g*q
发帖数: 26623 | 1 报告死亡一共593人。
当然不能肯定这110人都是593人中的.可能有更早的死亡病例，这两周确认为
breakthrough，也可能这593人中有breakthrough病例还没有确认的。
整体数量接近20%。
从8月各周死亡率看，不接种的死完全接种的死亡率4-6倍（大多数时间4-5倍）。因为
更近的数字可能不完全，所以比例8月底以后明显上升。
这么不分年龄的看，疫苗防死亡有效率不到80%。但是因为老人打疫苗的比例高，而且
没打疫苗人里确诊过新冠的比例高，所以实际分年龄有效率比80%要高一些。 |
a***k
发帖数: 1038 | 2 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
拿麻省的例子：
breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
【在 g*q 的大作中提到】
: 报告死亡一共593人。
: 当然不能肯定这110人都是593人中的.可能有更早的死亡病例，这两周确认为
: breakthrough，也可能这593人中有breakthrough病例还没有确认的。
: 整体数量接近20%。
: 从8月各周死亡率看，不接种的死完全接种的死亡率4-6倍（大多数时间4-5倍）。因为
: 更近的数字可能不完全，所以比例8月底以后明显上升。
: 这么不分年龄的看，疫苗防死亡有效率不到80%。但是因为老人打疫苗的比例高，而且
: 没打疫苗人里确诊过新冠的比例高，所以实际分年龄有效率比80%要高一些。
|
l**********3
发帖数: 10970 | 3 目前突破死亡率远高于正常染病死亡率
符合内侧结果
【在 a***k 的大作中提到】
: 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
: 拿麻省的例子：
: breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
: Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
: 媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
: http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
|
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 4 Your comparison is flawed.
1. Why do you compare the overall breakthrough case fatality rate to only
the total case fatality rate since 6/1? Did all those 371 breakthrough
happen after 6/1? We all know that the case fatality rate is much lower in
summer when it is warm/hot. If you look at the total case fatality rate
since 2/1, it will be 1.36%. ((18,911-14,607)/(842,652-525,652)) Since
vaccines was first rolled out last December, there should be breakthrough
deaths as early as late January. So it would be a more fair comparison
using 2/1.
2. You claimed the media was playing the number game by manipulating the
denominator. So let's not play that game and exclude the population under
18 into the total number of not-fully-vaxxed. (It might be even more
accurate to exclude 30 and under since there is almost no death for people
30 and under.) 76.4% of MA's population is 18 and older, so half of it is
38.2%. MA reached that fully-vaxxed number on 5/3. Since that day, MA
recorded 2664 covid deaths. Of these, 2293 are not fully vaxxed, which is 6
.2 times as large as 371. This comparison even does not take into
consideration of the fact that since 5/3, the fully-vaxxed population has
increased to two, three or four times as large as the not-fully-vaxxed. So
when not-fuly-vaxxed, you chance of dying from covid is at least 6.2 times
higher. If you take into consideration of the ever-increasing fully-vaxxed
population, the not-fully-vaxxed people will have a 7, 8, 9, or 10 times
higher chance dying from covid than the fully-vaxxed.
3. You cannot just compare the case fatality rate. Imagine we have a new
vax that is so good that it is 99.999999999% effective against transmission.
And there is only one breakthrough case, and it results in death. So the
case fatality rate of the new vax is 100%. Do you consider it a good vax or
bad one?
【在 a***k 的大作中提到】
: 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
: 拿麻省的例子：
: breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
: Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
: 媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
: http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
|
v**o
发帖数: 4956 | |
A*******r
发帖数: 1 | |
a***k
发帖数: 1038 | 7 1. Why do you compare the overall breakthrough case fatality rate to only
the total case fatality rate since 6/1? Did all those 371 breakthrough
happen after 6/1? We all know that the case fatality rate is much lower in
summer when it is warm/hot. If you look at the total case fatality rate
since 2/1, it will be 1.36%. ((18,911-14,607)/(842,652-525,652)) Since
vaccines was first rolled out last December, there should be breakthrough
deaths as early as late January. So it would be a more fair comparison
using 2/1.
