marcardar
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by marcardar
-
-
5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
No, it's a sample size of 21 who died. Most of the people of Thailand have never had coronavirus.
That's not what sample size means. Anyway, why not comment on these bigger numbers which destroy your argument:
QuoteIn summary let's look at the first and last week available:
In first week of September 2021 (7793 deaths):
Fully vaccinated with booster deaths: 11 (0.1%)
Fully vaccinated deaths: 1437 (18.4%)
Unvaccinated deaths: 6,345 (81.4%)
In first week of December 2021 (2912 deaths):
Fully vaccinated with booster deaths: 61 (2.1%)
Fully vaccinated deaths: 621 (21.3%)
Unvaccinated deaths: 2,230 (76.6%)
- 1
-
2 hours ago, ozimoron said:
A sample size of 21?
No, the sample size is 69.8million (the population of Thailand).
If they took a random sample of 21 people from Thailand and then looked at how many of them were vaccinated and how many not, then you would have a point. Sadly, you don't have a point at all because the 21 people is not random - it is all the people known to have died amongst a population of 69.8million people.
-
On 2/1/2022 at 2:25 PM, ozimoron said:
Let's get this perfectly clear. The stats provided in that sample showed that 99% of those who died were unvaccinated. That percentage will NEVER change. If more people get vaccinated the total numbers of people dying will reduce but whatever the number of people dying, 99% will be unvaccinated.
Yet more evidence that the above is total nonsense:
And no, this does not imply that vaccinations are not working. The fact the percentage of unvaccinated (amongst deaths) is falling is explained by there being fewer and fewer unvaccinated people, not by reduced vaccine efficacy.
- 1
-
20 hours ago, ozimoron said:
Let's get this perfectly clear. The stats provided in that sample showed that 99% of those who died were unvaccinated. That percentage will NEVER change. If more people get vaccinated the total numbers of people dying will reduce but whatever the number of people dying, 99% will be unvaccinated.
And here we have the proof that the 99% figure does not stay constant, but rather changes as more and more people get vaccinated.
In summary let's look at the first and last week available:
In first week of September 2021 (7793 deaths):
Fully vaccinated with booster deaths: 11 (0.1%)
Fully vaccinated deaths: 1437 (18.4%)
Unvaccinated deaths: 6,345 (81.4%)
In first week of December 2021 (2912 deaths):
Fully vaccinated with booster deaths: 61 (2.1%)
Fully vaccinated deaths: 621 (21.3%)
Unvaccinated deaths: 2,230 (76.6%)
And for those who do not understand basic statistics, and think this means:
15 hours ago, ozimoron said:you wish to at least imply that a vaccinations increase the likelihood of a person dying from covid
I refer to my first post:
21 hours ago, marcardar said:The important statistic is not the vac. vs. unvac. proportion of those in critical care (or deaths), but what your chances are when vac. vs. unvac. Bottom line, you're at least 10 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated.
The data is correct and follows what we would expect. The reason for explaining this is to counter those that think a rising percentage of vaccinated deaths implies vaccines don't work, or are getting less effective. No, it implies nothing of the sort. It is explained by the fact that more and more people are being vaccinated and so there are less unvaccinated people that can die.
-
19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
I stated earlier that the data will remain constant assuming vaccine efficacy and virus severity remain constant. Statistics relies on control assumptions and produces new results if any of the controls change.
I'm not talking about the vaccine becoming less effective, but rather if (in a parallel world) there was a vaccine that was less effective than our one(s).
Actually, if your logic was correct, then you would say zero efficacy would lead to 50% of covid deaths unvaccinated.
And this exposes the flaw in your logic. Because this will only be true if 50% of the population is unvaccinated.
In reality, for a totally ineffective vaccine, the percentage of covid deaths unvaccinated will match exactly that unvaccinated percentage of the population. The graph would be perfect straight line.
For a 100% effective vaccine, the percentage of deaths would be 100% unvaccinated
For a 90% effective vaccine (like we have now), the graph will bend towards having more unvaccinated amongst the dead.
The more effective the vaccine the more the graph bends.
But anyway, the only possible way for the percentage unvaccinated to be constant (regardless of vaccine coverage) would be if that constant is 100% (i.e. totally effective vaccine). And we know this is not true because of the 150 vaccinated people who died in May 2021 (in the link).
-
5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
On this page, we explain why it is essential to look at death rates by vaccination status rather than the absolute number of deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Now you're beginning to get it.
-
Just now, ozimoron said:
If 18,000 die this may, the same proportion, 1 or 2% will be vaccinated.
This is really fascinating logic. I'm curious, if the vaccine lost all of it's efficacy what would the magic percentage be?
-
2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
I never mentioned critical care. The percentage of unvaccinated in critical care is decreasing because the total numbers are increasing as the proportion of vaccinated people as whole. My point has always been that of the people who die, the proportion who are vaccinated will remain constant. Think carefully about this. Because the omicron variant is so much more infectious, more are going to die but the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated will not change.
You are correct, that is what they meant and it is how I read it. It is consistent with the title and clearly implies that only 1% of the deaths were vaccinated.
