新未名空间

it does NOT.
period.

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 18:51 I meant the excess death of each state is within the same state, and it has taken into consideration of its healthcare condition.

Right, that's why we look at the overall average.
Right, correlation is no causation, but if you see that again and again, and cdc says covid vax helps, and more than 12.6 billion doses have been given worldwide, it's enough for me to believe it.

fieldman 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 18:45 you may also find states with lowest vax rates also have low rate of owning pets. Does not having a dog kill people?

Again, correlation is no causation.

>>而且没什么人会同意你说的mid 2022年以后差距还是很大
Count the squares, the least vax states have at least twice as many.

rihai 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 18:43 你这纯文科生吧？
医疗资源系数的调整，需要各州之间做回归
intra-state根本无法做
LOL

而且没什么人会同意你说的mid 2022年以后差距还是很大
LOL

老人可能有点protection，中青年基本没啥用，不同的subpopulation结论不一定相同。
另外做州之间比较的时候州内老龄化人口比例这些covariate有没有adjust

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 15:37 I am not denying the protection provided by mask; however, almost nobody is wearing mask since summer 2022. So mask is not the only factor.
In term of healthcare, didn't they say Georgia and Alabama were two of the three states with the best healthcare? But they both are one of the lowest vax states and had high excess death rates the last two years.

Post #24 within this thread shows the death per capita of the ten most and ten least vax states during the pre-vax, delta, and omicron periods.
The least vax states' number went from 1207 to 828 to 1123.
The most vax states' number went from 1667, to 212 to 910.
Prior to the availability of vax, the most vax states' have higher death per million population, so seems 州内老龄化人口比例 is not an important factor when you look at the ten states together. Probably they even out.
Vax provided the most protection during the Delta surge, and this is shown by the stark difference of 828:212.
After Omicron, vax's effects were waning, and many people skipped the booster, that explains the smaller difference of 1123:910.
All these can be perfectly explained with vax, do you think there are so many coincidences?

wuyuzegang 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:09 老人可能有点protection，中青年基本没啥用，不同的subpopulation结论不一定相同。
另外做州之间比较的时候州内老龄化人口比例这些covariate有没有adjust

完全就是个无效数据
口罩率， 医疗资源， 包括人口构成， 无数的confounding factors
明显前两者是causal factors

49人应该是个文科生， 不懂基本的统计
LOL

wuyuzegang 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:09 老人可能有点protection，中青年基本没啥用，不同的subpopulation结论不一定相同。
另外做州之间比较的时候州内老龄化人口比例这些covariate有没有adjust

cdc, and healthcare departments of almost all countries worldwide, are using the vax, and it's useless simply because you say so? I would rather believe them.

If my major is not science, there is pretty no science.

rihai 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:25 完全就是个无效数据
口罩率， 医疗资源， 包括人口构成， 无数的confounding factors
明显前两者是causal factors

49人应该是个文科生， 不懂基本的统计
LOL

你怎么相信是你的事情， 没人管得着， LOL
但你的这个数据已经彻底是垃圾了，
药店脸的话，就别再贴出来舞蹈了
LOL

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:39 cdc, and healthcare departments of almost all countries worldwide, are using the vax, and it's useless simply because you say so? I would rather believe them.

If my major is not science, there is pretty no science.

>>但你的这个数据已经彻底是垃圾了
That's just your opinion. Whether or not you believe, 没人管得着.
More than 12.6 billion doses have been given worldwide. Obviously at least about 6.3, or 4.2(?), billion people believe it. Pretty much only the shithole countries in Africa are the only ones with low vax rates.

你贴的数据是垃圾， 这是scientific judgement， 而不是什么个人opinion
你悲愤没有用 LOL

至于你选择继续相信trump vaccine这个hype， 并用世界上多少人打了trump vaccine来justify
那是你的自由， 叔无权干涉
LOL

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:47 >>但你的这个数据已经彻底是垃圾了
That's just your opinion. Whether or not you believe, 没人管得着.
More than 12.6 billion doses have been given worldwide. Obviously at least about 6.3, or 4.2(?), billion people believe it. Pretty much only the shithole countries in Africa are the only ones with low vax rates.

Judgement or not, it's your opinion.
My state has higher mask rate and higher vax rate, and the covid death per capita is much lower than the US average. So why do I 悲愤?

rihai 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 20:03 你贴的数据是垃圾， 这是scientific judgement， 而不是什么个人opinion
你悲愤没有用 LOL

至于你选择继续相信trump vaccine这个hype， 并用世界上多少人打了trump vaccine来justify
那是你的自由， 叔无权干涉
LOL

当初信疫苗的情有可原，现在已经没太多人信疫苗了，辉瑞都已经卖不动了。
现在还靠疫苗抗疫不是个办法。一针下去暂时激活一下免疫系统，管个3到6个月，要持续保护要持续打，即使副作用是小概率，打多了也变成大概率了。

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 19:47 >>但你的这个数据已经彻底是垃圾了
That's just your opinion. Whether or not you believe, 没人管得着.
More than 12.6 billion doses have been given worldwide. Obviously at least about 6.3, or 4.2(?), billion people believe it. Pretty much only the shithole countries in Africa are the only ones with low vax rates.

It's not that 现在已经没太多人信疫苗了. The pandemic is over. covid is not much different from or more deadly than a big flu now. That's why most people are not being vaxxed anymore, myself included. You drink water to cure thirst, but once you are not thirsty anymore, there is no need to keep drinking. From what I know, nobody is urging/pushing people, except seniors and the immune-compromised, to vax anymore.

wuyuzegang 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 20:15 当初信疫苗的情有可原，现在已经没太多人信疫苗了，辉瑞都已经卖不动了。
现在还靠疫苗抗疫不是个办法。一针下去暂时激活一下免疫系统，管个3到6个月，要持续保护要持续打，即使副作用是小概率，打多了也变成大概率了。

教你个乖，这种非RCT的观测性社会数据大多数有猫腻。

一个简单的例子就是FDA批准辉瑞加强针依靠的那个以色列的观察性大数据，丫说加强针带来95%的保护力，这还不好？赶紧批准。可是有心人一琢磨不对了，他们前两针的保护率也才90%， 怎能后续针比第一针还猛？

后来发现，所谓加强针降低了新冠死亡多少多少，其实在“降低”非新冠死亡的效率是一样的。那么难道这个疫苗是包治百病的神药？

不是，仅仅是因为加强针组人的基础健康状况比对照率好很多而已。因为没有RCT, 随机分组， 组别状况自然的有bias.

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 20:20 It's not that 现在已经没太多人信疫苗了. The pandemic is over. covid is not much different from or more deadly than a big flu now. That's why most people are not being vaxxed anymore, myself included. You drink water to cure thirst, but once you are not thirsty anymore, there is no need to keep drinking. From what I know, nobody is urging/pushing people, except seniors and the immune-compromised, to vax anymore.

I am not too concerned with the exact numbers. As long as it helps, it's good enough. Of course, you got to compare the risk and benefit.
Do you think you have more information than the people in the health departments of all the countries? Plus, a lot of your so-called examples are nothing but rumors or distortions.
Look at Japan. At the beginning of the vax campaign, some people on this board were touting Japan's effective use of ivermectin. How come they turned to vax if ivermctin had been effective since it's so cheap? Do you think Japanese are fools?
>>教你个乖
You don't need to teach me the 乖 that most people in shithole African countries are doing. It's not something I am looking up to.

fieldman 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 23:46 教你个乖，这种非RCT的观测性社会数据大多数有猫腻。

一个简单的例子就是FDA批准辉瑞加强针依靠的那个以色列的观察性大数据，丫说加强针带来95%的保护力，这还不好？赶紧批准。可是有心人一琢磨不对了，他们前两针的保护率也才90%， 怎能后续针比第一针还猛？

后来发现，所谓加强针降低了新冠死亡多少多少，其实在“降低”非新冠死亡的效率是一样的。那么难道这个疫苗是包治百病的神药？

不是，仅仅是因为加强针组人的基础健康状况比对照率好很多而已。因为没有RCT, 随机分组， 组别状况自然的有bias.

rihai 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 16:46 笑死叔了
就是CDC的数据， 你找到了吗
LOL

立场和信点不同，我不花那时间

按这个比例，12亿人，死亡就是1千万。包猪威武

lilyamao 写了： 2023年 11月 23日 14:59 国内没有效的mRNA 疫苗、是你们反疫苗者的天堂

我公安局的中学同学说2023年初短期内， 150万人口的城市、急速消户 千分之八

多出来的房子直接触发中国房地产危机

包括今天早上急症科同学的微信

新英格兰医学杂志白纸黑字上登着，到你这成了“rumors or distortions”了？

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 24日 00:00 I am not too concerned with the exact numbers. As long as it helps, it's good enough. Of course, you got to compare the risk and benefit.
Do you think you have more information than the people in the health departments of all the countries? Plus, a lot of your so-called examples are nothing but rumors or distortions.
Look at Japan. At the beginning of the vax campaign, some people on this board were touting Japan's effective use of ivermectin. How come they turned to vax if ivermctin had been effective since it's so cheap? Do you think Japanese are fools?
>>教你个乖
You don't need to teach me the 乖 that most people in shithole African countries are doing. It's not something I am looking up to.

The article in 新英格兰医学杂志 might not be, but when it's exerted online, it's most likely distortion.
There are millions more reports supporting vax in pretty much all countries. What are they? Some people overhear a word online, and then they thought they got the truth.

fieldman 写了： 2023年 11月 24日 14:59 新英格兰医学杂志白纸黑字上登着，到你这成了“rumors or distortions”了？

人家的最终结论就是加强针没啥卵用。但是中期数据分析不严谨，结论错误，被FDA辉瑞钻了空子。

fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 11月 24日 15:03 The article in 新英格兰医学杂志 might not be, but when it's exerted online, it's most likely distortion.
There are millions more reports supporting vax in pretty much all countries. What are they? Some people overhear a word online, and then they thought they got the truth.