Stubby

5 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Recently in one of these posts, 80 deaths were reported with a side note that not a ONE of the deceased had received a booster.

 

Things that make you go "Hmmmm?"

Does this suggest that all the deceased were double-vaccinated, then? I thought the vast majority of seriously ill and dead folks were unvaccinated. In the name of sanity... I think it's time to stop reading this stuff because trying to fathom the truth is like a bout of explosive diarrhea in the head.

On 1/5/2022 at 8:49 PM, johnno2 said:

It's a plastic monster, I've never seen so many plastic panels. 

Yes, very plasticky, Johnno2, hence this update. 
 

The GPX Razer is an affordable bike, and it looks cheap without a loving hand polish. But the part that makes it look the cheapest is the smooth plastic panel under the tank with the giant Razer decal. It reminds me of an Airfix model. 
 

Anyway, I got a professional to take the old sticker off and replace it with some quality carbon fiber vinyl wrap. The photo here doesn't do it justice, but this minor modification on either side has made a huge difference. I might even get the front mudguard done.
 

Stubby

 

1 hour ago, humbug said:

 you clearly support the guy in some sort of way, good for you, you can't escape the guy, that's the whole point, you have expats on twitter, posting somone elses tweet or post, that is  negative about the guy, and becoming his social media bouncers, and going on a witch hunt, I saw a few do it, one runs a teaching website, the whole thing is just weird, you can't ignore someone, that many retweet, just not possible, that said, he got a few things wrong visa wise, copied the correct info from this site, and never admitted to it, he seems to be more active on facebook, and twitter is my poison,  so good luck to anyone who finds him useful

RB might feel compelled to share his opinions all over social media. But umm... no one who sees his headlines is forced to read what he's written. I'll leave it at that ????

1 hour ago, DefaultName said:

Because they would be (rightly) accused of hiding data.

See my latest post about that, DN.

8 hours ago, Willy Wombat said:

Pfizer  wants you to get a 4th shot.

= $$$$$$$$$$

I hope all Big Pharma isn't as secretive as Pfizer. It's quite worrying that it took a court order to get them to release the possible side effects of their vaccines. I can understand why they might want to keep them from public view… well, sort of. But why hide them from doctors and others in the medical profession? We already know you can't sue these companies for harmful side effects, so they're not hiding from potential lawsuits. 
 

With headlines like the OP here and secret research results from Big Pharma, it's no wonder some people take an anti stance.

The oil industry must be the only business where price-fixing is not a crime. The greedy producers get away with coordinated supply cuts when the cost per barrel gets too low, then increase supply when prices are through the roof. It's a scam, alright, and they've got us little people over a barrel... pun intended. 

17 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Does 8 hours a day of finger movements on the phone count as exercise?

Of course, it does; it's finger exercise. And many on this forum would qualify for the Olympics if it became a sport. And let's not forget the Barstool Bobs who get plenty of lip exercise as they share their worldly knowledge with anyone who cares to listen. So, any part of your person that moves is getting some form of exercise, but is it enough? Well, the mirror should give the answer to that ????

1 minute ago, robblok said:

If i were to debate cars i would first educate myself before making a fool of myself. 

I came here to ask questions and to be educated. Isn't asking about stuff how one finds answers and builds knowledge? And if I look daft and make a fool of myself in the process, then so be it. But I can say that I know more now than when I started the topic, and that's the point. 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Stubby

43 minutes ago, robblok said:

No need Stubby you demonstrated that you have no clue of basic math or that your bias. Either makes it hard to debate with you as you will probably not understand it. You do have a talent for muddying the water

You're right, I am a dimwit when it comes to numbers, but that doesn't stop me from trying. I doubt I'm alone, though. Walk onto any busy high street with a clipboard and ask 100 random people if they understand the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. How many do you think will even know what you're talking about? Basic math, my eye.

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More misrepresentation.

 

The fact that there is debate and differing opinions in science is not cause to come to the ridiculous conclusion “there is no such thing as ‘The Science’”.

 

I have no problem at all with anyone questioning data, but if as you yourself admit, you don’t understand the math, (even when it’s been explained to you multiple times), then surely you understand doubts being raised in the conclusions you draw.

 

You started with admitting that misunderstanding by asking for some stats to be explained, I and others have provided you crystal clear explanations.

 

You then came back with a clone of your original misunderstanding (same misunderstanding different drug data) and you wrapped that up in an extended anti-science, ant-expert missive, that indicates your adherence to these mindsets.

 

In that context it is entirely reasonable to question your motives, you have after demonstrably moved past ‘difficulty’ with math into the realms of anti-science, anti-experts.

 

One other issue stands out, while I would accept language ability is not always accompanied by mathematical ability, it does go hand in hand with the ability to understand logical arguments.

 

Your quality of written English is well above the average on this forum, I would say well above the average for native English speakers, which then casts doubt on the humility of your earlier claim: ‘After all, I'm just a poorly educated bloke from a lower working-class background, so what do I know ’

 

Reading your posts, noting your switch from a statistics question to a wordy anti-science,  anti-expert missive I’ve come to the conclusion your posts are disingenuous.

