WHO Declares End To COVID Global Health Emergency (reuters.com) 146
The World Health Organization ended the global emergency status for COVID-19 on Friday more than three years after its original declaration, and said countries should now manage the virus that killed more than 6.9 million people along with other infectious diseases. From a report: The global health agency's Emergency Committee met on Thursday and recommended the UN organization declare an end to the coronavirus crisis as a "public health emergency of international concern" -- its highest level of alert -- which has been in place since Jan. 30, 2020. "It is therefore with great hope that I declare COVID-19 over as a global health emergency," said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, adding that the end of the emergency did not mean COVID was over as a global health threat. During a lengthy conference call to brief the press on the decision, some WHO members became emotional as they urged countries to reflect on lessons learned during the pandemic.
Mistakes were made, sure (Score:2)
COVID's Over (Score:2)
For those about to say endemic (Score:2, Troll)
There's not some clear line that once you cross you hereby define it as endemic. Endemic is mostly a "most people agree something is endemic" kind of standard. That said, it's important to remember what that means. Endemic: A disease that occurs with a regular or semi-regular frequency within a community or given area. So that said, endemic only conveys the regularity in which a disease pops up. It doesn't convey anything about lethality or risk to the population. Just that how often and with what fr
The great thing about denialism... (Score:2, Insightful)
... is that you never, ever, EVER have to concede the point. You never need to be proven correct, either. If it's climate, you can hold your view right until the last house burns to a cinder in scorching worldwide temperatures, point, and say, "Wasn't us." For covid, you can skip the vaccine, be lying on your deathbed, gasping, riddled with the virus, and say, "Would have happened anyway." People who are making claims of effectiveness need to back those claims up. People who deny it don't. These are complex
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's claiming that all unvaccinated people will get covid. So, no. No denialism there.
Re: (Score:2)
Quarter million dead. But - exactly as I described - you'll move the goalposts to wherever you want them.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries with lower population densities had less severe COVID. No surprises there. Severity of disease has a lot to do with how big a person's exposure is and how long your body has to ramp up a defense. If you're surrounded by sick people, you're going to have quite a high "dose."
The vast majority of young people are asymptomatic and don't get seriously ill with or without a vaccine. This was always about a minority of any population. There's also fewer people in Africa in the age ranges most affect
Re: (Score:2)
Countries with lower population densities had less severe COVID. No surprises there. Severity of disease has a lot to do with how big a person's exposure is and how long your body has to ramp up a defense. If you're surrounded by sick people, you're going to have quite a high "dose."
If the premise were true there would have been a noticeable signal in terms of health outcomes as a result of infection while wearing masks and social distancing.
Also not sure there is much real world meaningful relationship between population density and level of initial exposure. Density doesn't necessarily translate to being closer to people or even individuals being around more people.
Re: (Score:2)
And how to you track who was wearing a mask or distancing to an effective degree? Surveys? You can't base it on whether there are policies in place when it spreads readily from private social interaction that may be ignoring any policy anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And how to you track who was wearing a mask or distancing to an effective degree? Surveys? You can't base it on whether there are policies in place when it spreads readily from private social interaction that may be ignoring any policy anyway.
The best solution I can think of is you conduct an experiment in which volunteers are asked to do the NPIs while other are asked to do something else. I've seen studies based on policy alone, others ran PSA campaigns and had spies in public spaces to measure compliance, others were survey based. Some early studies used testimonial and video evidence to trace spread of specific infections between specific individuals.
If the line of thought is all methods are imperfect that is certainly almost always the ca
Re: A signal (Score:2)
A Cochrane review (15) on physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses included 67 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) and observational studies. It found that “overall masks were the best performing intervention across populations, settings and threats.”
T. Jefferson et al., Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD006207 (2011).
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a more recent discussion of the issue, specific to COVID-19. It has references to the actual studies.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-medical-critical-thinking/evidence-shows-masks-work
Or here's another recent study (Score:2)
"The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce 𝑅𝑒
to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).
Models suggest that public mask wearing is
Re: (Score:2)
The global public emergency ended ... (Score:2)
The global public emergency ended, but the virus is here to stay ...
