Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[Zelen]

Been seeing more and more video coming from Australia. It is a legitimate nightmare. It's really concerning that anyone can look at a country under martial law, where people are assaulted for going outside, and think "This is fine."

There are absolutely a lot of good people who want to save lives, but this kind of behavior completely destroys public trust. It needs to be condemned unconditionally... Crickets.

[Kiero]

You not understanding it doesn't mean it's not working. "Let's say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%)."

"RRR tells us how much the risk of infection is "reduced in the test vaccine group, compared to a control group who did not receive the test vaccine." The RRR, or efficacy, tells us "how well the vaccine protects clinical trial participants from getting sick or getting very sick.""

RRR is the right number to use for vaccines.

RRR has never been used before now, because it has no clinical significance whatsoever. It's marketing puff. So spare me.

[oggsmash]

Been seeing more and more video coming from Australia. It is a legitimate nightmare. It's really concerning that anyone can look at a country under martial law, where people are assaulted for going outside, and think "This is fine."

There are absolutely a lot of good people who want to save lives, but this kind of behavior completely destroys public trust. It needs to be condemned unconditionally... Crickets.

   I think australia is what the USA looks at for beta testing.  Just can not quite get those bitter clingers to let that gun go.   Because I do think you need that before you start handing out beatings for the common good.

[Mistwell]

It's a similar number for the Moderna jab (I think it was 1.1% where the ARR was 0.8% for Pfizer). Ironically, the much-maligned Astrazeneca jab is 1.6%.

Still in every case, the actual impact is fuck all.

You not understanding it doesn't mean it's not working. "Let's say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%)."

"RRR tells us how much the risk of infection is "reduced in the test vaccine group, compared to a control group who did not receive the test vaccine." The RRR, or efficacy, tells us "how well the vaccine protects clinical trial participants from getting sick or getting very sick.""

RRR is the right number to use for vaccines.

You not understanding doesn't mean he's wrong, either.  When it comes to the decision to get vaccinated, the ARR tells you what the overall risk is of not getting the jab. 

Not really. It tells you the rate at the time of the test. But there was an increase in number of people contagious since it, and Delta is much more contagious and the risk of contracting the virus went up by a meaningful amount. But effectiveness of the vaccine keeping people out of the hospital and dying remains extremely strong, particularly in the 6 months following the second dose. That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

[Eirikrautha]

That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

And this is why people like you need to be defeated.  Because it is not your place to decide what information people should or should not have, how they should weight it, or what is most important.  You are not qualified to decide any of that for anyone but yourself.  Your mentality is that of the tyrant.  Sic semper tyrannis.

[Mistwell]

That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

And this is why people like you need to be defeated.  Because it is not your place to decide what information people should or should not have, how they should weight it, or what is most important.  You are not qualified to decide any of that for anyone but yourself.  Your mentality is that of the tyrant.  Sic semper tyrannis.

Jesus you're a jackass. How do you get "He's trying to force me to decide how he wants!" from "SHOULD BE more important to people's decisions"? I am not trying to decide for anyone else, I am offering my opinion that I think people SHOULD take that into consideration more because logically it makes more sense.

I notice how others in this thread who said you "should" take ARR more into consideration are not called tyrant by you despite using identical language of "should?"

I have gone from "these guys [like you] are not really as dumb as they seem they're just being defensive" to genuinely wondering "maybe they really are not very bright and that's been the issue all along." Which is seriously depressing. Not that I have an issue with people who are just not very bright, but it does make having a conversation about complicated topics like this not very appealing.

I am hoping you were just drunk or overtired when you posted that.

[Eirikrautha]

That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

And this is why people like you need to be defeated.  Because it is not your place to decide what information people should or should not have, how they should weight it, or what is most important.  You are not qualified to decide any of that for anyone but yourself.  Your mentality is that of the tyrant.  Sic semper tyrannis.

Jesus you're a jackass. How do you get "He's trying to force me to decide how he wants!" from "SHOULD BE more important to people's decisions"? I am not trying to decide for anyone else, I am offering my opinion that I think people SHOULD take that into consideration more because logically it makes more sense.