 

On the other hand, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I can absolutely understand that if you do indeed lack skills in math, you might very well  struggle to understand when things simply don’t add up.

 

My apologies if you misread the directness of my challenge as aggression, no aggression is intended.

 

 

 

Fair comments, CH. 
 

The problem with the written word is that it's not always possible to come across how one intends. As a result, many debates on forums are misunderstandings rather than deliberate provocations. The exception to that is the internet troll, of course.
 

Truce.
 

Stubby. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This last missive of yours demonstrates the problem that arises from 1 and 2 above.

 

It’s nothing more than the anti-science nonsense you’ve scraped up while digging down the rabbit hole you have been lead down. But thanks for your last missive, it’s exposed your agenda.

There's no need to be so rude and presumptuous, CH.
 

I agree that one should be mindful when debating scientific data in open forums, and even more so if the poster is someone of considerable influence. After all, there's always a risk of sewing doubt, mistrust, and confusion. 

But I assume you don't think it's wrong to question less than transparent or confusing data? And because scientists disagree on so many issues, there is no such thing as "The Science."
 

Of course, I'm not anti-science. I doubt any of us would be living the lives we do without it. And I have no agenda. I'm just a random bloke trying to get grips with confusing data, that's all. Why bother? So that I can make better-informed decisions when it comes to matters of personal health.
 

But please try to be a little less aggressive when responding to strangers on stuff you disagree with.
 

Thank you.
 

Stubby

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

As for Stubby's alleged bewilderment, it's clear from how he presented it that he actually understands the issue perfectly, and the question was rhetorical.

It's not true, Placeholder. 
 

The more I look at numbers presented in textual, tabular, and graphical forms, the more it confuses me. And COVID-19 data can be some of the most confusing. Someone did try to explain this a while back, and it made some sense. But then I came across the same data presented differently and got confused again. 
 

That's why I posted here, and PB gave an excellent, simple, and logical breakdown.
 

WHY THE CONFUSION?
 

Because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and never claim to be. Heck, I can't even recite the 7, 8, and 12 times tables. But being dim doesn't stop one from being curious and at least trying to understand complex data. And when it comes to health-related advice and advertising, ignorance is not bliss, that much I do know.
 

WHY EVEN QUESTION THE DATA?
 

I first started to question the data when my doctor wanted to put me on a statin. I'd heard a lot of good and bad things about these drugs. So, I decided to do a little research in my limited capacity as someone with a low IQ. Here's where the confusion began.
 

ATORVASTATIN REDUCES HEART ATTACK RISK BY 36%
 

I found a statin that claimed to reduce heart attack risk by a whopping 36%. Wow! I thought I'd found the information I needed. But then I noticed a less favorable excerpt in the search results pages, so I opened that. Here's what I found:
 

Researchers monitored two groups over five years.
 

Group 1: took a statin and 98.1% of them did NOT suffer a heart attack (1.9% did).
 

Group 2: took a placebo, and 97% of them did NOT suffer a heart attack (3% did).
 

That told me the statin reduced heart attack risk from 3% to 1.9% or about 1%.

The author explained how they got the 36%, but that's where it went over my head. But I got the impression the 36% was a legal figure but clearly used to mislead the ignorant consumer. I mean, the simple math above tells me the risk reduction is a tad over 1%. I wasn't prepared to take a pill for the rest of my life for something with an almost negligible effect.
 

If anyone thinks that's fair and honest advertising, please set me straight.
 

OUR OVERMEDICALIZED WORLD
 

We're bombarded with so much data these days. Indeed, medical experts constantly urge us to get tested for this, that, and the other <deleted>. But health-related numbers terrify many people, even though most don't understand them.

We worry when medical experts tell us a thing is too high, too low, or on the wrong side of "normal." The latter is when people start taking medications for the so-called pre-conditions, you know, just in case. People worry about cholesterol levels, blood pressure readings, PSA scores (men), and so on.
 

LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS?
 

I suppose the least stressful approach is for laypeople to just listen to the experts. I remember a doctor trying to explain something to me once in technical language. He could have been speaking in Chinese for all I knew, so my reply went something like this: 
 

"Doctor, you know more than I do, and that's all I need to know."
 

And with that, I headed to the front desk to pick up my prescription drugs. Today, though, I dare to question.
 

WHY NUMBERS DIVIDE OPINIONS
 

There are many online debates about data, with both sides claiming they're right and the other is wrong. But it's not that black and white, is it? You could find fully-referenced evidence to support whatever you want to believe in if you dig deep enough.

Even doctors and scientists disagree on what constitutes high (dangerous) cholesterol levels. There are highly-qualified and respected experts on both sides of the argument.
 

So when people say, shut up and follow "the science" and believe in the data... what science, and which data? 
 

JUST FOLLOW THE SCIENCE
 

Richard Horton FRCP FMedSci is the editor-in-chief of a respected UK–based medical journal called the Lancet. Or he was; I don't know if he still is. Anyway, here's what he said about "the science." 
 

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn towards darkness."

Trusted source
 

And I'm sure other experts strongly disagree with him, and there, dear reader, lies the problem.
 

Anyhow, thanks for the contributions here; it's appreciated ????
 

Stubby

32 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

I have the conversation about point vs % every few weeks, with experts who cannot grasp why no-one understands them and laypeople who cannot understand why the figures are so contradictory.

 

I don't think medical stat reporting is necessarily dishonest, but there are definitely major issues at the moment with medical statisticians suddenly finding themselves having to communicate with the general public, and being largely untrained for it. It creates a lot of confusion.

 

As a general rule, popular media coverage of all kinds of statistics is frequently manipulative if not outright dishonest.

I agree, and it's the reason for my post here. If things were explained to Joe Public in non-doctor speak, there would probably be fewer virtual battles between the smarty pants, ill-informed, and plain ignorant. Great work, though, PB, you managed to educate me, and that's no easy task, so well done ????
 

Stubby

1 hour ago, Polar Bear said:

You are confusing percentage points with percent (%).

If in November, out of 100 people 10 of them catch COVID. That's 10% that caught it.
If in December, out of 100 people, 15 of them catch COVID. That's 15% that caught it.

But the change from 10 to 15 is an increase of 50 percent (%) or 5 percentage points (often just called points unless the writer is deliberately trying to confuse or fudge the difference between points and percent).

When the media want a small risk to look bigger, they will typically use %. 
The risk increases from 0.025% to 0.05%. OMG it's a 100% increase in the risk!

When they want a big risk to look smaller, they will typically use points.
The risk increased from 10% to 20%. That's 'only' a 10 percentage point increase. 

But in the first example you still have a tiny risk overall (0.05%) and in the second you have a relatively big risk (20%).

Thanks, PB, so you're saying both sets of figures are correct? And which ones an expert uses depends on what message they want to get across? In the case of COVID-19 percentages, why don't they explain what the increase/decrease percentage is derived from, just so that it's clear for we laypeople?

For example, this is an actual headline and quite typical when it comes to reporting COVID stats:
 

COVID-19 Booster Reduces Delta Variant Mortality by 90%. 
 

But the question remains the same, i.e., 90% of what? Or perhaps it's better not to ask and just read it as intended. It would certainly make life a lot simpler, but it is frustrating.
 

Stubby

All these percentages of risk and risk reduction continue to confuse me, even after two years of data bombardment. I assume those who post these figures have a better grasp of the stats. So… perhaps someone can break it all down as if explaining it to a 5-year-old? But first, let me go over the confusion.
 

If an expert says there's an X% risk reduction by doing Y, it's a percentage of what—exactly? Let me try to explain as best I can.
 

The example below is hypothetical to keep things as simple as possible. 
 

BOOSTER SHOTS REDUCE COVID-19 HOSPITALIZATIONS BY 50%
 

If the chance of Omicron hospitalization is 2 in every 100 UNVACCINATED people, that's a risk of 2%. 
 

If the chance of Omicron hospitalization is 1 in every 100 VACCINATED people, that's a risk of 1%. 

2% – 1% = 1% risk reduction.
 

So how does the headline equate to 50%? From what I can see, it all depends on how the authors represent the figures. 
 

1% risk ÷ 2% risk = 50% risk reduction.
 

Or maybe I've got myself flummoxed over nothing—it happens! After all, I'm just a poorly educated bloke from a lower working-class background, so what do I know ????
 

Thank you in advance,
 

Stubby

On 2/4/2022 at 2:30 PM, thaitom said:

Goodbye !  now to flush them out of the villages, namely mine !  KM.48

Me and Me and Me and My!
My ego is the only "I".
All the rest can go to hell
Im ok so all is well.

5 hours ago, Scott said:

The risks are considerably greater for the unvaccinated should they get infected.   People who report adverse effects are most likely at a much greater risk for the same adverse effects from an actual infection.  In other words, if you get a mild, short-lived heart inflammation known as Myocarditis from the shot, you most likely would get a much worse case from an actual infection.   The same goes for most of the adverse reactions.   In fact, the unvaccinated are 37 times more likely to get Myocarditis than the vaccinated.

 

Those with healthy immune systems and no serious health issues have also gotten seriously ill and died.  Covid is well known for causing Hypercytokinemia, also known as a cytokine storm.   Cytokines are the cells that help control the various responses to the infection including inflammation and blood clotting.  When they over-react, then some nasty things happen.  This is the reason that so many people died.  The lungs experienced too much inflammation, fill with fluid and patients ended up on a ventilator.   This isn't caused by the virus; it's caused by our own immune system.   

 

When you are vaccinated, you may get an extremely mild reaction, but that is indicative of what an actual infection would produce, only much, much more severe.   

 

In spite of the advances in treating Covid, we still have not made significant inroads into ways of controlling a cytokine storm.  Cytokine storms are a big factor in causing serious illness and death.

That's interesting, thank you for posting. I was always under the impression that healthy folks had little to worry about, especially those under a certain age. I obviously haven't been keeping up with the ever changing data, but part of that has been for reasons of sanity.