Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

The second shows exactly what the first did and went through December. So you have 1 study that goes to May, 1 study that goes until September, and 1 study that goes to December, with entirely consistent results. So why is that?

 

Tragic

 

Seriously bad luck.

 

What signs of failing to the vaccines show? In the US alone, about 200 million fully vaccinated. Less than 40 million with positive COVID cases. Care to look at death totals for both groups and day the vaccine is failing?

Vaccines aren't cures. They don't provide 100% protection. No vaccine ever, in the history of mankind has been 100% effective. But get enough people vaccinated to reach herd immunity, and you can virtually wipe a virus off the face of the Earth. See smallpox, polio, and others.

It's our only path to victory. All other drugs, like ivermectin, may do a little good, may not. But aren't preventative, and require a person to get COVID. And in the case of ivermectin, the largest study showed no benefit from the drug whatsoever.

The vaccine will also not be experimental for long. It will have full, FDA approval soon. And in the future, the mRNA vaccines will serve as the base for future vaccines, as all scientists need to do is plug in the right RNA code, and you have the vaccine.

Until we reach herd immunity, nobody is safe. Even kids, which are seeing a higher COVID hospitalization rate right now. Anyone who doesn't vaccinate is simply part of the problem, with the exception of kids under 12 and people with immune issues who can't get the shot. I have little sympathy for anyone else eligible and still unvaccinated.

 

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

 

Page 1248 and still debating masks and vaccines efficacy? Same group looks pretty wrong on the first hundred pages.

 

It is frustrating that the links did not take me to the interim results of the TOGETHER trial. No conclusion has any meaning without knowing details, other than that this trial saw no benefit.

I am not anti-vaxxer or Ivermectin promoter. However, I am for open and honest research and more importantly than all of that, the details. The devil is always in the details, and details have been in short supply in this 20 months of chaotic (and some bad) science rushing to try and stem the tide of the battle against this virus. The Devil is ALWAYS in the details.

I would be if a trial was performed exclusively in 3rd world countries with primary patients who have little access to secure and clean water, Ivermectin would be doing great things. Also, its anti-viral properties, as observed in-vitro cannot be so quickly dismissed without detailed studies.....and providing the details of those studies.

This era of pre-prints and non-peer reviewed papers is contributing to the confusion, "side picking" and worse, misuse (intentional or not) of data to propagate lies.

 

No, it doesn’t. Does it compare mask usage to places that didn’t have a mask mandate? Comparing something against itself isn’t a real comparison. But you knew that already. Keep trying LOL. Some people will believe anything…

 

One study compares areas without mandates to areas with mandates. The other two compare an area to itself, which is actually pretty standard in the scientific literature. It is the simplest way to control for unobserved heterogeneity.

However, if you want a design that explicitly compares municipalities to each other in a natural experiment, which also controls for unobserved heterogeneity, here you go:

Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With ...

 

So lets look at Kansas during that period. Mask mandate went into effect on July 3rd, but the CDC somehow picked July 9th as the start date. Wonder why...

The black line is mask mandate counties. The orange line is the mask optional counties. Sure, you keep thinking the mask mandate helped. But hey, don't worry about it, the CDC has fooled a lot of people over the last 18 months. You are in a really big crowd. Oops.

 

They did this with weekly data. The week of the order ended on July 9. It really isn't that hard to read.

You can see the effect. The slope of the best fit estimate of the orange line is positive and the slope of the best fit estimate of the black line is negative. That is what they are examining. Of course, this research also requires the data from before the mandate from which to compare (which the rando from Twitter you pulled that from apparently also doesn't know). I am guessing that is because they are trying to create an inaccurate picture based on the July 4 decline in testing.

I could go on to the notions of things like endogenous selection and more complex statistical issues, but I think I will keep this at an elementary level for you.

 

CFR rates have dropped dramatically for the 65+ population (FL data).

Through the week beginning 6/4: 9.5 people per 100 cases died
In the last two months (ending week beginning 8/6): 4.1 people per 100 cases died

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

It's ok. You got fooled. The CDC tried to slip one by the public. Lots of others got fooled also. I get it. Just try to find something that actually shows masks worked. I'm sure there's something out there. But this isn't it.

 

Don’t bother.

 

Why not? Please explain your understanding of why this doesn't show masking working. I would love to hear you break this down using proper statistical and research design language (I mean, I know you have no background in any of this, but you are very confident in your knowledge of this, so despite your complete lack of background, you must have great knowledge to have obtained such confidence). I am at the edge of my seat.

 

Go look at the charts. If you can't understand a basic chart, then that's on you sport. Try to keep up. How about this, why don't you just pick the best possible dates to make your chart look the best, because that's what the CDC did. Go ahead and make shit up. The public and you bought it. Anyone looking at that chart and thinking masks worked is either ignorant or dumb. You tell me where you fall.

 

guess thats why the say the vaccine isnt 100% effective

 

I have done this for over a decade. I understand that a statistical analysis of this sort is examining the slope of a control group vs. the slope of a treatment group. So I actually know how to read this chart as a researcher would. You do not, which is fine because you lack that background. The problem is that you can't just admit that while you arrogantly tell those of us with backgrounds in this how much you know because somebody on Twitter told you something. If you would like to expand your knowledge, let me suggest a couple of books to actually gain some basic background on Research Design, so that you don't continue to make these mistakes:

Keppel & Wickens, Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 4th Edition | Pearson
Greene, Econometric Analysis, 8th Edition | Pearson

 

Well, I got bad news for you. Over a decade of work down the drain. You can't read a simple chart. That must suck. You got called out and got upset. I get it. You were wrong on lockdowns, school closures and masks. I know it's upsetting, but trying to act like some big shot researcher is quite embarrassing. You posted 2 examples and got called out on both. Back to drawing board sport!

 

The death of expertise.