- Jun 29, 2013
- 22,424
- 14,717
- 1,405
So here's the article and it is rich with percentages....lol.....but where are the numbers? Answer....there anren't any except for the ones they want you to see.
www.wsj.com
In statistics there are two types of general analyses (to be fair there are many more but mainly these two) .... One is the Sample ....the other the Population. As we work up the numbers trying to exclude bias in the Data collection ( a lot harder than you might think ) and diligently working toward a meaningful sample ( it is often impossible to include every data point from an entire population of things or people but the bigger the better ) we are often amazed at what the numbers reveal if they are processed correctly and that means without bias, preconceived notions as to what you want to find and total transparency in the reporting. So I ask once again...where are the numbers?
My Guess is that they are so small ( sample-wise ) that the publishers decided not to include them...they had no problem getting the total population number for the town though......notice that?
Let's give an example here: Let's say that last month 10 people died in that town due to COVID ( assuming that we can even trust that number ) and now after the Vaccine only 1 person died the next month. ( assuming that we can trust that number) .... You now have a drop of 90% right? Sounds impressive until you look at the numbers. Why do I say this? Because those kinds of numbers are routine for the flu season and mimic pretty closely the pattern of the seasonal flu hitting an area. The initial impact is always the greatest even with flu shots being passed out year after year. So I'm just wondering why the exact data points were excluded from an article that seems to be happy to include every other detail.....you know?
Let's say there were 50 people hospitalized with Covid the month before ( according to the trusted diagnoses) but the next month there were ( 50x.15 = 7.5%) 85% less.... or 8 people ( you can't hospitalize half a person so we'll go with the bigger number here ) So now you have an 85% drop in hospitalizations right? Sure! However that's not any different from any other seasonal flu episode.... ( I worked in a research hospital for twelve years so numbers were always available ) . The percentages would mean so much more if the total numbers used to reach them were revealed here but as you can see ... they are not and that is most likely not an oversight.
Be mindful that when the media starts using statistics that there is always a danger in the reporting. Using mu ( population mean ) as opposed to x-bar ( sample mean ) is often unavoidable.....but should never be underestimated as a skewing factor in the information. I would like to see the numbers.....come on publisher! They don't take up that much space in the article. You cold publish them all in one sentence.....why are they missing?
Are you frightened? Have you been convinced yet that you are a murderer if you don't get vaccinated? Are you impressed with the STATISTCS?
They sure as hell want you to be impressed.
Then go get the shot...they're giving it away at this point!
My position on this is that I am perfectly healthy despite having been exposed hundreds of times to people who supposedly were infected......why would I take a chance at this point? Statistics are in my favor right now...with every day that passes it less and less likely that I will be infected...so here's to today and another day of vaccination free, mask free, stupidity free living.
JO
Brazil’s Experiment to Vaccinate Town With Chinese CoronaVac Reduced Covid-19 Deaths by 95%
Brazil’s experiment to vaccinate an entire town with the Chinese CoronaVac shot reduced Covid-19 deaths by 95%, the public-research center that organized the study said.
www.wsj.com
In statistics there are two types of general analyses (to be fair there are many more but mainly these two) .... One is the Sample ....the other the Population. As we work up the numbers trying to exclude bias in the Data collection ( a lot harder than you might think ) and diligently working toward a meaningful sample ( it is often impossible to include every data point from an entire population of things or people but the bigger the better ) we are often amazed at what the numbers reveal if they are processed correctly and that means without bias, preconceived notions as to what you want to find and total transparency in the reporting. So I ask once again...where are the numbers?
My Guess is that they are so small ( sample-wise ) that the publishers decided not to include them...they had no problem getting the total population number for the town though......notice that?
Let's give an example here: Let's say that last month 10 people died in that town due to COVID ( assuming that we can even trust that number ) and now after the Vaccine only 1 person died the next month. ( assuming that we can trust that number) .... You now have a drop of 90% right? Sounds impressive until you look at the numbers. Why do I say this? Because those kinds of numbers are routine for the flu season and mimic pretty closely the pattern of the seasonal flu hitting an area. The initial impact is always the greatest even with flu shots being passed out year after year. So I'm just wondering why the exact data points were excluded from an article that seems to be happy to include every other detail.....you know?
Let's say there were 50 people hospitalized with Covid the month before ( according to the trusted diagnoses) but the next month there were ( 50x.15 = 7.5%) 85% less.... or 8 people ( you can't hospitalize half a person so we'll go with the bigger number here ) So now you have an 85% drop in hospitalizations right? Sure! However that's not any different from any other seasonal flu episode.... ( I worked in a research hospital for twelve years so numbers were always available ) . The percentages would mean so much more if the total numbers used to reach them were revealed here but as you can see ... they are not and that is most likely not an oversight.
Be mindful that when the media starts using statistics that there is always a danger in the reporting. Using mu ( population mean ) as opposed to x-bar ( sample mean ) is often unavoidable.....but should never be underestimated as a skewing factor in the information. I would like to see the numbers.....come on publisher! They don't take up that much space in the article. You cold publish them all in one sentence.....why are they missing?
Are you frightened? Have you been convinced yet that you are a murderer if you don't get vaccinated? Are you impressed with the STATISTCS?
They sure as hell want you to be impressed.
Then go get the shot...they're giving it away at this point!
My position on this is that I am perfectly healthy despite having been exposed hundreds of times to people who supposedly were infected......why would I take a chance at this point? Statistics are in my favor right now...with every day that passes it less and less likely that I will be infected...so here's to today and another day of vaccination free, mask free, stupidity free living.
JO
Last edited:
