COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker (News and Updates) (Poll added)

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

I was reading that study but I really wasn't understanding what they were saying. The highlight for the cdc is that persons who were infected previously and unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who had been infected previously and got vaccinated. So they use this as to basis to say that people who were infected previously should still get vaccinated.

Elec2020, What was the total sample size? How many unvaccinated got reinfected vs unvaccinated?

Researchers studied Kentucky residents with a lab-confirmed coronavirus infection in 2020, the vast majority of them between October and December. They compared 246 people who got reinfected in May or June of this year with 492 similar survivors who stayed healthy. The survivors who never got vaccinated had a significantly higher risk of reinfection than those who were fully vaccinated, even though most had their first bout of COVID-19 just six to nine months ago.

Thats the numbers they working with. The actual sample size is therefore 738, but to emphasize my points, I exaggerate the numbers against my favor and significantly curtail those in my favor.

[elec2020]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

In statistics you will never be able to capture your full target population. So yes, you extrapolate the results. Thats where margin of error comes in. Given that concept, you will have a ridiculous margin of error for conclusions extrapolated on a dataset that represents 0.001 per cent of your target population. Is that not a fair assessment?

95% confidence interval was 1.58 to 3.47 times as likely to be reinfected.

what that has to do with capturing 0.001 per cent of the target population? You saying that, based on a sample that captures 0.001 per cent of the target population, I am 95 per cent confident that even though people who got covid got antibodies from it they still need to get vaccinated? LOL! Are you listening to yourself?

[The_Honourable]

Yea I understand that but isn't the line of thinking for awhile now take whichever vaccine is available to you? Why didn't these people take the Sinopharm vaccine like alot of other people? Remember these same people who are now lining up for AZ were most likely alot of people who were vaccine hesitant but just all of a sudden now that you can travel overseas you throw all that vaccine hesitancy out the window?

Many of them were not vaccine hesitant but sinopharm hesitant. They simply were not comfortable with it and were waiting it out until a better option came along and well... here comes AZ thanks to Canada. It's a recognized brand and more acceptable for foreign travel. Now if cases of delta were announced before AZ arrived, many of those persons who were sino-hesitant would have gone for the sino shot.

Now we saw today that more persons coming forward to be vaccinated, that's good. Now imagine if we received Pfizer instead, all vaccination sites would be ram out with mass traffic all over.

[adnj]

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

In statistics you will never be able to capture your full target population. So yes, you extrapolate the results. Thats where margin of error comes in. Given that concept, you will have a ridiculous margin of error for conclusions extrapolated on a dataset that represents 0.001 per cent of your target population. Is that not a fair assessment?

95% confidence interval was 1.58 to 3.47 times as likely to be reinfected.

what that has to do with capturing 0.001 per cent of the target population? You saying that, based on a sample that captures 0.001 per cent of the target population, I am 95 per cent confident that even though people who got covid got antibodies from it they still need to get vaccinated? LOL! Are you listening to yourself?

I can't argue with you and your mystery education.

On to something meaningful because our session is up.

[DMan7]

Yea I understand that but isn't the line of thinking for awhile now take whichever vaccine is available to you? Why didn't these people take the Sinopharm vaccine like alot of other people? Remember these same people who are now lining up for AZ were most likely alot of people who were vaccine hesitant but just all of a sudden now that you can travel overseas you throw all that vaccine hesitancy out the window?

Many of them were not vaccine hesitant but sinopharm hesitant. They simply were not comfortable with it and were waiting it out until a better option came along and well... here comes AZ thanks to Canada. It's a recognized brand and more acceptable for foreign travel. Now if cases of delta were announced before AZ arrived, many of those persons who were sino-hesitant would have gone for the sino shot.

Now we saw today that more persons coming forward to be vaccinated, that's good. Now imagine if we received Pfizer instead, all vaccination sites would be ram out with mass traffic all over.

AZ was available at the start of our vaccine drive way before sinopharm came into the picture. Where were all these people lining up to take the AZ vaccine? Like I said these were the same people or at least most of them who were vaccine hesistant but soon as they know that they won't be qualified to travel abroad they vaccine hesitancy gets thrown out the window.

[Mmoney607]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

I was reading that study but I really wasn't understanding what they were saying. The highlight for the cdc is that persons who were infected previously and unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who had been infected previously and got vaccinated. So they use this as to basis to say that people who were infected previously should still get vaccinated.

Elec2020, What was the total sample size? How many unvaccinated got reinfected vs unvaccinated?

Researchers studied Kentucky residents with a lab-confirmed coronavirus infection in 2020, the vast majority of them between October and December. They compared 246 people who got reinfected in May or June of this year with 492 similar survivors who stayed healthy. The survivors who never got vaccinated had a significantly higher risk of reinfection than those who were fully vaccinated, even though most had their first bout of COVID-19 just six to nine months ago.

Thats the numbers they working with. The actual sample size is therefore 738, but to emphasize my points, I exaggerate the numbers against my favor and significantly curtail those in my favor.

I dont understand that donkey logic cdc trying to bring there. Why they just don't say what are the chances of getting reinfected? Because that data would not support their vaccine slavery agenda.

And for those who going cuss me after, please just answer the question, what is the likelihood of being reinfected with covid-19?

[paid_influencer]

AZ was available at the start of our vaccine drive way before sinopharm came into the picture

It was available in extremely limited quantity (I think only 60,000 vaccines available for 1 million adults). This is the first time AZ has been widely available to the public, hence the big rush.

[ScHoolboySoloQ]

Efficient and robust method for comparing the immunogenicity of candidate vaccines in randomized clinical trials

From the abstract:
"This article shows that incorporating baseline variables predictive of the immunogenicity study endpoint can provide large gains in precision and power for estimation and testing of the group mean difference (requiring fewer subjects for the same scientific output) compared to conventional methods".

Link below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653280/

I bet none of you read the last link I posted here. Everything is right there at your disposal. Stats don't lie!

[The_Honourable]

AZ was available at the start of our vaccine drive way before sinopharm came into the picture

It was available in extremely limited quantity (I think only 60,000 vaccines available for 1 million adults). This is the first time AZ has been widely available to the public, hence the big rush.

Correct.

AZ wasn't available for all at that time. It was only available in phases to frontline health workers, frontline essential workers, persons over the age of 60, and persons over the age of 18 with Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Then we had the news of rare blood clots from AZ vaccines resulting in hesitancy.

Whatever the motives were, we need to congratulate these persons for coming forward.

[elec2020]

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

Isn't that how results are extrapolated into the wider area regardless of sample size?

In statistics you will never be able to capture your full target population. So yes, you extrapolate the results. Thats where margin of error comes in. Given that concept, you will have a ridiculous margin of error for conclusions extrapolated on a dataset that represents 0.001 per cent of your target population. Is that not a fair assessment?

95% confidence interval was 1.58 to 3.47 times as likely to be reinfected.

what that has to do with capturing 0.001 per cent of the target population? You saying that, based on a sample that captures 0.001 per cent of the target population, I am 95 per cent confident that even though people who got covid got antibodies from it they still need to get vaccinated? LOL! Are you listening to yourself?

I can't argue with you and your mystery education.

On to something meaningful because our session is up.

LOL! Nice try. So you gonna try to discredit me but duck my main issue. That it is illogical to make definitive statements using data on 0.001 per cent of your target population. Ok

[DMan7]

AZ was available at the start of our vaccine drive way before sinopharm came into the picture

It was available in extremely limited quantity (I think only 60,000 vaccines available for 1 million adults). This is the first time AZ has been widely available to the public, hence the big rush.

What about all the discourse around the time AZ was available here about how bad these vaccines are? Where are all those people now complaining yet they lining up to get the jab. I tell ya these same set of people lacks any sort of integrity just as soon as they know they hadda get it so they could fly out.

