirmed infection (declining from 88.7% to 72.1%) and for hospitalizations (ranging from 89.7% to 93.0%).
Even if the partially vaccinated - those in the 14 day window - were included in the calculations - as above, neither the infection nor the hospitalization rate was affected substantially.
Service Dog wrote:
<snip>

Jester:

In the absence of good information on who the infections are occurring in, whether they are occuring in the unvaccinated, the partially vaccinated, or the fully vaccinated in the first 14 days, it makes sense to look at where the infections are occurring. Below is a plot of the percentage of the population considered “fully vaccinated” by New York State on the y-axis, and the percentage of the population that has had COVID since November 8th at the county level.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 84x335.png

Interesting, right? The counties with the lowest vaccination rates have had the least infections in this time period. The counties with the highest vaccination rates have had the most.
Cargo-cult "science", the blind leading the blind.

And a dog's breakfast of a scatter-plot right out of the chute. Presumably - and as suggested - each of the dots represents the intersection of the county percentage of those with 2 doses versus the percentage population actually with Covid. But that hardly justifies any conclusion at all that increasing those vaccinated causes the number of cases to increase. For one thing, there's one county with 6% Covid and 58% with 2 doses, while there are several counties with 3.5% Covid and and 73% with two doses, and many more similar cases. Ergo, increasing vaccination rate decreases those with Covid! Checkmate Vaccination Nation!! :roll:

What a fucking joke. The Court Jester seems to think that because one might draw something of straight line with a rising slope through the middle of that widly scattered cluster that that therefore means increasing vaccination rate causes an increase in those with Covid. You and he might want to reflect on the common adage of statistics that correlation is not causation.

Standard epidemiology theory - from what I've managed to glean from various articles - is that the unvaccinated are more susceptible to serious illnesses, hospitalizations, and death. I'm sure epidemiology departments all across the country, and all around the world, would appreciate any arguments and evidence that you & he might have to the contrary that would disabuse them of that clearly wrong-headed perception ... :roll:

But for instance, see these CDC statistics for New York State that I linked to above, although it only corroborates the Time statistics I quoted earlier: 

CDC_MMWR_NewYork_CovidHospitalizations_1A.jpg
(340.54 KiB) Downloaded 167 times

Note in the New Hospitalizations section: 1271 for the fully vaccinated versus 7308 for the unvaccinated, a 1 to 6 ratio in favour of the former. They say or suggest that the "partially vaccinated were excluded from analyses" though that, as I had indicated earlier, may be more for the "Rate". But look at the rates: 0.17 for the fully vaccinated versus 2.03 for the unvaccinated, a 1 to 12 ratio in favour of the former.

Gambling illegal in the state that you're in? :roll: Doesn't look like it.
Service Dog wrote:
Or maybe this trend only exists in New York and only for this period of time. Who wants to take that bet?

https://jestre.substack.com/p/new-york-new-york
What an absolute fucking joke of a substack and "argument". You - and Jester - really need to take some basic courses in statistics and high-school mathematics because it looks like you're getting sucked-in by charlatans and grifters. Or by wilful ignorance.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3740

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote: ↑
European Medicines Agency admits Boosters cause VAIDS
https://youtu.be/6SzCpAlnNqo
:roll: All very well to be critical and skeptical. But methinks that you have your thumbs - to the shoulders - on the scales. You might note the "misleading" in that guy's tweet which I expect Twitter included:
Twitter has put an Orwellian label on this video clip-- but I don't think Twitter is being transparent about the basis for their judgement. And so their label is meaningless.
None so blind as those who will not see ...

You might actually try reading - and thinking about - what they linked to:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1362435731935748100
Service Dog wrote: I looked at AP's 'fact-check' of VAIDS-- and I see only word games. AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS. Then AP jousts their own strawman. This is especially ridiculous-- considering-that AP quotes a definition which is not dependent on HIV/AIDS in any way: "gradual destruction of the human immune system by vaccines.” One month ago-- AP was smug & broad in their claim that 'no such thing' exists: https://archive.fo/yC2No 31 days later, The European Medicines Agency clip spoke openly about the reality of the risk.
You don't have just a mote in your eye; you have a whole forest and half a mountain range.

They most certainly did not "insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS". They expended some effort - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man - to show that that claim was so much errant moonshine:
Widely circulating Twitter and Reddit posts falsely identified VAIDS as an emerging condition that is “similar to AIDS but caused by the C19 jabs.” Some social media users kept their posts vague, asking, “What is VAIDS?” Meanwhile, Google searches for the term skyrocketed. A blogger identified only as “Jack” also claimed to have coined the term, writing on Nov. 23 that “sometimes, a situation calls for the creation of a brand new term,” and defining it as the “gradual destruction of the human immune system by vaccines.” In reality, there’s no such thing as VAIDS ....
And AP were quoting some smuck blogger named Jack who was peddling that "gradual destruction by vaccines" "definition". You going to take his word over the whole medical establishment? And your evidence and argument for that is what? :roll:

https://archive.fo/yC2No#selection-577.1041-581.104

And:
“AIDS is a generalized body-wide compromise of a specific subset of immune cells (mostly CD4+ lymphocytes) caused specifically by infection with the HIV-1 virus,” said Dr. Grant McFadden, director of the Biodesign Center for Immunotherapy, Vaccines and Virotherapy at Arizona State University. “There is no vaccine-induced counterpart of AIDS.” Given that billions of people around the world have already been vaccinated against COVID-19, McFadden said, “if such a thing as VAIDS existed, we would have detected it by now.” A search across legitimate biomedical literature found no mention of vaccine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
You really don't look like you have any clue at all about biology or vaccines, or how the immune system works. Or science for that matter. Makes you an easy mark for the charlatans and grifters.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3741

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: Don't think that argument holds a lot of water. Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated.
Over the past 2 years this is certainly true because over the past 2 years almost everybody was unvaccinated for most of the time, particularly for the more deadly strains. I'd previously looked at UK data published by the Office of National Statistics. That seemed to show a rather different picture to the one you are presenting here. I can't find where I worked this out, so I'd have to redo it... but very quickly.... in October there were 393 covid deaths in the never vaccinated and 2256 deaths in the fully vaccinated. Obviously since most adults are vaccinated, it doesn't mean the vaccine is doing no good. My recollection was that the hospitalisation rate similarly told a very different picture to the one in Time, but I'm struggling to find that data set.