So you're claiming the percentage for critical care will decrease, but not the percentage for deaths. That makes no sense.
The Omicron argument doesn't make sense either. Or are you admitting your logic doesn't hold pre-Omicron?
Things we do know:
May 2020 (when 0% of the population vaccinated): 100% covid deaths are unvaccinated
May 2021: 99% covid deaths unvaccinated
With 100% vaccinated population: 0 deaths unvaccinated. Assuming at least one vaccinated death - 100% covid death vaccinated
So you have to accept the value moved from 100% to 99%. You know how numbers move. We can also have 100.0 - 99.9 - 99.8 -.... It would've gone gradually (whisper: as the vaccination rate increased). Do you think it just jumped from 100 to 99? Or did it move gradually and then just sit there in its happy place?
What if everyone refused the vaccine? Would the 99% figure look different? But your logic says the 99% is from the vaccine efficacy. But that can't be true, because if no one is vaccinated then it's not possible that 99% of deaths are unvaccinated (has to be 100%).
This really is not hard. Of the people who die from covid, the % that are vaccinated depends on the efficacy of the vaccine and the percentage of people vaccinated, at the very least.
-
23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
Rubbish. The % chance that a person dying from covid is about 1% according to the previously published figures. The percentage chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid is unknown.
Well, that's not true because every vaccine has a known relative risk reduction.
23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:I don't intend to carry this on because it is now clear that you wish to at least imply that a vaccinations increase the likelihood of a person dying from covid and that's against forum rules because it is incorrect and is misinformation. There's been a spate of it in the past month or so and it's clearly coming from some misinformation site talking point.
So, when I said:
6 hours ago, marcardar said:The important statistic is not the vac. vs. unvac. proportion of those in critical care (or deaths), but what your chances are when vac. vs. unvac. Bottom line, you're at least 10 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated.
you didn't understand what I meant. Not only was I NOT implying that vaccinated people are more likely to die from covid, but explicitly said that vaccinated people are at least 10 times less likely to die from covid.
Also, you haven't explained why the BMJ gave figures (percentage unvaccinated in critical care) decreasing over time. Completely contradicting your 99% set in stone figure.
The original link actually makes a similar mistake:
QuoteThe analysis was released in May of 2021 and looks at COVID-19 related deaths in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals—only .8% (150) of vaccinated people accounted for the 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May.
What they actually mean is: only .8% (150) of 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were vaccinated.
- 2
-
1 hour ago, ozimoron said:
If there were 20,000 deaths, 200 of them would be vaccinated.
Let's set this out more clearly:
May 2021: 14,850 unvaccinated deaths + 150 vaccinated deaths - So 99% were unvaccinated.
Suddenly, all the unvaccinated get vaccinated, so we have 100% of the population vaccinated.
Now, we've already demonstrated that 150 vaccinated people can die in May 2021, so increasing the number of vaccinated people will increase the number of vaccinated deaths, proportionally (assuming the same infection rates).
This is why I said "at least 200" vaccinated deaths. The number of unvaccinated deaths would be zero because there are no unvaccinated people available to die.
So, using my logic, we would end up with 200 vaccinated deaths + 0 unvaccinated deaths - so 0% were unvaccinated.
Using your circular logic, if there are 200 deaths, then only 2 of those can be vaccinated because the 99% rule is somehow set in stone. However, you have just disproved your own hypothesis, because for that to be true, at least 198 people would need to be unvaccinated, but the scenario only allows for max 0 unvaccinated deaths/people.
1 hour ago, ozimoron said:if vaccinated people are 99 times less likely to die from covid
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between % chance of a vaccinated person dying from covid, and % chance that a person dying from covid has been vaccinated.
-
32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
The sample size wouldn't be large enough to produce a reliable statistic. As we all know, stats require a reasonable sample size to be accurate. Are you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size? That would require a change in propensity for vaccinated people to die of covid.
Well, for this scenario of 100% vaccination coverage, the sample size would be 100% of the population, and you can't get much bigger than that. In the original link, 150 vaccinated people died in May 2021. If 100% of the population was vaccinated, that number would be larger (assuming same infection rates). Let's say at least 200 people. By your logic, there would be at least 20,000 unvaccinated deaths. That's a pretty large number considering 0 unvaccinated people.
QuoteAre you still suggesting that vaccinated people can die in greater proportions than the unvaccinated given a decent sample size?
It depends what you mean by "greater proportions" of what. This is the point I think you haven't yet understood. If everyone is vaccinated then all covid deaths will be of the vaccinated. This is nothing to do with sample size. This doesn't mean that vaccinated people are more likely to die. It just means there are less unvaccinated people who can die. I really don't know how else this can be clearer.
-
1 hour ago, ozimoron said:
Let's get this perfectly clear. The stats provided in that sample showed that 99% of those who died were unvaccinated. That percentage will NEVER change. If more people get vaccinated the total numbers of people dying will reduce but whatever the number of people dying, 99% will be unvaccinated.
So if 100% of people in the population are vaccinated, you still expect 99% of those who die to be unvaccinated, eh?