Here is some of what the head of the WHO also said [who.int]:
Still a thing (Score:2)
Tell all the people I know who have Covid right now
Swings and roundabouts (Score:2)
Warning: Vaccine truthers (Score:3, Informative)
I knew a certain side of the political spectrum was just too dumb and scientifically illiterate for words, but thinking the best thing to do with a pandemic is politicise it and be obstructive is just beyond.
COVID Deaths / 100,000 population
USA 350
ARI: 455
OKL: 454
MIS: 449
WVG: 444
NMX: 432
ARK: 431
ALA: 429
TEN: 428
MIC: 423
KEN: 406
NJ: 405
FLA: 404
LOU: 404
CAL: 256
ORE: 222
WA: 206
CANADA: 136
BC: 107
Now, anyone see any correl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's neat how correlation equals causation when you need it to for your politiball team.
Re: Correlation and causation (Score:2)
unless... the causal chain goes something like
high infection rate...>high death rate in pop....>general madness co-epidemic...>poorly informed policies
Re: Correlation and causation (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's highly unlikely that higher infection and death rates cause no-mask, no-lockdown policies, unless... the causal chain goes something like high infection rate...>high death rate in pop....>general madness co-epidemic...>poorly informed policies
No, but to be completely fair, obesity is more common in the states that lean right, and obesity is a significant risk factor for severe COVID. So it is entirely possible that Republican health policies that focus too much on personal responsibility are the root cause of both the lack of masking and at least some of that elevated COVID severity.
Compounding this, obesity is correlated with conditions like COPD, which makes mask wearing uncomfortable, so the people most at risk are least able to use masks, which is why mandates are beneficial, and personal responsibility is a strategy that is guaranteed to fail.
To get good data, you need to compare at a county level, to minimize the demographic differences. Those studies also show that masks work, of course, because of the second point above.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> Now, anyone see any correlation with policies there? Draw your own conclusions.
Yes, it appears African countries were the least vaccinated world wide, least impacted by covid and least likely to watch CNN.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/va... [jhu.edu]
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
They also have much younger populations (Score:5, Informative)
You guys do the same thing with crime statistics. You point to all these dangerous Democrats run cities with high crime rates and you get those statistics by setting the threshold for a large city artificially high. If instead you focus on crimes per capita and break up by county so that you get a better idea of how crime is affecting everyday people you find that the murder rates in red counties and states are much higher than in blue cities.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
I could support his post all day with data but I'm not going to put forth the effort for an AC.
If you actually care and arent just an ideolog the data is very easy to find for yourself though.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying the dog ate your homework. I have seen the data, I already told you how you guys manipulate it through reporting bias and when we use data where there aren't these same biases, the trends you claim aren't there.
Thanks for confirming why I dont spend effort on responding to ACs. The odds of them being an ideolog like yourself are too high and it's pointless to talk to an ideolog, they'll just make shit up to support their bizarre conceptualization of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
However, that's not why I responded. I've pointed out in other stories (and it's worth repeating) that the correlation is clearly reversed here. It's a nearly absurd hypothesis that voting for a Democrat as mayor suddenly makes one want to go on a shooting rampage. What has happened in the US polit
Re: (Score:2)
Life expectancy is 64 years in Africa and 79 years in the U.S.
The population is also less concentrated, being 43% urban as opposed to 82%.
All of us cherry picking stats is a bad way to have this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it's a disease mainly of the elderly and obese?
So if you're not elderly or obese you shouldn't be locked down, masked or coerced into a vaccine that does nothing to stop the spread?
Re: (Score:2)
And there is a serious question of whether you should have total freedom to be an absolute selfish young asshole putting the elderly and infirm in your society at risk.
Society only works because it puts, by norms, convention, and rules, constraints on individuals' behaviors. The question is where to draw the limits. Absolute freedom is not a thing. Freedom is a self-limiting concept. If it becomes absolute, then the maybe only small, but significant percentage of total
Re: (Score:2)
> So you're saying it's a disease mainly of the elderly and obese?