I will point out though that if we are talking about whether it is a preponderance of hospitalisations that are vaccinated, you are using the wrong graph. You should be using a graph of the number of hospitalisations, not the chance of being hospitalised per group. Also, those aren't hospitalisations for Covid you are measuring. That is hospitalisations who test positive for Covid. I think a graph of people who were actually hospitalised for Covid showing absolute numbers would show a very different picture. Also, are the vaccinated and unvaccinated being tested for covid at an equal rate? I think that they aren't and this will skew your data even further.

Maybe I should have added this case to the list of common media lies. Using a different metric from the obvious one that their claim is about.
Steersman wrote: No doubt more than a few in the Atheist/Skeptic community might fit the "suit" that you've cut out there.
Well, getting drunk and sleeping with one another combined with all sorts of kinks did seem to be kind of a feature of the conference circuit as described during the implosion of the JREF. People spitting in the mouths of other people's wives and so forth. Carrier isn't some wild outlier. People like Shermer were stars and there were groupies. SInce atheism and scepticism can be a bit of a sausage fest, rather plain women got to play out sexy power fantasies with nerds. Plus, you have the whole deconstruction of social rules and standards bullshit that, when it comes right down to it, just means you shouldn't be judged for having weird sex with whoever you wanted. That then ran into a bunch of hysterical power hungry women who wanted all of that, but also never to feel bad afterwards, and for whom being a victim was social currency.
Steersman wrote: But rather remarkably shortsighted - akin to judging a book by its cover - to be insisting, or even suggesting, that Shermer's book is entirely worthless because he may have strayed from the straight and narrow.
Are we really back to this where you invent a claim I haven't made, and then rebut it. It is getting very boring.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3742

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: And your evidence and argument for that is what?

My evidence is no more less than in my original post.

I posted this link:



Do you dispute anything Dr. Cavaleri said?

I don't care whether Twitter labelled his words Russian Election Disinformation. I don't care whether some YouTuber spelled VAXXXINE with 3 xxx's. I don't care whether the term "VAIDS" is applied or not. All that is just you & the fact-checkers dancing around the edges.

If you disagree with Dr. Cavaleri, say so. Otherwise-- you're just bloviating.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3743

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Canadian journalist and neonazi advocates punitive measures against the unjabbed, including "incentivizing, penalizing — short of all-out public shaming or frog-marching them to clinics and forcing needles into their arms."

... and you know he really wants to do that, too.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8505269/cana ... IFAHIw-lG0

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3744

Post by fafnir »

OK, I think this report is the place to look for current UK data.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1_2022.pdf
That is for the last three weeks of 2021.

What you find is that there were 9878 hospitalisations, 3298 amongst the unvaccinated and 5273 amongst the vaccinated. So, the unvaccinated make up about a third of the covid cases. If we were talking about relative individual risk, then 10% of the population being completely unvaccinated but making up 21% of the cases, 41% of the hospitalisations and 27% of the deaths might be an issue. We aren't though. The claim is that "covid is a disease of the unvaccinated", and that seriously ill covid patients are almost all unvaccinated. I don't think that is true though.

Doubtless if we averaged it over a year, or changed to counting the relative likelihood for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, or counted everybody who tested positive for covid rather than people who were sick with it, but focused the testing on the unvaccinated, we could get a very different impression. Covid is not a disease of the vaccinated. Hospitals are not seeing covid patients who are almost exclusively unvaccinated. The way that is presented as being the case is by playing statistical games, or by finding random people in random hospitals who are willing to claim this. Perhaps, against all the stats, it is true in their hospital, perhaps they are lying for the greater good, who can say?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3745

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: If you're going to copy all of a blog post, you might at least put it in a block quote to indicate that.
Ok.

Have fun tying yourself in knots trying to deny this one:



" The vaccine only works in this province

Jan 6 2022

by Jestre [Economist, data fiend, truth seeker. Open for crossovers and collaborations.]

Apparently, almost 100% of the COVID cases in Saskatchewan are in the dirty unvaccinated. This downward trend is occurring despite the fact that almost all outbreaks are happening in places where the unvaccinated are not able to attend AT ALL without a test proving they aren’t infected (ie. Curling rinks, hockey rinks, restaurants, etc) or places with extremely high levels of vaccination (hospital staff, long term care homes, etc)

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 0x1184.png

The green bars above are the unvaccinated and the yellow bars are the vaccinated. Here are a list of the outbreaks in the province. Also of note, Saskatchewan has a 22.5% test positivity rate in the province. Omicron continues to burn down vaccinated cities across Canada at a rate unprecedented since the Vikings made their mark on Europe.

But apparently whatever vaccine they took in Saskatchewan was the right one! They should stop being so selfish and let the other provinces know their secrets.

Quebec, par exemple, is not doing too great with 183k vaccinated COVID cases in the last month.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 33x239.png

Meanwhile, Trudeau, who has previously been spotted partying maskless in Europe, is extremely angry at some Quebecers that partied maskless on a plane to Mexico. Air Canada is so concerned that the Quebec version of the vaccine (unlike the Saskatchewan version) is so ineffective that they have decided to strand those travelers in Mexico, refusing to fly them back, rather than risk spreading the bubonic plague back home. Maybe Westjet, the company that said a couple of weeks ago the travel restrictions are not based on science will step up? I doubt it. "

https://jestre.substack.com/p/the-vacci ... s-province

John D
.
.
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3746

Post by John D »

Just something completely different. If this doesn't make you cry then you can't be my friend.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3747

Post by fafnir »

Looks like I got one of those numbers wrong. In late December when the rest of the info I posted was gathered approximately 52million people in the UK had had at least one dose of the vax.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Current UK population is about 67 million:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... nestimates

That means 22% of the UK population are completely unvaccinated. To me, this makes the case for the vaccine pretty weak.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3748

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote: Quebec, par exemple, is not doing too great with 183k vaccinated COVID cases in the last month.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_ ... 33x239.png
So that looks like it is telling a similar story to the UK numbers. Unvaccinated are around 20% of the population and making up something like 40% of hospitalisations. Doesn't look like covid is a disease of the unvaccinated, or that hospitals are full of covid patients all of whom are vaccinated.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3749

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Don't think that argument holds a lot of water. Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated.
<snip>
My recollection was that the hospitalisation rate similarly told a very different picture to the one in Time, but I'm struggling to find that data set.
I see you've finally posted some data. Which I don't think justifies all of your arguments. But probably more on that later.
fafnir wrote: I will point out though that if we are talking about whether it is a preponderance of hospitalisations that are vaccinated, you are using the wrong graph. You should be using a graph of the number of hospitalisations, not the chance of being hospitalised per group.
How so? Why? Show your work - "a miracle happens here" really does not cut it.