I notice how others in this thread who said you "should" take ARR more into consideration are not called tyrant by you despite using identical language of "should?"

I have gone from "these guys [like you] are not really as dumb as they seem they're just being defensive" to genuinely wondering "maybe they really are not very bright and that's been the issue all along." Which is seriously depressing. Not that I have an issue with people who are just not very bright, but it does make having a conversation about complicated topics like this not very appealing.

I am hoping you were just drunk or overtired when you posted that.

No.  You cannot escape your history here.  You frequently support the collectivist view of these topics, so you cannot be offended when someone reads your posts consistent with everything else you've posted.  That's why someone who has consistently supported an individualist world view gets the benefit of the doubt when they say "should," and you don't.

The people that disagree with you aren't dumb.  They certainly aren't dumb for taking your words at face value.  They have a different world view than you do, and you are the dumb one if you can't see that.  Honestly, you strike me as the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  You can console yourself with the notion that we'd agree with you if we were "smarter," but the reality is that your world view is flawed and not worth agreeing with...

[Kiero]

Not really. It tells you the rate at the time of the test. But there was an increase in number of people contagious since it, and Delta is much more contagious and the risk of contracting the virus went up by a meaningful amount. But effectiveness of the vaccine keeping people out of the hospital and dying remains extremely strong, particularly in the 6 months following the second dose. That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

Delta is more contagious and less deadly. That's what is keeping people out of hospital, there's fuck all evidence the jabs are doing anything at all, given how many "fully vaccinated" people are still being hospitalised and are dying.

[Mistwell]

That should all be much more important to someone's decision than the ARR rate of the initial study.

And this is why people like you need to be defeated.  Because it is not your place to decide what information people should or should not have, how they should weight it, or what is most important.  You are not qualified to decide any of that for anyone but yourself.  Your mentality is that of the tyrant.  Sic semper tyrannis.

Jesus you're a jackass. How do you get "He's trying to force me to decide how he wants!" from "SHOULD BE more important to people's decisions"? I am not trying to decide for anyone else, I am offering my opinion that I think people SHOULD take that into consideration more because logically it makes more sense.

I notice how others in this thread who said you "should" take ARR more into consideration are not called tyrant by you despite using identical language of "should?"

I have gone from "these guys [like you] are not really as dumb as they seem they're just being defensive" to genuinely wondering "maybe they really are not very bright and that's been the issue all along." Which is seriously depressing. Not that I have an issue with people who are just not very bright, but it does make having a conversation about complicated topics like this not very appealing.

I am hoping you were just drunk or overtired when you posted that.

No.  You cannot escape your history here.  You frequently support the collectivist view of these topics, so you cannot be offended when someone reads your posts consistent with everything else you've posted.  That's why someone who has consistently supported an individualist world view gets the benefit of the doubt when they say "should," and you don't.

The people that disagree with you aren't dumb.  They certainly aren't dumb for taking your words at face value.  They have a different world view than you do, and you are the dumb one if you can't see that.  Honestly, you strike me as the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  You can console yourself with the notion that we'd agree with you if we were "smarter," but the reality is that your world view is flawed and not worth agreeing with...

I have no collectivist history here. You just disagree with my views and assume it must be collectivist because you disagree. And there is nothing about what I said on face value which implied totalitarianism. I used the identical language of those who disagreed with me and nobody was confused that what I said was in any way implying I wanted to force anyone to what I wanted them to do. It's just nonsense. You have no excuse for that spin you put on what I said - I disagree with you so you just assume I must be some fascist. It was a dumb take and you won't own it.

[oggsmash]

  Hmmm, I dunno anyone who says other people are threatening their safety by not masking or vaccinating, is sort of placing a good deal of DO IT NOW pressure down.  If you have a medical weakness to this virus, wear a respirator or gas mask, as that will actually work regarding protection from infection, and stop telling other people what to do.  Also, if you are vaccinated, and wearing your gas mask, you are safe.  Leave other people alone.   Now if that is no longer your stance (other people are putting you at risk because they dont wear masks or take vaccines) and you are simply presenting information for people to consider for their own good, so be it.  Past post history points towards that not being the view however.