Bill Gates "...we didn't really understand the fatality rate. We didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly kind of like the flu is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
and you sound incredibly naive (Score:2)
If so, you are exactly why we need norms, conventions, and rules to constrain your socially irresponsible behavior. Every society has had these from time immemorial. If you can't see it, you're either not paying attention or incapable of perceiving such things.
A stable, functioning society is fundamentally an organism-like meme (self-sustaining pat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Warning: Vaccine truthers (Score:5, Informative)
Five reasons why COVID-19 has ben less deadly in Africa than elsewhere:
1. Quick Action
The first case on the continent was confirmed in Egypt on 14 February. There were fears that the new virus could quickly overwhelm largely fragile health systems on the continent.
So, right from the beginning, most African governments took drastic measures to try and slow the spread of the virus.
Public health measures - including avoiding handshakes, frequent hand-washing, social distancing and wearing of face masks - were swiftly introduced.
2. Public Support
In a survey conducted in 18 countries in August by PERC, public support for safety measures was high - 85% of respondents said they wore masks in the previous week.
"With strict public health and social measures implemented, African Union member states were able to contain the virus between March and May," the report said.
It added that "minor loosening [of restrictions] in June and July coincided with an increase in the reported cases across the continent".
3. Young population - and few old-age homes
Globally, most of those who have died have been aged over 80, whileAfrica is home to the world's youngest population with a median age of 19 years, according to UN data.
"The pandemic has largely been in younger age groups... about 91% of Covid-19 infection in sub-Saharan Africa are among people below 60 years and over 80% are asymptomatic," said the World Health Organization (WHO).
"We have [in Africa] about 3% of the population aged over 65 years," sad Dr Matshidiso Moeti, the WHO Africa head.
In comparison, Europe, North America and wealthier Asian countries have the oldest inhabitants.
"One of the big drivers in Western countries is that the elderly people were living in specialized homes and these became places where the transmission was very intense," Dr Moeti added.
These homes are rare in most African countries, where older people are more likely to be living in rural areas.
4. Favourable climate
A study conducted by researchers in the University of Maryland in the US found a correlation between temperature, humidity and latitude, and the spread of Covid-19.
"We looked at the early spread [of the virus] in 50 cities around the world. The virus had an easier time spreading in lower temperatures and humidity," said Mohammad Sajadi, the lead researcher.
"Not that it doesn't spread in other conditions - it just spreads better when temperature and humidity drop."
African countries away from the tropics have been worse off.
The spread of the virus accelerated in South Africa as the southern hemisphere went into winter.
But as it became warmer, the number of cases dropped significantly, impacting the continental outlook, as South Africa accounts for almost half the total number of cases and deaths on the continent.
(Side-note: If this factor is true, southern humid US states should have had the lowest incidence among the States. So policy differences probably had an even larger effect than the raw death rate statistics would suggest.)
5. Good community health systems
The Covid-19 pandemic came at a time when the Democratic Republic of Congo was dealing with its biggest outbreak of Ebola yet. Neighbouring states were on high alert, and the health screening of travellers for Ebola was extended to include Covid-19.
So, while hospital infrastructure in much of Africa is less developed than in other parts of the world, the continent's strength lay in its tried and tested community health systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Accepting the vaccine as a young healthy person does increase your own protection against the (relatively rare) case of your own hospitalization or death, but more to the point is a kind, partially self-less, pro-social act that shows that you are not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what part of this data supports giving the vaccine to young healthy people and children?
You want a list?
1. The risk from the vaccine is lower than the risk of the virus even for young and healthy adults.
2. The vaccine reduces severity meaning if young and healthy people get the virus they are faster able to return to being functioning members of society.
3. Young people still were a major transmitter of the disease and the only hope of reaching any kind of herd immunity was by getting ahead of the virus and limiting it's severity.
4. Long COVID symptoms. Maybe look beyond the raw death rate and
You took a multi-dose whiskey vaccine? (Score:2)
First results indicate that the patient can still count to 4.
lol
Re: (Score:2)
All of it?
Devil's advocate or simply a dumbass?
Sorry, if you meant to be snarky: it wasn't. If you really do not know why all this data supports vaccinating the groups who where infected the most: I hope you refrain from voting in future.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you could have given the States their standard 2 letter codes in your list
Re: (Score:3)
Now, anyone see any correlation with policies there? Draw your own conclusions.