麻省的breakthrough基本上从6／1开始，麻省的这一波也是从6／1开始。Total case当
然要选同期的6／1。
2. You claimed the media was playing the number game by manipulating the
denominator. So let's not play that game and exclude the population under
18 into the total number of not-fully-vaxxed. (It might be even more
accurate to exclude 30 and under since there is almost no death for people
30 and under.) 76.4% of MA's population is 18 and older, so half of it is
38.2%. MA reached that fully-vaxxed number on 5/3. Since that day, MA
recorded 2664 covid deaths. Of these, 2293 are not fully vaxxed, which is 6
.2 times as large as 371. This comparison even does not take into
consideration of the fact that since 5/3, the fully-vaxxed population has
increased to two, three or four times as large as the not-fully-vaxxed. So
when not-fuly-vaxxed, you chance of dying from covid is at least 6.2 times
higher. If you take into consideration of the ever-increasing fully-vaxxed
population, the not-fully-vaxxed people will have a 7, 8, 9, or 10 times
higher chance dying from covid than the fully-vaxxed.
死亡率=死亡人数／感染人数。简简单单，别的都是狡辩。我这里只不过是引用官方的
数字，真实的数字要可怕多了。
3. You cannot just compare the case fatality rate. Imagine we have a new
vax that is so good that it is 99.999999999% effective against transmission.
And there is only one breakthrough case, and it results in death. So the
case fatality rate of the new vax is 100%. Do you consider it a good vax or
bad one?
我们讨论的是现在的疫苗，它不防感染是众所周知。英国的数据说疫苗防感染的有效率
是负的，即打疫苗的人感染率差不多要翻倍。 |
s**********n
发帖数: 9 | 8 梦虎这种傻缺会告诉你，打疫苗的死的都是老人，高危
【在 a***k 的大作中提到】
: 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
: 拿麻省的例子：
: breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
: Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
: 媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
: http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 9 你个煞笔文科生反反复复贴这种完全错误的算法， 尤其是在给你扫蟒多次把正确算法标
准答案摆在案头的前提下，
煞笔文科生是想展示智商下限吗？
lol
【在 g*q 的大作中提到】
: 报告死亡一共593人。
: 当然不能肯定这110人都是593人中的.可能有更早的死亡病例，这两周确认为
: breakthrough，也可能这593人中有breakthrough病例还没有确认的。
: 整体数量接近20%。
: 从8月各周死亡率看，不接种的死完全接种的死亡率4-6倍（大多数时间4-5倍）。因为
: 更近的数字可能不完全，所以比例8月底以后明显上升。
: 这么不分年龄的看，疫苗防死亡有效率不到80%。但是因为老人打疫苗的比例高，而且
: 没打疫苗人里确诊过新冠的比例高，所以实际分年龄有效率比80%要高一些。
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 10 are you serious?
疫苗对阿三变种不防感染早就是事实了， 现在还拿这个做假设完全没有意义
in
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: Your comparison is flawed.
: 1. Why do you compare the overall breakthrough case fatality rate to only
: the total case fatality rate since 6/1? Did all those 371 breakthrough
: happen after 6/1? We all know that the case fatality rate is much lower in
: summer when it is warm/hot. If you look at the total case fatality rate
: since 2/1, it will be 1.36%. ((18,911-14,607)/(842,652-525,652)) Since
: vaccines was first rolled out last December, there should be breakthrough
: deaths as early as late January. So it would be a more fair comparison
: using 2/1.
: 2. You claimed the media was playing the number game by manipulating the
|
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 11 麻省的breakthrough基本上从6／1开始，麻省的这一波也是从6／1开始。Total case当
然要选同期的6／1。
But vax protection started since the end of last year. It was the vax that
helped us getting out of the wave last Dec through this Feb. You cannot
just ignore that. You can argue that the protection is waning now, and that
might be true.