[adnj]

Updated meaningful info:

[pugboy]

sputnik seems to be the way to go

[hover11]

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

[paid_influencer]

this is old news but a good and nice thing to read

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... ncern.html

[timelapse]

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

WHO doesn't count. They politicking
Besides, people considering all kind of folly like Ivermectin and Cannabis, but not vaccines produced outside of the US or UK?
The level of stupidity and bias is downright insulting now

[Mmoney607]

Sample size considerations in medical studies have been extensively researched. If you have access to reputable journals/databases, just do a quick search and do your own meta-analysis if desired.

If you find some widely cited studies, you may be lucky to contact them via researchgate.net and they're usually very helpful. At least the social science authors I contacted were ubercool and gave me free papers that was otherwise paywalled.

Mine was a rhetorical question. I understand the parameters. My friend that was quoted above apparently does not.

lol. I see what u trying to do. If you whole heartedly believe that a sample size of less than 1000 is a good enough representation of the target population for you to then say that beyond a doubt all people who recovered from covid should still get the vaccine then you do you. Let me put it another way, there have been about 203 million covid-19 cases. Using this information, keeping in mind vaccinated people and double cases, lets say 100 million unvaccinated people got the virus (very generous mind you). You now telling that 100 million people that even after they got anti-bodies following there battle with the virus they should still get the vaccine as my study of less than 1000 people (basically 0.001 per cent of the very generous target population) said so. LOL. Ok 'Mr. Scientist'

me? nah. I am still a budding researcher in social / information sciences. I've barely scratched the surface with sampling in SocSci, which is very different from clinical studies so they are not comparable at all. I just did a keyword search out of curiousity and a number of papers specific to medicine jumped out. Epistemology is a whole focus area by itself.

i not on your case. My comment is for adnj. I am also in social sciences. My Msc is in Financial Economics. And yes the two are very different fields (that is social sciences and medicine). However, making definitive statements on 0.001 per cent of your target population is laughable. And maybe that is the gold standard in medical research (although I highly doubt that), but from a neutral point, that is not credible at all. Hence why I highlighted that to adnj who then tried to criticize me by basically calling me foolish. Well sorry if its foolish to question how a paper can make definitive claims when its dataset only captures 0.001 per cent of its target population. Let me put it another way, let's say I forwarded this thread to 20 people to get their views on it (given our population size of 1.395 million, 20/1395000 is 0.001 per cent of the total population) and they all said that adnj is a fool then given adnj's strong defense of the previously mention paper then the whole of T&T thinks that adnj is a fool.

I was reading that study but I really wasn't understanding what they were saying. The highlight for the cdc is that persons who were infected previously and unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who had been infected previously and got vaccinated. So they use this as to basis to say that people who were infected previously should still get vaccinated.

Elec2020, What was the total sample size? How many unvaccinated got reinfected vs unvaccinated?

Researchers studied Kentucky residents with a lab-confirmed coronavirus infection in 2020, the vast majority of them between October and December. They compared 246 people who got reinfected in May or June of this year with 492 similar survivors who stayed healthy. The survivors who never got vaccinated had a significantly higher risk of reinfection than those who were fully vaccinated, even though most had their first bout of COVID-19 just six to nine months ago.

Thats the numbers they working with. The actual sample size is therefore 738, but to emphasize my points, I exaggerate the numbers against my favor and significantly curtail those in my favor.

I dont understand that donkey logic cdc trying to bring there. Why they just don't say what are the chances of getting reinfected? Because that data would not support their vaccine slavery agenda.

And for those who going cuss me after, please just answer the question, what is the likelihood of being reinfected with covid-19?

Does the cdc use a bigger sample size of unvaccinated people to make the argument that unvaccinated people at a higher risk???

[elec2020]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

[88sins]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

that's why I only consider published peer reviewed data. people got biases that can show in testing & data, and and can if motivated enough manipulate data that they present.

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

WHO doesn't count. They politicking
Besides, people considering all kind of folly like Ivermectin and Cannabis, but not vaccines produced outside of the US or UK?
The level of stupidity and bias is downright insulting now

so, you willing to trust the approval of the WHO, the same WHO that was & still is in bed financially with the original source country of this virus, even when said source country was caught openly lying to the world. The same WHO that has dragged their feet in investigating the original cause of this pandemic from the onset because of the fear that they would lose funding from one of their biggest financial supporters, which coincidentally happens to be China.


gtk

[aaron17]

Anything is possible.