Would you like me to conclude that governments have many reasons to lie and deceive a planet about the impact of a global virus on their population as a matter of National Defense, or should we ask you why China isn't on your list...
You really are that gullible, aren't you.
Re: China and COVID (Score:2)
Deaths per 100,000
USA 350
China 9
China has had about 2.5% the number of COVID deaths per capita as the USA has had.
Of course, definitions matter (death by COVID, death with COVID etc) but ballpark, USA fucked up badly, relatively. Freedumb though! It's gotta cost something, even if it's your grandmothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Warning: Vaccine truthers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your source for this data? Now, go back to that source, find NY (that's New York. I don't know what the *cough* three-letter abbrev. would be), and report back what you find. Go ahead. We'll wait....
NY is 398. That's below all of the listed red states, in spite of the fact that NY was hit hard early in the pandemic when we knew little about how to treat it, and indeed some of our treatment (e.g. ventilators) was actually counterproductive. All else equal, NY's number should be far higher, probably the highest in the nation, because the cosmopolitan and closely-packed population of NYC got infected very early.
If you rank the states by per-capita death tolls, NY is #16. Above it are (in descending ord
Re: (Score:2)
was hit hard early in the pandemic when we knew little about how to treat it,
We always knew how to treat it, amoung other things:
* masks
* social distancing
* washing hands often
* isolate your self when sick
* tests
Re: (Score:2)
By "treat" I meant "treat", not "prevent". What you describe is how to prevent the spread. Treatment refers to medical treatment of those who are infected. Early on, medical personnel didn't really know how to care for them, and the per-infection death rate was much higher as a result. Later on, we knew not to use ventilators except as a last resort, because people with COVID often do fine with O2 saturations that are normally deadly, and the side effects of using ventilators can kill them. We also learned
Re: (Score:2)
that warm, humid places tended to get hit much less hard than cooler, dryer places.
Warm and cold is one axis.
Humid and dry is the other one.
You compare the wrong edge points.
Cold and dry most certainly is one of the least concerns.
Both humid and war and humid and cold are a concern, where humid and cold is the worth.
There is no much difference between hot and dry and cold and dry, though.
Re:Now to ban the pointless mandates (Score:5, Informative)
COVID has been over for quite a while now. We now know that pretty much nothing we did at the beginning helped. Lockdowns did nothing. Masks were useless.
Actually, both had a statistically significant impact on case count, and saved lives [umich.edu].
The vaccine worked on the initial variant and is useless on later ones
Incorrect. The vaccine significantly reduces the risk of fatality from all variants, including the later strains. It also has a short-term impact on the risk of infection that diminishes rapidly, and the rate at which it diminishes is faster for later strains.
and likely causes severe heart problems.
No, but it likely occasionally causes very mild heart problems. Myocarditis from the vaccine is almost always mild. Myocarditis from getting COVID is frequently *not* mild.
(Wow, whoever could have foreseen that trying an experimental vaccine using a technology that had never worked for the previous three decades it was being developed would lead to unexpected health problems except, of course, everyone.)
Wow, who could have seen that a bunch of politicians making vaccination political could result in a bunch of people demonstrating Dunning-Kruger? Nothing about the COVID vaccine "had never worked for the previous three decades...".
The first human use of mRNA was for cancer immunotherapy in 2009, and was successful [nih.gov]. So by some standards, the technology had been working for well over a decade at the time. If you want to narrow it to modRNA specifically, IIRC the first successful human trials involved a Zika vaccine [thelancet.com] in 2017.
The technology had not been used in any mass vaccination effort yet prior to late 2020, but that's not the same as saying that it didn't work before then. Besides, the vaccines you think didn't work are actually the ones that were most effective. The old-style vaccines involving dead viruses were much, much less effective.
It's time to ban all places from requiring masks and requiring vaccines.
I would rather know that any doctors doing surgery on me or treating patients with respiratory diseases right before they see me are wearing masks, thank you very much. You can feel free to tell them it's okay to take it off if you want, but don't be surprised if they laugh in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID has been over for quite a while now. We now know that pretty much nothing we did at the beginning helped. ...