-
1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:
And this is what's being used by the anti vaxxers. Look at Israel! Heavily vaccinated and still getting lots of cases. They use this to prove the vaccine doesn't work. Which we all know, it does. LOL
What's interesting is that people on all sides don't understand basic statistics.
- 1
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
No, for every 100 unvaccinated people who die, 1 or 2 vaccinated people will die. That number will not change unless the vaccines change or new variants arrive. That's what the Op says.
Not sure if you're trolling or not. But of course that is not true. Simply consider the case where every single person is vaccinated. Then of course 0% of the people who die will be unvaccinated. Have a read of the quote and link I posted.
-
2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
My point is that the "ten times better off" won't change.
That's not true either, because existing vaccines will be less effective against new variants.
But anyway, the original post was specifically about the proportion of those dying, and that will of course decrease from 100% towards 0%. Not linearly, but still it will decrease.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 hours ago, ozimoron said:And how could the proportion of people dying have shifted against the vaccinated? That statistic is likely to have remained similar.
Not sure if this was sarcastic or not. But of course the % of those who die (that are unvaccinated) will gradually fall from 100% (when there was 0% vaccination coverage) to 0% (in the theoretical case where 100% of the population is vaccinated). Indeed, that's what we are seeing.
Although I don't have a link for deaths, here's one (BMJ, not some rag) that talks about vaccination rates amongst those in critical care.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5
QuoteIts latest report, published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from 75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising again in December 2021.
The important statistic is not the vac. vs. unvac. proportion of those in critical care (or deaths), but what your chances are when vac. vs. unvac. Bottom line, you're at least 10 times better off vaccinated than unvaccinated.
- 3
-
They accepted my "Rental Contract" from my landlord. I brought the original and a colour photocopy. The date field (next to his signature), had not been filled but they didn't seem to care/notice. I also brought along my TM30 just in case the rental contract was not sufficient, but I didn't end up showing that so still none-the-wiser if that would have worked. I'd previously contacted some UK passport renewal agent who'd insisted it isn't accepted.
-
Having visited the VFS office in Chiang Mai today, they confirmed the existing passport can still be used for domestic travel but not international travel. The passport was not marked in any way, so I think no problem regarding further visa extensions etc.
They wouldn't give any more details about how long it would take to get the new passport - simply repeating what the website says - up to 11 weeks. When I said I'd seen reports of some people saying 14 days and 3 weeks, they said no way, so let's see!
I arrived about 10-15 minutes before my appointment, was seen straight away (even though there were others waiting) and the whole thing took only about 15 minutes. So very efficient. She checked the size of my two passport photos (which I got done in Photo Bug on Changphuak Rd - excellent service) and went through all 25 colour photocopies of my 48 page passport (I'd done every page including the inside pages before the identity page, though not the outside since that would be getting into paranoia territory haha).
-
21 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:
If you through the steps here you will find everything you need. https://www.gov.uk/overseas-passports
Yeah thanks, I've been through all that. I also phoned the hotline which was totally useless because it just consisted of a person reading out the website.
-
13 minutes ago, dick turpin said:
https://www.richardbarrow.com/2019/06/a-quick-guide-to-renewing-your-british-passport-in-bangkok/
You may find this link useful.
They want proof of address in English.
Do you have any formal type mail you have received from UK
or labels from Lazada deliveries., the more you can show the better.
Yeah thanks I've seen that link. I'm reluctant to try and wing it regarding address evidence. I have a (short term) rental contract in English with my landlord, so maybe that's enough. As a backup I could also bring my TM30 and make use of the translation service mentioned in the other reply's vfsglobal link
-
The UK government website is a bit confusing regarding this. At most, it seems you need proof of identity (old passport can be used for this) AND proof of residence. For the latter, as a tourist, the only thing I have for this is the TM30, but since it's in Thai language, does it work?
-
37 minutes ago, fredscats said:
I'm doing exactly that,did it last time. Apply for new one whilst in Thailand (UK.gov.) Use VPN,75 quid there, 125 here, either send it to relative/friend for picking up,or Royal mail signed for about 7 quid
Will that only work if you report it lost?
-
12 minutes ago, Upnotover said:
You have the option of an emergency travel document from the Embassy if needed.
I was wondering if it's possible to do a standard online renewal application (delivered my the UK address) and pick it up when I visit the UK. However, since I will only be in the UK a couple of weeks, I would need to apply while still in Thailand. This would work as long as my existing/old passport is still good to return to the UK after making that application.
-
3 minutes ago, Crossy said:
The airlines are only interested in confirming your identity.
Your PP will work just fine for domestic travel.
In the past I've used all sorts of photo ID (with passport in my pocked just in case). I never got rejected.
Yes, I suspect so too. But how about returning to the UK in an emergency? They say it could take up to 11 weeks, and that's a long time to potentially hang back.
Staggering COVID-19 Statistic: 98% to 99% of Americans Dying are Unvaccinated
in COVID-19 Coronavirus
Posted
Why do you continue to avoid this data that proves your 99% unvaccinated constant to be nonsense: