7 ms·

There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this in

There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?

importantbrian 4y ago
There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
- stoneglyph 4y ago
  Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
  - importantbrian 4y ago
    Sure. I'm not going to do a full lit review for you. You can search PubMed and do that on your own if you like. But here are a few good ones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ also has some helpful discussions of this stuff if you don't want to have to dig through a bunch of studies.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.
- stoneglyph 4y ago
  And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    > And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have? > It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed? It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.
    - manwe150 4y ago
      So, really, it was discussed, as indicated since you and they heard of the discussion. It is indeed quite simple to discuss even, since the conversation should end with learning that this is covered in high-school stats class. What is more ironic to me is that this is the total deaths number, without any regards to cause. And in a large population of 40k healthy individuals, is is expected for a few to unexpectedly die over 6 months. This is ironic, since skeptics also often seem to claim that 10-50% excess all-causes death in the population was just random noise.
      - stoneglyph 4y ago
        [dead]
    - 4y ago

importantbrian 4y ago

There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.

stoneglyph 4y ago
Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
- importantbrian 4y ago
  Sure. I'm not going to do a full lit review for you. You can search PubMed and do that on your own if you like. But here are a few good ones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ also has some helpful discussions of this stuff if you don't want to have to dig through a bunch of studies.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.

stoneglyph 4y ago
And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have? > It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed? It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.
  - manwe150 4y ago
    So, really, it was discussed, as indicated since you and they heard of the discussion. It is indeed quite simple to discuss even, since the conversation should end with learning that this is covered in high-school stats class. What is more ironic to me is that this is the total deaths number, without any regards to cause. And in a large population of 40k healthy individuals, is is expected for a few to unexpectedly die over 6 months. This is ironic, since skeptics also often seem to claim that 10-50% excess all-causes death in the population was just random noise.
    - stoneglyph 4y ago
      [dead]
  - 4y ago