Chomper Higgot

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.

Civil cases do not pass down convictions. Yet another gaping hole in your understanding of the topic you are engaging in.

Ignoring the FACT that her respondent stumped up more than three times what was seeking in order to avoid going to trial. Your failure to address this is laughable we’re it not allied to your attempts to obfuscate the sexual abuse and battery of a minor trafficked for sex.

UK police fail to prosecute member of British Royal Family. Shocked I’m not.

He cannot have had consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex. She was not legally competent to give consent. FACT!

If she went to trial she might have lost her $5million claim, she didn’t (for whatever reason) go to trial and trebled what she was seeking. If you can’t work that out stay away from the poker table.

And trebled her winnings at the same time. Your argument doesn’t add up.

She was trafficked for sex at age 17 when she was not legally competent to consent to paid sex. Quit obfuscating.

Again, go read the docket.

Best wishes to HM Queen Elizabeth for a speedy and full recovery. Regardless of any views on monarchy Queen Elizabeth has dedicated her life to the people of the UK and Commonwealth, a fabulous example of selfless public service.

It doesn’t matter who paid for the sex, he had sex with a minor who had been trafficked and paid by others for the purposes of sex. Try dealing with these facts.

You need to read the docket. If only to acquaint yourself with the sex crimes against a minor that your are obfuscating.

Civil cases are all about monitory compensation. She went in looking for $5million and came out with £12million++ She thrashed him hollow.

There are many kinds of justice. She got a lot more than £12millian out of Prince Andrew, he humiliated himself to the point he’s been stripped of his royal titles, honors, public offices and place on the boards of scores of charities. He didn’t simply meet his match, he was destroyed, and all by the choices he made.

You could have just cut to your last sentence.