死亡率=死亡人数／感染人数。简简单单，别的都是狡辩。我这里只不过是引用官方的
数字，真实的数字要可怕多了。
Protection against serious death is not the only gauge. The fact is, when
fully vaxxed, your chance of death is at least six times lower, cdc
estimated it to be 11.2 times. You can argue that once fully vaxxed and
still infected, your chance of dying is slightly higher. But that is not
the whole picture.
我们讨论的是现在的疫苗，它不防感染是众所周知。英国的数据说疫苗防感染的有效率
是负的，即打疫苗的人感染率差不多要翻倍。
Just gave you an example to show case fatality rate is not the only one to
look at when judging the effectiveness of a vax. |
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 12 but the fact is, since 7/1, when the delta variant started running at full
steam in the US, deaths and cases, per capita, among not-fully-vaxxed far
outweigh those among fully-vaxxed. If you say cdc's data are fake, give me
one state, probably a red state? Let's look at their numbers.
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: are you serious?
: 疫苗对阿三变种不防感染早就是事实了， 现在还拿这个做假设完全没有意义
:
: in
|
h*******i
发帖数: 1 | 13 英国数据就是这样，打了疫苗的死亡率比不打的高。
【在 a***k 的大作中提到】
: 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
: 拿麻省的例子：
: breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
: Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
: 媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
: http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 14 这个就是你完全不了解鸦片国医疗系统了
数据只能看阴蒂和色列的， 因为这两国所有医疗数据是整合的
你知道为啥菌斑正常人都不看鸦片国的数据吗？
一是鸦片国根本没有能力系统统计病人的打疫苗状况， 所以没打疫苗的统计完全等同于
疫苗状态未知
二是鸦片国疮瘟和疫苗数据造假的黑历史，没人再会相信鸦片国的数据
菌斑高参都是只看阴蒂和色列的数据， 加上参考鸦片国确认打了疫苗部分病人的数据
lol
me
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: but the fact is, since 7/1, when the delta variant started running at full
: steam in the US, deaths and cases, per capita, among not-fully-vaxxed far
: outweigh those among fully-vaxxed. If you say cdc's data are fake, give me
: one state, probably a red state? Let's look at their numbers.
|
g*q
发帖数: 26623 | 15 你们这些无脑疫苗黑都是文盲，洋洋洒洒这么多文字，自己脑子一锅浆糊，疫苗的有效
率怎么定义都没搞清楚
疫苗有效率跟确诊人数比或者case fatility有啥关系？确诊在美国本来就是非常主观
的事情，确诊不等于感染
疫苗防止xx的有效率，就是 1-在接种者中发生xx的概率/未接种者发生xx的概率。蔽日
8月8-14日，完全接种者每10万人中0.9人得新冠死亡，未接种者每10万人中4.45人死亡
，有效率就是1-0.9/4.45=79.8%。
如果你细分年龄，实际上有效率更高，因为死亡率占比高的老年人接种率更高。
【在 a***k 的大作中提到】
: 你把感染数拿出来算算breakthrough病例的死亡率就知道疫苗根本没有降级死亡率。
: 拿麻省的例子：
: breakthrough病例的死亡率=371／47929=0.8%。
: Total cases的死亡率(6/1/2021-10/21/2021)=1013／134253=0.7%
: 媒体骗傻子的方法就是在分母和对照组上做手脚，但是一到大局就全露馅了。
: http://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-october-19-2021/38006302#
|
g*q
发帖数: 26623 | 16 以色列的数据一样证明疫苗防死亡有效。虽然总有效率不高，但是分年龄有效率还是有
大约85%。
同于
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 这个就是你完全不了解鸦片国医疗系统了
: 数据只能看阴蒂和色列的， 因为这两国所有医疗数据是整合的
: 你知道为啥菌斑正常人都不看鸦片国的数据吗？
: 一是鸦片国根本没有能力系统统计病人的打疫苗状况， 所以没打疫苗的统计完全等同于
: 疫苗状态未知
: 二是鸦片国疮瘟和疫苗数据造假的黑历史，没人再会相信鸦片国的数据
: 菌斑高参都是只看阴蒂和色列的数据， 加上参考鸦片国确认打了疫苗部分病人的数据
: lol
:
: me
|
g*q
发帖数: 26623 | 17 你各文盲就别装有文化了
法标
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 你个煞笔文科生反反复复贴这种完全错误的算法， 尤其是在给你扫蟒多次把正确算法标
: 准答案摆在案头的前提下，
: 煞笔文科生是想展示智商下限吗？
: lol
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 18 煞笔文科生， 你看懂了色列怎么消除exposure时间造成的影响吗？
煞笔文科生， 你知道算死亡率，打了疫苗死亡的统统故意排出是多么joke吗？
一个煞笔文科生， 知道点初小水平的除法就出来卖了
笑死叔了
数据
【在 g*q 的大作中提到】
: 以色列的数据一样证明疫苗防死亡有效。虽然总有效率不高，但是分年龄有效率还是有
: 大约85%。
:
: 同于
|
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 19 If you don't trust the US data, there is no talking point. There is no way
for us to know if we are the number one in handling this pandemic. It might
be even true that this is indeed just a big flu.