[elec2020]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

that's why I only consider published peer reviewed data. people got biases that can show in testing & data, and and can if motivated enough manipulate data that they present.

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

WHO doesn't count. They politicking
Besides, people considering all kind of folly like Ivermectin and Cannabis, but not vaccines produced outside of the US or UK?
The level of stupidity and bias is downright insulting now

so, you willing to trust the approval of the WHO, the same WHO that was & still is in bed financially with the original source country of this virus, even when said source country was caught openly lying to the world. The same WHO that has dragged their feet in investigating the original cause of this pandemic from the onset because of the fear that they would lose funding from one of their biggest financial supporters, which coincidentally happens to be China.


gtk

but when you point it out they try to belittle you by questioning your education or labelling you as an anti-vaxxer. Steupse. A sample of less than 0.001 per cent of your target population could never give you credible results. Thats equivalent to going out the road and ask 20 people who will win next GE and running with those results. Stupid.

[Dizzy28]

TRINIDAD and Tobago is expected to receive its third tranche of covid19 vaccines from the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) on Wednesday.

PAHO's online tracker says TT will receive 33,600 doses of AstraZeneca on August 11.

On Tuesday, the Bahamas and Belize each got 33,600 doses of AstraZeneca from PAHO.https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/08/paho-t ... nd-tobago/

[timelapse]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

that's why I only consider published peer reviewed data. people got biases that can show in testing & data, and and can if motivated enough manipulate data that they present.

However it's not WHO approved

sputnik seems to be the way to go

WHO doesn't count. They politicking
Besides, people considering all kind of folly like Ivermectin and Cannabis, but not vaccines produced outside of the US or UK?
The level of stupidity and bias is downright insulting now

so, you willing to trust the approval of the WHO, the same WHO that was & still is in bed financially with the original source country of this virus, even when said source country was caught openly lying to the world. The same WHO that has dragged their feet in investigating the original cause of this pandemic from the onset because of the fear that they would lose funding from one of their biggest financial supporters, which coincidentally happens to be China.


gtk

WHO pushing Covax, which coincidentally has Bill Gates as a major player.They are pushing for American vaccines.
I spotted Sputnik for what it was early in this thread and got popped down.I can't get that so I got Sino which is better than not being vaccinated.Wouldnt have mattered which I got really.They all doing similar things .As with other things, statistics get skewed over time in terms of efficacy.

[elec2020]

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbr ... accinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

[Dohplaydat]

delete

[aaron17]

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

[Dohplaydat]

https://antiguanewsroom.com/covid-outbreak-hits-carnival-cruise-despite-every-guest-and-staff-member-being-vaccinated/

Somewhere near Cozumel in the Caribbean Sea, there’s a cruise ship that had zero unvaccinated people aboard but that still suffered an outbreak of Covid-19.

According to Health Ministry data published on Sunday, the number of seriously ill patients has jumped to 97 – an increase of 30 patients since last Wednesday. Of the seriously ill, 22 are in critical condition and 17 are on ventilators. In total, 191 coronavirus patients were hospitalized as of Sunday, of whom 113 were vaccinated.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/isr ... 1.10031662

Vaccines working lol.

Well its not a yes or a no...but in between somewhere.

Yea, however, it's still doing it's job.

But the number of seriously ill patients has risen much more slowly than the number of cases. The latter figure jumped from 132 to more than 1,400 over the last month, a tenfold increase. Over the same period, the number of seriously ill patients rose from 23 to 97, a fourfold increase.

Before vaccinations began, around four percent of patients became seriously ill. But today, with most of the country vaccinated, an estimated 1.5 percent of patients become seriously ill.