At the beginning.
Considering that we started from absolutely zero knowledge of the nature of the infection, not even knowing how it spread or even how contagious it was, to a pretty complete understanding, in a time frame of under a year, it's amazing how fast we learned. The problem was that many things that seemed reasonable at the time turned out to be unimportant, and it took a long time for the information on what was useful and what wasn't to percolate through.
For example, some viruses spread well o
Re: (Score:2)
It became political for two reasons. One, in a changing situation you are going to be "wrong" a lot. The best thing to do is approach with caution and take potentially unnecessary safeguards if they are reasonable. But being wrong is really good political fodder and it was just too hard to resist. Eventually it didn't matter if someone was actually wrong because just lying about that still worked. Two, a lot of politicians have significant stock holdings and answer to corporations anyway and they pract
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to ban all places from requiring masks and requiring vaccines. There aren't a lot of places left doing that, thankfully, but there are still a few, and they need to be told to knock it off. If this announcement isn't enough to get them to respect people's freedoms, it's time to move on to the force of law.
You keep using that word, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff that doesn't matter. Or, at least, it's not tech.
Almost 7 million lives lost worldwide don't matter?
Deployment of novel mRNA-based vaccines to fight the pandemic is not tech?
Re: (Score:2)
This year, despite a lack of a manufactured pandemic, will see another 67 million people die. The same as last year and the year before that.
No, not "the same as last year and the year before that". It turns out that, yes, the excess deaths due to COVID-19 were indeed high enough that you can see more people died. (In fact, the excess death rate shows COVID-19 deaths were underreported for about the first eight months of the epidemic, before tests became commonplace).
COWARDS. Everything they did, everything they do, is because they are scared.
It's wise to be somewhat scared of an epidemic that is killing millions of people.
Re: (Score:2)
We get irate because you were killing people (Score:2)
Re: News for nerds (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's anything I learned from the pandemic, it's that people are far stupider than I ever thought possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Informative)
"Almost 7 million lives lost worldwide don't matter?" with several billions in asia alone, more people die from flues on yearly basis.
Influenza strains kill about 400,000 people per year, globally. That makes COVID 5X deadlier than the flu. More than that, actually, because flu deaths were way down during the pandemic, because non-pharmaceutical strategies to reduce COVID deaths also reduced flu deaths.
"Deployment of novel mRNA-based vaccines to fight the pandemic is not tech?" - no its not. It did not prevent a shit. And gave tonnes of people permanent heart conditions. Killed tonnes of small babies. Well done.
Anti-vaxxer bullshit. COVID vaccines did cause myocarditis in some people. But you know what caused myocarditis in lots more people? COVID. (I'm happy to provide study citations if you want. Here's one [nih.gov], focused on the most-discussed population, young men). And the vaccines did not kill "tons of small babies".
Re:News for nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot to mention. Deaths aren't the only relevant metric here. You know how many people get "long flu" every year? Yeah, me neither, because it's not a thing. But long COVID definitely is.
Post infection sequela is by no means limited to covid. There were similar issues in the population as a result of the 1918 pandemic.
One thing I think is important for everyone to keep in mind going forward is that covid like all novel infections at the time when the population had no acquired immunity can not be compared with pre-existing flu strains to which the population enjoys acquired immunity.
There is an initial out of the gate cost of novel virus or post significant viral shift which the population
Nor is it correct (Score:2)
when we have tech and easy to adopt societal procedures to greatly slow it down and make it medically manageable.
Re: (Score:2)
to let a novel contagious pathogen run its course at the speed it would naturally take (thus completely overwhelming our urgent-care medical system and causing many unnecessary collateral deaths and bad outcomes, as well as excess untreated COVID deaths),
Not my argument, not what I said. Stop making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Influenza strains kill about 400,000 people per year, globally. That makes COVID 5X deadlier than the flu. More than that, actually, because flu deaths were way down during the pandemic, because non-pharmaceutical strategies to reduce COVID deaths also reduced flu deaths.
This is comparing apples and oranges. The reason there were initially more covid deaths is the world enjoyed prior acquired immunity to flu and none for covid. Today everyone has been repeatedly exposed to covid.
"Deployment of novel mRNA-based vaccines to fight the pandemic is not tech?" - no its not. It did not prevent a shit. And gave tonnes of people permanent heart conditions. Killed tonnes of small babies. Well done.
Anti-vaxxer bullshit. COVID vaccines did cause myocarditis in some people. But you know what caused myocarditis in lots more people? COVID. (I'm happy to provide study citations if you want. Here's one, focused on the most-discussed population, young men). And the vaccines did not kill "tons of small babies".
The problem here is that mRNA or no vaccine is a false choice. It was never necessary to use a brand new platform that has never seen widespread use to develop vaccines intended for everyone on earth. People could have produced vaccines normally based on attenuated/analog proteins as they have a
Re: (Score:2)
If they could do it there is no excuse the rest of the world could not.
Just lol. The guy comparing apples with oranges.
Which country again is world leader in medical research and world wide medical first support and medical application? You could google: "the army in white".
Hint: there is no one on earth who can make a vaccine from scratch as fast as Cuba, and BioNTech on the other hand.
This could have been avoided by not fucking around with mRNA and sticking with what we know from decades of experience glo
Re: (Score:2)
Which country again is world leader in medical research and world wide medical first support and medical application?
The United States.
Hint: there is no one on earth who can make a vaccine from scratch as fast as Cuba, and BioNTech on the other hand.
This is an extraordinary claim.
There is no real difference between using mRNA and traditional ways. Except that the consensus is: mRNA is safer. As it can focus on a very small set of proteins.
I provided direct evidence of harm caused by mRNA approach that would not be applicable to protien based vaccines. So no mRNA is not inherently safer, by infecting and destroying cells anywhere in the body (including hearts and brains) it is less safe than a similar analog protein vaccine.
So long as the vaccine can't replicate what matters is the real world effect of a specific vaccine. The body is able to produce antibodies against some two dozen proteins
Who knew so many complete R'TARDS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what else isnt tech? Whining about Slashdot posts but here we are yet again for the millionth time, another person whining because they personally dont approve of a post.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'manufactured disaster' killed over 1 million Americans, most were preventable.
Re: News for nerds (Score:2)
Or shooting deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t believe you. Post your family’s social media to prove they exist.
The plural of anecdote [Re:News for nerds] (Score:2)
Truth: My extended family is all liberal and most of them work for schools...
There is a saying in the sciences: "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."
On the internet, we modify this saying to: "The plural of 'anecdotes shared by anonymous trolls' is 'buckets of made-up bullshit'."
Re: (Score:2)
There is a saying in the sciences: "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."
There is no such saying in science. As it is bollocks.
An anecdote is a single data point. If you have several, you have several data points.
If you need a lot of data, the few data points based on anecdotes: might simply not be enough. Nevertheless they are exactly the same as "data".
On the internet, we modify this saying to: "The plural of 'anecdotes shared by anonymous trolls' is 'buckets of made-up bullshit'."
Only you do. As it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I make a radio announcement, asking people to call me and tell me the temperature at their place right now: it is data. Does not matter if only old moms call, or my broadcast is not received in your region and you do not call.
No idea what your stupid idea is about.
Anecdotes are the exact same as data. No damn difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I make a radio announcement, asking people to call me and tell me the temperature at their place right now: it is data.
Correct, that would be data, not anecdote.
"Anecdote" would be if you make a radio announcement and ask people "call in and tell me the weirdest weather you've ever experienced" and then you comb through the calls and pick the wackiest ones to feature on the air.
Mistaking anecdote for data would be saying "this caller told me about a snowstorm in July, we don't have weather like that any more! Global warming is real!"
Does not matter if only old moms call, or my broadcast is not received in your region and you do not call.
True. This is an example of meaningless data subject to bad sampling bias. Just because s
Re: (Score:2)
An anecdote is a single data point. If you have several, you have several data points.
If you need a lot of data, the few data points based on anecdotes: might simply not be enough. Nevertheless they are exactly the same as "data".
Yes that's right your anecdote IS data with no meaning or value whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a saying in the sciences: How long before someone starts doing the same with humans(again)? I mean, we abolished slavery, but the way things are going... There is no such saying in science.