But, somewhat apropos of which, look again at the CD/MMWA document & JPG I posted earlier, the "New Hospitalizations" section in particular:

CDC_MMWR_NewYork_CovidHospitalizations_1A.jpg
(340.54 KiB) Downloaded 127 times

Bit of a puzzle exactly how they calculate the rate and the average, but they do say "per 100,000 person-days". On that basis, consider, as an example, the calculation for the unvaccinated (3.7 million at the end of about 100 days): dividing 7308 cases by (37 x 100) comes out to 1.98, pretty close to the total value of 2.03.

Similarly with the "fully vaccinated": 1271 cases divided by 10,100 (10.1 million over 100 days) gives 0.126, sort of close to their 0.17, the differences probably due to variations in the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated over those intervals.

But the point is that simply looking at the "number of hospitalizations" - apparently your argument, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth ... - tells us diddly squat about the effectiveness of the vaccinations. We simply have to consider the relative sizes of the relevant populations - which is exactly what those rate calculations include, that's what they reflect.

But you might also note that the rate shows the same 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 ratio in favour of the vaccinated over the 12 weeks shown in the table.
fafnir wrote: Also, those aren't hospitalisations for Covid you are measuring. That is hospitalisations who test positive for Covid. I think a graph of people who were actually hospitalised for Covid showing absolute numbers would show a very different picture.

Also, are the vaccinated and unvaccinated being tested for covid at an equal rate? I think that they aren't and this will skew your data even further.
Maybe. And maybe pigs will fly if the wind is strong enough ... :fpig: You have any data to support either contention?

As for your "skew your data", you might note that your recent UK statistics PDF - page 35-ish if I remember correctly - indicates several scenarios that could skew the data in many different directions. Lies, damned lies, etc.
fafnir wrote: Maybe I should have added this case to the list of common media lies. Using a different metric from the obvious one that their claim is about.
:roll:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But rather remarkably shortsighted - akin to judging a book by its cover - to be insisting, or even suggesting, that Shermer's book is entirely worthless because he may have strayed from the straight and narrow.
Are we really back to this where you invent a claim I haven't made, and then rebut it. It is getting very boring.
"Insisting" was probably a bridge too far, although I hadn't actually said that you were "insisting". But mea culpa, shoot me at dawn, in any case.

But I'll stand by "suggesting". What's getting rather "boring" is you not directly addressing my points - in that case that most people, including more than a few here, are absolutely clueless about even the rudiments of statistics - but instead respond with innuendo and ad hominems. Does the suggestion that Shermer was a bit of a hound-dog, at best though I gather he got married after the incident in question, mean that his points are irrelevant or null and void? That's the question on the table.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3750

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: <obfuscations snipped>

I don't care whether the term "VAIDS" is applied or not. ....
:roll:

Did you or did you not say, "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?

Did they or did they not so insist?

Think you're up to answering a simple question or two there sport? :roll:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 51#p507742

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3751

Post by Bhurzum »

fafnir wrote: Looks like I got one of those numbers wrong. In late December when the rest of the info I posted was gathered approximately 52million people in the UK had had at least one dose of the vax.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Current UK population is about 67 million:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... nestimates

That means 22% of the UK population are completely unvaccinated. To me, this makes the case for the vaccine pretty weak.
Well, funny you should mention that...

I just found out that my brother and his entire family (wife & three kids) are all rotten with the 'coof! Third time for him, his wife and one of the boys.

For all their vaccines, boosters, face-fanny-pads and alcohol gel slathering antics, they're getting infected regular as clockwork. It begs the question - what's the fucking point?

Oh, and apparently this latest dose is like a mild sniffle but with added "volcanic arse syndrome" (his words) thrown in for good measure. Looks like all the toilet paper panic last year was on the money!

Addendum: Jesus Christ - I googled "the squirts gif" hoping to find a funny gif to end this shit-post.

I'll never be clean again... :shock:

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3752

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Don't think that argument holds a lot of water. Regardless of the reasons why there were more of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated over the last 2 years, it seems pretty clear that the preponderance of the hospitalized and the dead from Covid are the unvaccinated.
<snip>
My recollection was that the hospitalisation rate similarly told a very different picture to the one in Time, but I'm struggling to find that data set.
I see you've finally posted some data. Which I don't think justifies all of your arguments. But probably more on that later.
fafnir wrote: I will point out though that if we are talking about whether it is a preponderance of hospitalisations that are vaccinated, you are using the wrong graph. You should be using a graph of the number of hospitalisations, not the chance of being hospitalised per group.
How so? Why? Show your work - "a miracle happens here" really does not cut it.
What do you mean how so? Your graph answers a different question to the one you were using it to answer. There aren't really any workings involved in saying that.
Steersman wrote: But, somewhat apropos of which, look again at the CD/MMWA document & JPG I posted earlier, the "New Hospitalizations" section in particular:


CDC_MMWR_NewYork_CovidHospitalizations_1A.jpg
OK. That is data from 6 months ago when far fewer people were vaccinated and we were talking about a variant that the vaccine worked on better. You've changed your tense since we first started talking from the present to the past tense. This is just the same trick as using stats from January last year to claim that hospitals now are being overrun with unvaccinated people that we discussed earlier.
fafnir wrote: Bit of a puzzle exactly how they calculate the rate and the average, but they do say "per 100,000 person-days". On that basis, consider, as an example, the calculation for the unvaccinated (3.7 million at the end of about 100 days): dividing 7308 cases by (37 x 100) comes out to 1.98, pretty close to the total value of 2.03.
We could go into what these things mean, but it isn't relevant to the claims about the current situation and whether hospitals are being overrun by unvaccinated covid patients.
fafnir wrote: But the point is that simply looking at the "number of hospitalizations" - apparently your argument, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth ... - tells us diddly squat about the effectiveness of the vaccinations. We simply have to consider the relative sizes of the relevant populations - which is exactly what those rate calculations include, that's what they reflect.
Again those were numbers from six months ago for a different strain, so they don't tell us much about what is going on now. Further they only don't tell us something about vaccine effectiveness if we flip the pro vax case to, instead of being about stopping the spread (as was being argued heavily at the time your data was gathered), or protecting hospitals, to instead being about individual risk. We surely aren't mandating vaccines and locking down the unvaccinated for the benefit of the individual unvaccinated people whose rights we are taking away, are we?

