Chomper Higgot

Oh that makes Russia’s invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine alright then.

Meanwhile the Russian stock market responds: https://markets.ft.com/data/world/countries/russia And US, UK, EU sanctions are being ramped up. In what nation will the hyper wealthy continue to see their wealth destroyed before they bring about political change?

Go on tell us what you think NATO is. And while you are at it ask yourself this question, does Putin’s invasion of Ukraine strength or weaken support for NATO?

Looking back through history, when was the last time compromising with an aggressor invading nations worked out in anyone’s favor, or there than that of the aggressor.

You mean you missed the bit where Putin was already ordering the murder of people in the UK and elsewhere?

I’m not at all sure why you thought I was referring to you, given I’ve previously commented on the convenience of not revealing which vaccines was administered to someone who frequently brings up the topic of ‘side effects’ in the vaccines most have received.

It’s the ‘I was a strong supporter of [insert idea/movement/political party/candidate] but now I’ve seen the light, game play.

Precisely, this decision is made possible by the acceptance vaccinations amongst the vast majority of the population.

The arguments as to why it was different have already been made. Which is why it was different.

L I tend to agree. I’m a very long way from denigrating the OP, quite the polar opposite. I have already expressed my opinion, together with the basis of that opinion, that the OP is very far away from being the ‘dimwit’ he himself repeatedly insists he is. It’s an example of anti-intellectualism appealing to people who themselves lack higher education or math skills beyond basic math then, as we have seen, following up with well structured misinformation. But, as my dad used to say, you can’t kid a kidder.

The lack of math education amongst the general population is not proof that the basic math they don’t understand is nevertheless basic. Incidentally, it’s ‘probability’ not ‘risk’.

I’ve yet to see data from the reliable sources (CDC, NHS, UK Gov etc) de-bunked by anyone. That someone has previously been vaccinated does not prevent them being ‘Anti-Vaccine’ when they are presenting arguments against the vaccines being used to combat the virus that is the cause of the Pandemic. This but a especially so when many of the anti-vaccines arguments are based on misinformation and misrepresentation of fact.

Thanks for sharing

What’s this “There has been so much use of data by one side of the debate to try and prove that THEY are on the side of the angels”. Both sides of the debate have presented data, it’s just one side has had a habit of misrepresenting what the data says. I’ve spent many happy hours examining data presented by Anti-Vaxers on this forum, unraveling their false conclusions and presenting worked examples to demonstrate their errors and the correct interpretation of the data. I have never once had anyone challenge the calculations I have presented. Curiously Anyi-Vaxers present the very same misrepresentation, often of the very same data. From this I conclude, they are being fed misinformation from the same source and can’t challenge corrections to that misinformation because they are blindly parroting mis represented data they don’t understand. I can’t be bothered to go back and find examples of such misrepresented data, but I’d surprised if you ignored it when it was posted.

The OP asked a question regarding his difficulty understanding the presentation of an absolute percentage and a relative change in absolute percentage. He later presented a repeat of the question with reference to a different drug. I and others provided worked examples of the mathematical method, deliberately choosing rounded percentages in order to make the explanation requested by the OP clear. Feel free to put the real numbers into the worked examples if you wish to get the actual percentages for the actual vaccinations, the methodology explained will give you that. But that wasn’t the question the OP asked, so let’s not pretend actual numbers were at all necessary to answer his question.

I like robust debate and intelligent debate. Pleased to see you willing to engage in this.

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.

Thailand has recently raised the COVID alert Level to ‘4’. https://www.thaipbsworld.com/covid-infection-risk-raised-back-to-level-4-in-thailand/

it’s a direct result of the people of Thailand doing their bit and getting vaccinated.

Roman script languages were not always presented in the format we use today, that of individual words in punctuated sentences. Classical Latin, a root of very many European languages was written somewhat like modern Thai, all words in a single sentence conjoined, with no punctuation. The only punctuation used was the ‘period’, usually elevated to the centerline of the text to indicate the preceding letter is an abbreviation. Latin sentences were first broken into individual words around the 6th Century CE by Irish monks. The most plausible explanation for this change is the decline in Latin as a spoken language and hence to aid reading Latin as a second language. The European linguist to whom you refer was of course likewise reading Thai as a second language.

1. The example claim you cite wrt Statin efficacy is entirely accurate following the very same math that has been explained to you above. 2. Looking stuff up on the internet is not ‘research’. Apart from the obvious problem you yourself admit regarding your inability to understand the data or math behind the data, the process of internet searching is manipulated by algorithms that look for and feed your own bias. 3. 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.

The same math applies. To illustrate: If the current death rate is 10 per 100 infections. It is the 10 deaths that is being reduced by 90%. 10 -(90% of 10) = 10-9= 1. So the example death rate drops to from 10 per 100 to 1 per 100. ……. Again for the reasons I gave above, I prefer, especially with death rates, to see the percentages and the total real numbers.

Another way to look at it is: A 2% probability is 2 in 100 If the probability is reduced to 1% then it becomes 1 in 100 OR For two people to become infected 2 in 200. You would need to have twice as many people to get the same number of infections, therefore the probability of infection has halved. …… While I do agree statistics are sometimes used to misrepresent facts, I don’t believe all misrepresentation is deliberate. Despite the significant role statistics play in our daily lives very few people have anything beyond a minimal understanding of the subject, a problem that gets even more pronounced when the subject of ‘Risk’ comes up. I the matter of COVID outcomes, I prefer to see both the percentages and the actual numbers. As I often remark, the percentages can, and are often used to, hide the reality of individual suffering, loss and grief.

The jury in the Ahmaud Arbery case have handed down guilty verdicts for Federal Hate crimes. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/22/ahmaud-arbery-murderers-guilty-federal-hate-crimes

You know it’s your fault, stop blaming everyone else and pay up. The longer you avoid facing up to the fact you will ultimately pay, the more it’s going to cost you. And has been noted above, this is not a lot of money for the likely consequences if you take this to court. Pay your dues and learn from the experience.