同于
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 这个就是你完全不了解鸦片国医疗系统了
: 数据只能看阴蒂和色列的， 因为这两国所有医疗数据是整合的
: 你知道为啥菌斑正常人都不看鸦片国的数据吗？
: 一是鸦片国根本没有能力系统统计病人的打疫苗状况， 所以没打疫苗的统计完全等同于
: 疫苗状态未知
: 二是鸦片国疮瘟和疫苗数据造假的黑历史，没人再会相信鸦片国的数据
: 菌斑高参都是只看阴蒂和色列的数据， 加上参考鸦片国确认打了疫苗部分病人的数据
: lol
:
: me
|
p****t
发帖数: 14 | 20 你比较的是打了两针疫苗防不住又得了COVID-19的死亡率与没打疫苗得了COVID-19的死
亡率吧。
【在 h*******i 的大作中提到】
: 英国数据就是这样，打了疫苗的死亡率比不打的高。
|
g*q
发帖数: 26623 | 21 8月份单周数据，接种率变化几乎为0，还要怎么消除exposure时间影响？一个月的接种
人口数变化不到3%，一个星期都不到1%
真是文盲
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 煞笔文科生， 你看懂了色列怎么消除exposure时间造成的影响吗？
: 煞笔文科生， 你知道算死亡率，打了疫苗死亡的统统故意排出是多么joke吗？
: 一个煞笔文科生， 知道点初小水平的除法就出来卖了
: 笑死叔了
:
: 数据
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 22 又没不让你看阴蒂和色列的数据
这两个数据充分说明疮瘟不是flu
lol
way
might
数据
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: If you don't trust the US data, there is no talking point. There is no way
: for us to know if we are the number one in handling this pandemic. It might
: be even true that this is indeed just a big flu.
:
: 同于
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 23 你这个文科煞笔不仅蠢的流油， 而且坏的流油
叔说鸦片国的数据里面， 没打疫苗的统计完全等同于疫苗状态未知，
根本没有任何计算意义； 只有阴蒂色列数据是相对可靠的
然后你这煞笔就尿遁转进到色列数据上
此时叔指出煞笔疫苗吹们在分析色列数据上都犯了极其低级的幼儿园水平的错误
一是煞笔们没有消除exposure时间影响，
二是算死亡率，打了疫苗死亡的统统故意排出是多么joke
你被抽了碧莲然后你这煞笔又尿遁转回到鸦片国这个数据上了
真笑死叔了， 不停尿遁转进
先不重申鸦片国数据根本没有任何计算意义这点，
就是退一万步， 你做的小学除法， 打了疫苗死亡的算进来了吗？
煞笔真是又蠢又坏
lol
【在 g*q 的大作中提到】
: 8月份单周数据，接种率变化几乎为0，还要怎么消除exposure时间影响？一个月的接种
: 人口数变化不到3%，一个星期都不到1%
: 真是文盲
|
r***i
发帖数: 9780 | 24 妈的肯定远远不止
他们嘴里的breakthrough是打了两针的,甚至还有隐瞒
那些打了一针的都算是not vaccinated |
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 25 I was talking about the US. If you don't trust US's numbers, it is possible
it is just a big flu in the US. It's possible that there have been only
500 deaths in the US, so it might be just a big flu. The situation in each
country can be very different. What happened in Israel and UK might not be
true here in the US. So if you really dont' believe the numbers in the US,
there is nothing to argue.