What we're seeing though a combination of:
1. Waning protection (Isreal was one of the first the vacinate their elderly and they did it 28 days apart, not the extended 8-12 week approach we're seeing now that is leading to better protection).
2. The effects of a new stain (delta) which our current vaccines have reduced efficacy
3. A very infectious strain that as definitely spread to the elderly and vulnerbale in a population that has mostly abandonded the previous public health recommendations


So basically to win this war we neeed to ramp up vaccinations otherwise we are always at risk for new strains unless the unvaccinated want to go live in an island by themselves.

[Dohplaydat]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

[88sins]

but when you point it out they try to belittle you by questioning your education or labelling you as an anti-vaxxer. Steupse. A sample of less than 0.001 per cent of your target population could never give you credible results. Thats equivalent to going out the road and ask 20 people who will win next GE and running with those results. Stupid.

Well bai, it eh my purpose in my life time to care too much about who thinks what about whatever. I make my statements based on what I know, seeking out the best possible sources for information available & leave people to their own thought & devices. I got nobody to convince.

WHO pushing Covax, which coincidentally has Bill Gates as a major player.They are pushing for American vaccines.
I spotted Sputnik for what it was early in this thread and got popped down.I can't get that so I got Sino which is better than not being vaccinated.Wouldnt have mattered which I got really.They all doing similar things .As with other things, statistics get skewed over time in terms of efficacy.

no surprise there either, because there is more than a little money involved in this. They have already shown that they are happy to do as told, how told and when told.
When a country payin you $500M/yr for R&D approvals you better do as they tell you wrt whether you approving their products or those of their competition unless you cool with facing the consequences. remember when Donald say "no more money for WHO"? the result was immediate high scale panic, shortly followed by the side man China coming to the rescue saying "doh worry, we go handle yuh" and all was well again.

[88sins]

^ lol i didn't spot that. Nice find. You know what we call that in statistics? Biased sampling. So not only are they using a very narrow sample size of the target population but they have a very uneven distribution between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And this is a credible study??

Elec2020,

The reason you get called out a lot is because you continuously try to sound educated when you make the most elementary mistakes. It's no surprise that other anti-vaxers are non the wiser with your rhetoric.

Firstly you can get very accurate results with small samples sizes. As the sample sizes gets larger the rate of improvement in accuracy declines so it makes no sense to use a sample size larger than 1000-1500 people when representing the entire population or subpopulation under study.

A sample size of this range, you can be confident that, 19 times out of 20, the samples division on a typical question will fall within 3 percentage points of the entire population's division.

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

You can sometimes be surprised how accurate small sample sizes hold up. Mathematically it was once proven that as little as 30 persons can reflect the population at large, mainly because of the assumptions on the Central Limit theorem. It's hotly debated though, but the fact is whether it's 30, 50 or 100. There is a lot of statistical power in small sample sizes.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_ ... statistics

What's important though is the statistical significance and in this study there is definitely a large statistical significance from the sample in Kentucky.

Regarding the CDC study, yea it's not peer-reviewed, it's an early release preprint, so we can't yet vouch for it's accuracy. However, it's likely already one through several checks and peer-review will just be a formality.

And small sample sizes are not an example of biased sampling. Bias sampling is using a non ramdom method of polling, for example using a Trinituner poll to predict the outcome of an election in Tobago East.

this post made me laugh.
anyway, lemme play devil's advocate for a moment...

ime, the best way to verify the potential accuracy of small sample testing data is repeatability. That's why there's a peer review process.
But to use your analogy

Here's an example, if 45% of the respondents in a poll of 1500 say they approve of the president's job performance, chances are 19 in 20 that the actual level of approval throughout the whole U.S population falls somewhere between 42% and 48%.

So we are to omit/ignore factors that may incline the data to appear one way or another?
If those 1500 people were chosen from a population of 1.5 million, and the respondents were people of color in a that population that was otherwise made up predominantly of people of caucasian heritage with ethnic biases against people of color and the president in question was black, you think you'd get the same results?

The only way to be sure that you rresults are accurate, especially when using small samples, is to repeat the testing at various random times and various random points, taking all potential biases for and against into account, then combine & process ALL the data gathered from ALL the testing done. At which point, it is no longer a small sample, its a large sample broken into smaller test groups & spread across a wide range