The claim that covid is a disease of the unvaccinated is a lie and becomes more of a lie with every passing day. You have taken your data from the period where delta took over from beta. Why?
Steersman wrote: But you might also note that the rate shows the same 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 ratio in favour of the vaccinated over the 12 weeks shown in the table.
Is anybody arguing that the vaccine wasn't better 6 months ago? Generally the criticism on the effectiveness of the vaccine that I'm aware of is that it won't work for the same reason that we don't try to wipe out the common cold with a vaccine. It spreads too fast and mutates too fast. You are trying to fill a sieve with water.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: Also, those aren't hospitalisations for Covid you are measuring. That is hospitalisations who test positive for Covid. I think a graph of people who were actually hospitalised for Covid showing absolute numbers would show a very different picture.

Also, are the vaccinated and unvaccinated being tested for covid at an equal rate? I think that they aren't and this will skew your data even further.
Maybe. And maybe pigs will fly if the wind is strong enough ... :fpig: You have any data to support either contention?
Your bullish attitude about data would come across better if the data you posted was relevant to the question at hand and not 6 months out of date. I've shown you data for the UK, Service Dog has shown you data for Quebec. Both of them show what I said. You have shown no data showing anything else. Instead of saying I have no data to support contentions that I have already shown evidence for at least one of, maybe you could show some data.

As to the not testing the vaccinated and unvaccinated at the same rate. You seriously want me to provide evidence that, say in New York, where the unvaccinated have been being mandated to get tested over and over there aren't going to be differences in the rates of testing for the vaccinated and unvaccinated? That is a retarded argument. It's going on all over. For example, the UK stopped demanding vaccinated people be tested before elective surgery.
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2383
Steersman wrote: As for your "skew your data", you might note that your recent UK statistics PDF - page 35-ish if I remember correctly - indicates several scenarios that could skew the data in many different directions. Lies, damned lies, etc.
Yes, indeed.... but the skew really depends on what question one is asking of the data. If the claim is that covid is a disease of the unvaccinated, or that hospitals are awash with unvaccinated covid patients, then presumably that is evidenced in the data? We can then argue about whether the data is skewed. Are you now saying that the official data doesn't show this, but maybe that is the underlying reality?
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: Maybe I should have added this case to the list of common media lies. Using a different metric from the obvious one that their claim is about.
:roll:
Roll your eyes all you like, data from 6 months ago for a different variant isn't relevant to the current situation and data about relative odds of being hospitalised with covid for the vaccinated and unvaccinated averaged over many months doesn't tell you whether or not hospitals are being disproportionately overrun with unvaccinated covid patients. They aren't. It is a lie.
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But rather remarkably shortsighted - akin to judging a book by its cover - to be insisting, or even suggesting, that Shermer's book is entirely worthless because he may have strayed from the straight and narrow.
Are we really back to this where you invent a claim I haven't made, and then rebut it. It is getting very boring.
"Insisting" was probably a bridge too far, although I hadn't actually said that you were "insisting". But mea culpa, shoot me at dawn, in any case.

But I'll stand by "suggesting". What's getting rather "boring" is you not directly addressing my points - in that case that most people, including more than a few here, are absolutely clueless about even the rudiments of statistics - but instead respond with innuendo and ad hominems. Does the suggestion that Shermer was a bit of a hound-dog, at best though I gather he got married after the incident in question, mean that his points are irrelevant or null and void? That's the question on the table.
Again, I never claimed anything about his books based on the rape and drink spiking accusations. I didn't say anything about his books. Many first class minds have had far worse vices. He could bugger children day and night and yet have interesting ideas. I'm not sure that there is much else to say about Shermer. He was a second tier speaker on the atheism and scepticism circuit who fancied himself as a player. Higher up the food chain than Carrier, but no chance of rising to the level of Dawkins. Looking at his books, I wonder if he didn't come along 15 years too late?

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3753

Post by fafnir »

Bhurzum wrote: For all their vaccines, boosters, face-fanny-pads and alcohol gel slathering antics, they're getting infected regular as clockwork. It begs the question - what's the fucking point?
Well, the good people of DC got rid of Trump, trousered huge amounts of money and centralised a bunch more power.... so there's that.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3754

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: <snip>
How so? Why? Show your work - "a miracle happens here" really does not cut it.
What do you mean how so? Your graph answers a different question to the one you were using it to answer. There aren't really any workings involved in saying that.
You said it was the number of hospitalizations that was relevant, not the rate. My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate.

<snip>
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: Maybe I should have added this case to the list of common media lies. Using a different metric from the obvious one that their claim is about.
:roll:
Roll your eyes all you like, data from 6 months ago for a different variant isn't relevant to the current situation and data about relative odds of being hospitalised with covid for the vaccinated and unvaccinated averaged over many months doesn't tell you whether or not hospitals are being disproportionately overrun with unvaccinated covid patients. They aren't. It is a lie.
:roll:

From your own UK PDF article covering weeks 49 to 52 (inclusive?) of 2021:
Vaccine coverage tells us about the proportion of the population that have received 1, 2 and 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccines. By 2 January 2022, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was 68.6% and for dose 2 was 63.1%. Overall vaccine uptake in England in people with at least 3 doses was 45.6%. In line with the programme rollout, coverage is highest in the oldest age groups. [pg 3]
Table 13, page 42:
Covid_Statistics_UK_Y211215A.jpg
(182.87 KiB) Downloaded 121 times
The 10.2 and 58.8 numbers under the "emergency care" section are for the 50-59 cohort, other lines for other 10 year spans. So, about 5 times more likely to wind up in the hospital (probably) due to Covid if one is unvaccinated than if vaccinated. And, in the adjacent column, about 6 six times more likely to die - how old did you say you were? ... :roll:

So, of those going to the hospital or the morgue because of Covid, probably 80% of them are the unvaccinated and 20% the vaccinated. Feeling lucky? :roll:

But, given those quite recent statistics which you helpfully provided ..., who do you think is causing the most strain on the medical system there in the UK? And is likely to be doing so for some time, given that overall uptake rate is only 63%.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3755

Post by Service Dog »

1. 'The Book of Boba Fett' slipped-in on December 29-- stealing the crown as 2021's best depiction of Frank Herbert's Dune.

2. The Book of Boba Fett is twice as enjoyable if you say "Joe Rogan" out-loud, anytime the dude looks like Joe Rogan... floating in his sensory depravation tank, sparring, getting high on a psychedelic lizard. 'Joe Rogan'.

(let me know if you agree)

https://fmovies.wtf/series/the-book-of- ... -17zjq/1-3

zou3gou3
.
.
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3756

Post by zou3gou3 »

Djokovic.png
(469.75 KiB) Downloaded 106 times

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3757

Post by MarcusAu »

fafnir wrote: ...
It just don't signify to me.

Maybe you could meme something with Rolf Harris, or if he's beyond the pale Tony Hart.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3758

Post by MarcusAu »

Service Dog wrote: 1. 'The Book of Boba Fett' slipped-in on December 29-- stealing the crown as 2021's best depiction of Frank Herbert's Dune.

2. The Book of Boba Fett is twice as enjoyable if you say "Joe Rogan" out-loud, anytime the dude looks like Joe Rogan... floating in his sensory depravation tank, sparring, getting high on a psychedelic lizard. 'Joe Rogan'.

(let me know if you agree)

https://fmovies.wtf/series/the-book-of- ... -17zjq/1-3
Nobody ever though 'How Great Thou Art' in relation to Temuera Morrison. To his uncle Howard perhaps, but not Tem.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3759

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: er of hospitalizations that was relevant, not the rate. My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate.
I haven't seen this - "My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate." I've seen you use rate data, but I haven't seen you show that it is the rate that is important.

Anyway, where I came in here was you arguing with Matt Cavanaugh all the way back here:
Steersman wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Most 'unvaccinated' cases & deaths in Alberta, are actually among the jabbed within two weeks following the jab:

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-a ... e-outcomes


alberta_deaths.jpeg
Don't think that graph and those statistics mean quite what you think they mean.
Vaccine status category is based on protection. Doses administered within 14 days prior to a person’s COVID-19 diagnosis are not considered protective; as a result, partial or complete vaccination categories only include those identified as cases over 14 days past their first or second immunization date.
Also:
  • 65.1% of cases (209,083/321,061) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
  • 78.6% of hospitalized cases (10,252/13,036) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
  • 74.2% of COVID-19 deaths (1,362/1,836) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
He said that the majority of the current cases and deaths in Alberta were amongst the jabbed. You argued against this by changing the tense of the question, as we discussed, and showing data going back to the beginning of 2021 when nobody was jabbed. You then went off into the error of thinking that the ratio of vaxed to unvaxed being hospitalised was the relative odds of being hospitalised. You go on to make that error again in your most recent post.

You haven't shown your rate number is the correct one to use, you've just switched to talking about it and then applied it with bad math.
Steersman wrote: The 10.2 and 58.8 numbers under the "emergency care" section are for the 50-59 cohort, other lines for other 10 year spans.
Sure, I had been summing the columns to give the overall rate since Matt had been arguing about the overall number of people being hospitalised and dying. Matt's assessment was correct.
Steersman wrote: So, about 5 times more likely to wind up in the hospital (probably) due to Covid if one is unvaccinated than if vaccinated. And, in the adjacent column, about 6 six times more likely to die - how old did you say you were? ... :roll:
Right. Steersman, listen very carefully..... this is a different claim. You gish gallop constantly. You need to try to keep focus on the question being discussed rather than constantly pivoting to related, but different, questions that you have a quote or article on. Respond to what other people post, don't use them as a jumping off point for your irrelevant quote dumps.

Covid isn't a disease of the unvaccinated. Hospitals are not full of Covid patients, most of whom are unvaccinated. That claim is a lie that is supported by the sort of sophistry that you keep practicing here.
Steersman wrote: So, of those going to the hospital or the morgue because of Covid, probably 80% of them are the unvaccinated and 20% the vaccinated. Feeling lucky? :roll:
No, again either your understanding of math isn't up to the task, or you are trying some sort of clumsy bait and switch. I've already posted the data from this report on the numbers of people being hospitalised and dying of covid. It's mostly vaccinated people. You taking rate data and then using wrong maths to turn it into wrong hospitalisation and death data doesn't change that.

This is your math:


Steersman wrote: But, given those quite recent statistics which you helpfully provided ..., who do you think is causing the most strain on the medical system there in the UK? And is likely to be doing so for some time, given that overall uptake rate is only 63%.
Most of the emergency covid patients and deaths are amongst the vaccinated. The articles you keep quoting claiming otherwise are lying using the same techniques you are using. Covid isn't a disease of the unvaccinated, and hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients. Those claims are lies.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3760

Post by fafnir »

MarcusAu wrote:
fafnir wrote: ...
It just don't signify to me.

Maybe you could meme something with Rolf Harris, or if he's beyond the pale Tony Hart.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ds8CiWPWoAAX7bE.jpg

zou3gou3
.
.
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3761

Post by zou3gou3 »

fafnir wrote: <cut>
Most of the emergency covid patients and deaths are amongst the vaccinated. The articles you keep quoting claiming otherwise are lying using the same techniques you are using. Covid isn't a disease of the unvaccinated, and hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients. Those claims are lies.
<cut>
The Albertan data is from the last 120 days, i.e. vaccines have been available for all. Take Table 11 — Deaths.
Alberta 11.png
(25.3 KiB) Downloaded 69 times
Take my age bracket, covid deaths per 100 000
Triple vaxxed: 2.30
Unvaxxed: 1885.34

"hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients." Really? Just go over to www.reddit.com/r/nursing/ and see for yourself.
If you want an expert's opinion and not mine...

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3762

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

zou3gou3 wrote: Djokovic.png

Tyrannei macht Spaß, wa?
zougou_lachelt.gif
(477.43 KiB) Downloaded 64 times

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3763

Post by fafnir »

If hospitals are full of the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated, why isn't that the data that people supporting the claim provide? Instead it's always differences in case rates broken down by age. Is it because if they showed the actual number of vaxed and unvaxed in hospitals it would refute their claim? You'll also notice that she is looking at data going back 3 months, so she is talking about mostly delta, not omicron.

If you follow her link the data for Alberta shows that most of the people currently hospitalised for Covid have had 2 or 3 doses of the vax. This is in Table 3 of the link - https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-a ... e-outcomes . That table shows the unvaccinated making up 17% of the current cases, 19% of the new cases and 37% of the hospitalisations. That's only on 792 hospitalisations. Are hospitals really crammed with the unvaccinated when there are 792 patients and most of them are vaccinated?

Based on the data of the woman you linked to hospitals are indeed not full of unvaccinated covid patients. So, that's the UK, Quebec and Alberta that aren't being overwhelmed by the unvaxed.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3764

Post by fafnir »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
zou3gou3 wrote: Djokovic.png

Tyrannei macht Spaß, wa?

zougou_lachelt.gif
https://c.tenor.com/7oRFtL0pwesAAAAC/ahahah.gif

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3765

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote: <snip>

Based on the data of the woman you linked to hospitals are indeed not full of unvaccinated covid patients. So, that's the UK, Quebec and Alberta that aren't being overwhelmed by the unvaxed.
Clearly, nobody should have gotten vaccinated and then nobody could have said that it was the vaccinated who were overwhelming the hospitals and morgues ... :roll:

Think you need to give your head a fucking shake. Or two.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3766

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote: <snip>

Based on the data of the woman you linked to hospitals are indeed not full of unvaccinated covid patients. So, that's the UK, Quebec and Alberta that aren't being overwhelmed by the unvaxed.
Clearly, nobody should have gotten vaccinated and then nobody could have said that it was the vaccinated who were overwhelming the hospitals and morgues ... :roll:
I haven't said that. Again, you argue with the shadows in your head. The numbers are the numbers. They do not say what you say they say, but that is normal.
Steersman wrote: Think you need to give your head a fucking shake. Or two.
Your argument is, and has always been, with reality and high school math, not with me.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3767

Post by Service Dog »

faf--

I like the way this guy breaks-down 2021 ... using the number of life-years-lived as a denominator:

https://jestre.substack.com/p/keeping-score

Alberta changed the way they report numbers:
https://jestre.substack.com/p/alberta-and-the-big-lie

and

I guess Steersman was smart-enough to remain-silent, about jestre's debunking of Saskatchewan's literally-unbelievable numbers.

Saskatchewan is backpedalling from their fishy numbers:
https://jestre.substack.com/p/follow-up ... oves-cases

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3768

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote: faf--

I like the way this guy breaks-down 2021 ... using the number of life-years-lived as a denominator:

https://jestre.substack.com/p/keeping-score
Thanks. That looks to be in line with a lot of my thinking. The big argument he is missing, I think, is that the increased risk of death of the unvaccinated is a personal choice and can't reasonably be any part of the justification for mandates. If vaccination has no impact on spread, then presumably that isn't the reason for going authoritarian. Are they really doing it for the sake of a hundred hospital beds across the whole of Alberta? It's not even ICU beds.

zou3gou3
.
.
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3769

Post by zou3gou3 »

@fafnir. I think you're misreading the table.

3xvax= 165
2xvax= 15
unvax= 943

Also, look at the Czech data for 03 — 09 Jan 2022
https://ockovani.opendatalab.cz/statistiky_srovnani

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3770

Post by Service Dog »

fafnir wrote: Are they really doing it for the sake of a hundred hospital beds across the whole of Alberta? It's not even ICU beds.
That's what the German is claiming...
zou3gou3 wrote: "hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients." Really? Just go over to www.reddit.com/r/nursing/ and see for yourself.
Ok. I went to reddit.com/r/nursing to see for myself.

Searched for "Alberta". Only 3 hits in the past month, none about overcrowding:



If Alberta's hospitals are as overwhelmed as the r/nursing sub-reddit... I think Alberta will survive.


Removing the 'Past Month' limitation... the top results are all 4 months old.



The first 2 results have been deleted. The 3rd result is a nurse in Alberta who is quitting to work in an Amazon warehouse. :lol:


--

The top result from r/WorldNews is also 4 months old.

It's says "up to" 8 (EIGHT!) additional nurses "may" be sent to Alberta:

reddit link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFilterNews/c ... &context=3

direct link to the news story:
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politi ... l-minister

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3771

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: er of hospitalizations that was relevant, not the rate. My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate.
I haven't seen this - "My calculations - based on standard methodology - and that methodology shows that it's the rate." I've seen you use rate data, but I haven't seen you show that it is the rate that is important.
Why else do you think most health departments - including the one you linked to recently - talk about those rates? Try reading and thinking about your own source, particularly Table 1. Although it's possible that their numbers for vaccine effectiveness - 90% to 95% for hospitalizations - are from the manufacturers and are based on initial effectiveness and under ideal conditions.

But consider Wikipedia:
Vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness is the percentage reduction of disease cases in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group. For example, a vaccine efficacy or effectiveness of 80% indicates an 80% decrease in the number of disease cases among a group of vaccinated people compared to a group in which nobody was vaccinated. ....

Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several important and critical outcomes of interest such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations due to the disease, deaths due to the disease, ....
Those rates - the "attack rates" - are used to calculate actual effectiveness that clearly have a great deal of utility. You have some futher evidence and arguments that might disabuse epidemiologists - not to mention all of the actuarys in all of the insurance bureaus - all across the world of that clearly wrong-head principle and value? :roll:

But for instance, the CDC results for New York State calculates effectiveness - presumably for reducing hospitalizations - as about 92% to 95%:

CDC_MMWR_NewYork_CovidHospitalizations_1A.jpg
(340.54 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

Assuming the average rates shown for the vaccinated and unvaccinated (0.17 & 2.03), and assuming equal populations of, say, 1 million each and a sample interval of 30 days, that means 10 x 30 (days) x 0.17 = 50 hospitalizations for the vaccinated versus 10 x 30 x 2.03 = 600 hospitalizations for the unvaccinated.

So, in comparing those two equal populations, the vaccine has reduced hospitalizations 550/600 or 92%; that is its degree of effectiveness.

That is the utility and value of those numbers and that statistical process - it allows us to calculate relative probabilities.

About which, as I mentioned, Shermer argues that most people haven't got a clue. Which you seem strangely reluctant to accept - wonder why ... :think: :roll:

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: So, of those going to the hospital or the morgue because of Covid, probably 80% of them are the unvaccinated and 20% the vaccinated. Feeling lucky? :roll:
No, again either your understanding of math isn't up to the task, or you are trying some sort of clumsy bait and switch. I've already posted the data from this report on the numbers of people being hospitalised and dying of covid. It's mostly vaccinated people. You taking rate data and then using wrong maths to turn it into wrong hospitalisation and death data doesn't change that.
Ok, I'll stand corrected there; mea culpa, shoot me at dawn.

I too was confusing or conflating the rate with the actual populations which are dependent on the number of "trials".

More of which later.
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But, given those quite recent statistics which you helpfully provided ..., who do you think is causing the most strain on the medical system there in the UK? And is likely to be doing so for some time, given that overall uptake rate is only 63%.
Most of the emergency covid patients and deaths are amongst the vaccinated. The articles you keep quoting claiming otherwise are lying using the same techniques you are using. Covid isn't a disease of the unvaccinated, and hospitals are not full of unvaccinated covid patients. Those claims are lies.
Sure; there may be more of the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. But so what?

That there maybe now more of the vaccinated in some hospitals than the unvaccinated, particularly in areas where the vaccination rates are more than 70% or so, does not at all change the rate at which the vaccinated and vaccinated fill up the hospitals.

And even your UK statistics show, consistent with those different rates, that the unvaccinated are disproportionate percentages of those in the hospitals and the morgues with Covid:

Covid_Statistics_UK_Y211215B.jpg
(149.59 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

Excluding the partially vaccinated, I calculate that there were about 4000 of the unvaccinated that went into UK hospitals for Covid over a 4 week period (?) while there were some 5300 of the vaccinated who did so.

So, as a rough estimate, 40% of those "overwhelming" the hospitals are the unvaccinated versus 60% of the vaccinated. Wonder what you think those in each of those groups might have done to not have contributed to that state ... :think: :roll:

Talking about whether "Covid [is or] isn't a disease of the unvaccinated" is something of a red herring. Who is contributing most to that state of affairs and why is the issue.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3772

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

The whole ICU thing is sky is falling BS. How many times have they warned of the imminent swamping of ICUs, yet every time it's fine.

All hospitals run close to ICU capacity -- to do otherwise would be bad business. They also can easily increase capacity by simply assigning regular beds and staff to ICU.

Anyone who falls repeatedly for this is a fool. Anyone who repeats this BS is a cunt.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3773

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: <snip>

I guess Steersman was smart-enough to remain-silent, about jestre's debunking of Saskatchewan's literally-unbelievable numbers.
Wasn't worth the effort - the guy is clearly a cretin, or also has his thumbs to the elbows on the scales, or is talking well outside his (very limited) range of expertise.

Clearly no great shakes in the statistics department either. Hard to imagine a more clueless use of statistical principles than, generally speaking, to graph population vaccination rates against incidence of a disease. Even assuming vaccinations were 100% effective - no one who was vaccinated would subsequently get the disease - then, assuming the process of vaccination takes place over a lengthy period of time as is clearly the case, there would still be increasing numbers of people contracting the disease. Ergo, vaccination doesn't work! (!!11!!). :roll:

"cretinous" is being charitable. Pretty much exactly a case of scientism, of "cargo-cult science": using the processes and methods of science - building a runway and staffing a control tower with fake instruments - and "thinking" that planes loaded with goodies would land, that the result means anything.

BTW, any plans afoot to answer my questions about your claims about AP & VAIDS? :roll:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3774

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: The whole ICU thing is sky is falling BS. How many times have they warned of the imminent swamping of ICUs, yet every time it's fine.

All hospitals run close to ICU capacity -- to do otherwise would be bad business. They also can easily increase capacity by simply assigning regular beds and staff to ICU.

Anyone who falls repeatedly for this is a fool. Anyone who repeats this BS is a cunt.
:roll:
Idaho has the nation’s highest rate of Covid-19 ICU usage, with 60.8% of that state’s ICU beds occupied by coronavirus patients — more than 93% of Idaho’s ICU beds are in use overall, forcing state officials on Thursday to activate “crisis standards of care” and give hospitals the power to prioritize which patients receive medical treatment. ....

Georgia is close behind, with coronavirus patients taking up 57.1% of total ICU beds, reportedly causing some hospitals in the state to struggle with staffing and limit admissions to emergency rooms via ambulance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... b167314751

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3775

Post by fafnir »

zou3gou3 wrote: @fafnir. I think you're misreading the table.