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 又没不让你看阴蒂和色列的数据
: 这两个数据充分说明疮瘟不是flu
: lol
:
: way
: might
: 数据
|
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 26 Here is Georgia's Department of Public Health's newest breakthrough report.
It plays the number game by including children into the not-fully-vaxxed
population. Even so, the chance of not-fully-vaxxed is more than ten times
higher than fully-vaxxed. The case fatality rate for fully-vaxxed is
slightly lower than that for not-fully-vaxxed, 1.23% (806/65510) vs. 1.34% (
11,212/836,690). Notice that again the young unvaxxed people help bring
down the case fatality rate for the not-fully-vaxxed since almost none of
them die anyway. |
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 27 你这就是耍赖了
叔说鸦片国比较疫苗与非疫苗数据不可信，原因叔给你了： 鸦片国没有整合的系统，
所以病人打疫苗状态根本无法系统的知晓
叔有说过鸦片国的其它数据比如因疮瘟死亡数据不可信吗？
lol
possible
each
be
,
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: I was talking about the US. If you don't trust US's numbers, it is possible
: it is just a big flu in the US. It's possible that there have been only
: 500 deaths in the US, so it might be just a big flu. The situation in each
: country can be very different. What happened in Israel and UK might not be
: true here in the US. So if you really dont' believe the numbers in the US,
: there is nothing to argue.
|
r***i
发帖数: 1 | 28 No matter if the data is trustworthy or not, you can never use
aggregated cases as the numerator while use current number of vax people
as the denom.
It is simply wrong stats and I would say stupid wenkesheng stats.
lol
.
times
(
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: Here is Georgia's Department of Public Health's newest breakthrough report.
: It plays the number game by including children into the not-fully-vaxxed
: population. Even so, the chance of not-fully-vaxxed is more than ten times
: higher than fully-vaxxed. The case fatality rate for fully-vaxxed is
: slightly lower than that for not-fully-vaxxed, 1.23% (806/65510) vs. 1.34% (
: 11,212/836,690). Notice that again the young unvaxxed people help bring
: down the case fatality rate for the not-fully-vaxxed since almost none of
: them die anyway.
|
t******9
发帖数: 1 | 29 疫苗对阿三变种基本无效，这已经是菌班共识。不用再吵了。
现在早就过了讨论这一话题的时间点。而应该看一下，第三针疫苗，对阿三变种的变种
是否有效。 |
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 30 That's why a lot of time I used data since half of the adults are fully
vaxxed. That way the comparison actually benefits your opinion, yet still
it shows the vaccines have saved lives.
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: No matter if the data is trustworthy or not, you can never use
: aggregated cases as the numerator while use current number of vax people
: as the denom.
: It is simply wrong stats and I would say stupid wenkesheng stats.
: lol
:
: .
: times
: (
|
F********r
发帖数: 878 | 31 Good that there is some common ground among us.
If you are saying since the vax info of the deaths are not systematically
reported, breakthrough info is not trustworthy in the US. OK. Then what
about the deaths per capita of the ten states with the lowest vax rates and
the deaths per capita of the ten states with the highest vax rates? Here is
my post about ten days ago regarding this. You dont' think the death per
capita has anything to do with the vax rate? They are just coincidence?
"During the last two months, the ten states with the lowest vax rates had
new death per million population exactly 4 times as high as the ten states
with the highest vax rates, new cases pmp 2.3 times as high, and case
fatality 1.7 times as high."
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 你这就是耍赖了
: 叔说鸦片国比较疫苗与非疫苗数据不可信，原因叔给你了： 鸦片国没有整合的系统，
: 所以病人打疫苗状态根本无法系统的知晓
: 叔有说过鸦片国的其它数据比如因疮瘟死亡数据不可信吗？
: lol
:
: possible
: each
: be
: ,
|