[Zelen]

[Mistwell]

  Hmmm, I dunno anyone who says other people are threatening their safety by not masking or vaccinating, is sort of placing a good deal of DO IT NOW pressure down.  If you have a medical weakness to this virus, wear a respirator or gas mask, as that will actually work regarding protection from infection, and stop telling other people what to do.  Also, if you are vaccinated, and wearing your gas mask, you are safe.  Leave other people alone.   Now if that is no longer your stance (other people are putting you at risk because they dont wear masks or take vaccines) and you are simply presenting information for people to consider for their own good, so be it.  Past post history points towards that not being the view however.

You realize he was responding to a specific post which had nothing to do with advocating for masks or vaccinations and just talking about what sorts of information people evaluate when looking at the vaccine effectiveness data, right?

[oggsmash]

  Hmmm, I dunno anyone who says other people are threatening their safety by not masking or vaccinating, is sort of placing a good deal of DO IT NOW pressure down.  If you have a medical weakness to this virus, wear a respirator or gas mask, as that will actually work regarding protection from infection, and stop telling other people what to do.  Also, if you are vaccinated, and wearing your gas mask, you are safe.  Leave other people alone.   Now if that is no longer your stance (other people are putting you at risk because they dont wear masks or take vaccines) and you are simply presenting information for people to consider for their own good, so be it.  Past post history points towards that not being the view however.

You realize he was responding to a specific post which had nothing to do with advocating for masks or vaccinations and just talking about what sorts of information people evaluate when looking at the vaccine effectiveness data, right?

  I do, 100 percent.  I am making the point he may not be taking your statements in good faith.  You realize this, right?

[Mistwell]

  Hmmm, I dunno anyone who says other people are threatening their safety by not masking or vaccinating, is sort of placing a good deal of DO IT NOW pressure down.  If you have a medical weakness to this virus, wear a respirator or gas mask, as that will actually work regarding protection from infection, and stop telling other people what to do.  Also, if you are vaccinated, and wearing your gas mask, you are safe.  Leave other people alone.   Now if that is no longer your stance (other people are putting you at risk because they dont wear masks or take vaccines) and you are simply presenting information for people to consider for their own good, so be it.  Past post history points towards that not being the view however.

You realize he was responding to a specific post which had nothing to do with advocating for masks or vaccinations and just talking about what sorts of information people evaluate when looking at the vaccine effectiveness data, right?

  I do, 100 percent.  I am making the point he may not be taking your statements in good faith.  You realize this, right?

Even taking them in bad faith there is literally no way to read what I said as me trying to force someone to do what I want. None. I mean there is a huge difference between "not giving the benefit of the doubt" and "taking a statement which isn't in doubt and simply re-writing it to make shit up." He simply made shit up. And rather than admit it once he has a moment to think about it he just doubles down.

[Eirikrautha]

  Hmmm, I dunno anyone who says other people are threatening their safety by not masking or vaccinating, is sort of placing a good deal of DO IT NOW pressure down.  If you have a medical weakness to this virus, wear a respirator or gas mask, as that will actually work regarding protection from infection, and stop telling other people what to do.  Also, if you are vaccinated, and wearing your gas mask, you are safe.  Leave other people alone.   Now if that is no longer your stance (other people are putting you at risk because they dont wear masks or take vaccines) and you are simply presenting information for people to consider for their own good, so be it.  Past post history points towards that not being the view however.

You realize he was responding to a specific post which had nothing to do with advocating for masks or vaccinations and just talking about what sorts of information people evaluate when looking at the vaccine effectiveness data, right?

  I do, 100 percent.  I am making the point he may not be taking your statements in good faith.  You realize this, right?

Even taking them in bad faith there is literally no way to read what I said as me trying to force someone to do what I want. None. I mean there is a huge difference between "not giving the benefit of the doubt" and "taking a statement which isn't in doubt and simply re-writing it to make shit up." He simply made shit up. And rather than admit it once he has a moment to think about it he just doubles down.

TIL that quoting someone directly is "making shit up."  This guy is a clown.