3xvax= 165
2xvax= 15
unvax= 943
Could be. Which table? There have been quite a few.
zou3gou3 wrote: Also, look at the Czech data for 03 — 09 Jan 2022
https://ockovani.opendatalab.cz/statistiky_srovnani
Yes, this data looks somewhat different. The main things that jump out are that they seem to have quite a low vaccination rate and that these aren't people hospitalised with covid, but hospitalised people who test positive for covid. That gets us into the whole mess of are they testing vaccinated people and unvaccinated people to the same degree? Be that as it may, yes, in the Czech Republic there do seem to be more unvaxed than vaxed being hospitalised and testing positive for Covid. This maybe lets us set an upper bound on the numbers we really want - how many people vaxed vs unvaxed and in hospital because of covid. On this data, I certainly can't refute the claim that hospitals in the Czech Republic have more unvaxed than vaxed covid patients.

zou3gou3
.
.
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3776

Post by zou3gou3 »

"They also can easily increase capacity by simply assigning regular beds and staff to ICU."
Sure. The magical HR supply fairy will just poof nurses and doctors into existence. ICUs have fewer beds per nurse than other wards. The hospital in my county has opened a second Covid ward and had to close other wards to supply the personnel. And we are in a good position compared to the USA, where it looks like the system is falling apart.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3777

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote: ↑
I guess Steersman was smart-enough to remain-silent, about jestre's debunking of Saskatchewan's literally-unbelievable numbers.
Wasn't worth the effort -
Oh-- I'm quite sure it wasn't!

Just imagine the Herculean effort it would require-- for you to defend those Saskatchewan numbers--

while Saskatchewan simultaneously added this disclaimer to their data-- conceding that jestre's critique was correct:


Steersman wrote↑ ....the guy is clearly a cretin, or also has his thumbs to the elbows on the scales, or is talking well outside his (very limited) range of expertise. Clearly no great shakes in the statistics department either. Hard to imagine a more clueless use of statistical principles ...
Blah blah blah. He was right. If you wanna be humbled by a 'clueless cretin' then call him him that. If you wanna be ass-raped by a tiny dick, then be sure to describe his mosquito-member in exquisite detail, irritating your sphincter! He was right.

BTW, any plans afoot to answer my questions about your claims about AP & VAIDS? :roll:
I've answered this. The AP 'fact-check' used squid ink to obscure the only important question: whether boosters can be counter-productive to one's immunity. That's the claim which the EU medicines agency's top Pharmacologist subsequently confirmed. That's the claim I defend.

Rather than engage with my actual claim, you want to dwell on the AP's inane 'fact-check'.

Your 'gotcha' is not a gotcha. Your sense of humor is a dreary-dud. And this is just another facet of the same shortcoming: you can't 'roast' me on this point because you can't construct a viable 'zinger'. The required building blocks aren't there.

You're a Bjarte.

At least you've got company. Lsuoma's notion of a bon mot is right down there at your level:
Lsuoma wrote: ↑
What about the fiendish world conspiracy to kill everyone by scaring them to death with 'rona, and preventing them from chowing down on Equvalan???
There have been zero cases, and minus 2000 brazillion excess deaths in reality. And Trump won the election by 500 zillion votes.
and the german cat you rode in on

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10600
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3778

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote: ↑
I guess Steersman was smart-enough to remain-silent, about jestre's debunking of Saskatchewan's literally-unbelievable numbers.
Wasn't worth the effort -
Oh-- I'm quite sure it wasn't!

Just imagine the Herculean effort it would require-- for you to defend those Saskatchewan numbers--

while Saskatchewan simultaneously added this disclaimer to their data-- conceding that jestre's critique was correct:

https://i.imgur.com/xChld1i.png
:roll:
Maybe. But so are stopped clocks - twice a day.

But you seriously "think" that his graph of population vaccination rate versus incidence of covid cases makes any sense at all? You have enough understanding of statistics to even address much less answer that question? :think: :roll:
Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote↑ ....the guy is clearly a cretin, or also has his thumbs to the elbows on the scales, or is talking well outside his (very limited) range of expertise. Clearly no great shakes in the statistics department either. Hard to imagine a more clueless use of statistical principles ...
Blah blah blah. He was right. If you wanna be humbled by a 'clueless cretin' then call him him that. If you wanna be ass-raped by a tiny dick, then be sure to describe his mosquito-member in exquisite detail, irritating your sphincter! He was right.
In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which is worth rather less than diddly-squat.

Service Dog wrote:
BTW, any plans afoot to answer my questions about your claims about AP & VAIDS? :roll:
I've answered this. The AP 'fact-check' used squid ink to obscure the only important question: whether boosters can be counter-productive to one's immunity. That's the claim which the EU medicines agency's top Pharmacologist subsequently confirmed. That's the claim I defend.

Rather than engage with my actual claim, you want to dwell on the AP's inane 'fact-check'.
:roll:

Did you or did you not say, "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?

Did they or did they not so insist?

The issue is your too frequent peddling of outright ignorant bullshit. And your pigheaded refusal to even admit when you're caught blowing smoke out of your arse.
Service Dog wrote: Your 'gotcha' is not a gotcha. Your sense of humor is a dreary-dud. And this is just another facet of the same shortcoming: you can't 'roast' me on this point because you can't construct a viable 'zinger'. The required building blocks aren't there.
A surfeit of "blocks", an embarrassment of them, though more for you.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3779

Post by John D »

zou3gou3 wrote: "They also can easily increase capacity by simply assigning regular beds and staff to ICU."
Sure. The magical HR supply fairy will just poof nurses and doctors into existence. ICUs have fewer beds per nurse than other wards. The hospital in my county has opened a second Covid ward and had to close other wards to supply the personnel. And we are in a good position compared to the USA, where it looks like the system is falling apart.
The system is not even close to falling apart in the US. Almost every hospital in the US has open IC beds... just not as many as they would like to have.

The problem has some challenging details however. Anyone who tests positive for the Coof is being moved to a part of the hospital where they can be with other Coof positive people. Well.... this is very hard to manage. Staff is short all over the facility as they try to give specialized treatment in non-specialized environments. The push to isolate Coof patients is causing crazy stress in the system. The next three weeks will be like a hurricane has hit us... Cases will continue to increase for a few weeks.

Of course, everyone in the health care segment is having a fit... and they have reason to complain. Things can't be sustained like this. So, some hospitals are setting up tents and some are getting help from the National Guard etc.

Part of the story is that hospitals want to make sure they get government reimbursement for the hassle... so everyone above the pay grade of a candy-striper is telling the media they are on deaths door.

So... as with all things... it is a bit complicated. It is a blend of real problems and political speech.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14589
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#3780

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

My sincere thanks to the two cunts here for illustrating my point by repeating yet again the same dire predictions they've been making for two years now, that will yet again not come to pass because they are total bullshit.

Post Reply