As you suggest later, try googling it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/... [quoteinvestigator.com]
As it is bollocks. An anecdote is a single data point. If you have several, you have several data points.
. Easy to mislead yourself by thinking that, but unfortunately not. An anecdote is not a single data point; it is a selected data point that is cherry-picked to be a story or to underline a particular hypothesis, in general with all ancillary information and context left out.
You would think several anecdotes would be better, in that they would be several cherry-picked data points with all ancilliary information left out... but no, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Informative)
I spent the last 2 years posting peer-reviewed studies and they still got modded down. Because every time they asked for citation, I had one, and to hell with the moderation rules, THE NARRATIVE must be defended. Now they all just quietly moved on. What changed? Absolutely nothing! COVID is still out there. People still die from it at about the same, 0.05% rate.
Somehow that number seems wrong to me. :-)
The world COVID fatality count is already almost 0.1% of the world population. So unless you're incorrectly counting reinfections (which you shouldn't do, because people previously infected obviously have at least partial immunity — only the first infection actually counts), your number is low by a factor of at least two.
And that's with widespread vaccination. The unvaccinated mortality in the elderly has been estimated at over 20% [thelancet.com], and the age-adjusted IFR in the U.S. slowly declined from 0.733% to 0.453% over the course of the pre-vaccine portion of 2020.
In other words, you're off by an entire order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your citations were shitty or mischaracterized by you..
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see the DOI's for these peer reviewed studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: News for nerds (Score:3)
Leftists care about the narrative far more than they care about truth.
Sorry, I couldn'r hear you over the large crowd of people next to you that are still snowflaking over the StOLeN ELeCtiOn.
Re: News for nerds (Score:2)
Actually my post was relevant, choose your words better next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement wasn't true, my 'pivot' pointed that out. Your buddies messed your point up, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Mm hmm. Welp that's a pretty apt description of what you're trying to do now, but not relevant to my post.
As I said, choose your words more carefully.
Re:News for nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
"When the evidence is clear now"...I don't think there's any such "clear evidence" that the vaccine caused more harm than good for the 50 population is thrilled that your "F*** you, I got mine" attitude is alive and well.
For reference, the risk of myocarditis for young men was ~1.7 per 100,000 individuals. The risk of cardiac complications after COVID infection was 2-8x (depending on the data set) higher. Not that I really expect you to believe the data at this point, I think your lines are pretty well drawn.
And in case you're the same AC who posted above, I love this bit... "10/13 were severely ill "from COVID" (ignoring that it happened within a week of getting the shot and/or booster)". The data for both Moderna and Pfizer were very clear that protection was only ~50% 12-14 days after the first dose and not at maximum efficacy until 7-14 days post the second dose. So, ya know, if they were "severely ill from COVID within a week of getting the shot", that sucks, but doesn't say a dang thing about the vaccine efficacy. Antibodies take time to be produced.
Aaaanyway...
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, the risk of myocarditis for young men was ~1.7 per 100,000 individuals. The risk of cardiac complications after COVID infection was 2-8x (depending on the data set) higher. Not that I really expect you to believe the data at this point, I think your lines are pretty well drawn.
Here are some data points... large scale studies involving hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of participants.
One is saying there is no evidence of any statistically significant increase in myocarditis after covid infection.
"No statistical difference in the incidence rate of both myocarditis (p =1) and pericarditis (p =0.17) was observed between the COVID-19 cohort and the control cohort "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The other is saying vaccination is much worse but only for a specific subset of
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the thousands of laid off tech staff that used to work for a social media company infected with liberalism that spread COVID fearmongering and political bullshit that ultimately lead to their own fucking demise.
Ah yes, social media should ban anything with massive scientific and medical consensus and only allow posts about fake cures and vaccine fear mongering, eh?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You joke but it isn't funny. Technically speaking more people died "WITH Y2K" than "WITH COVID".
52.10 million people died in 2000. We can't separate how many were the direct or indirect result of Y2K, but all were WITH Y2K.
14.91 million people died WITH COVID between January 2020 to December 2021.