Help a Layman Understand the COVID-19 Numbers, Please

[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

[Polar Bear]

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%).

[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

 

[Polar Bear]

One reason they do it because experts often have no idea that other people find the difference between points and percent confusing. If they are using the % symbol, it should be percent and not points. Newspapers sometimes use % when they mean points, and it's debatable as to whether it was an error or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but an expert should know better. 

For this, 'COVID-19 Booster Reduces Delta Variant Mortality by 90%' without knowing the actual numbers, it's impossible to say.

But if the mortality rate in the unvaccinated is 1% (I made that number up), so 1/100 people infected die, or 10/1,000 then a 90% reduction would mean 0.1/100 or 1/1,000 die.

[Stubby]

15 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

One reason they do it because experts often have no idea that other people find the difference between points and percent confusing. If they are using the % symbol, it should be percent and not points. Newspapers sometimes use % when they mean points, and it's debatable as to whether it was an error or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but an expert should know better. 

For this, 'COVID-19 Booster Reduces Delta Variant Mortality by 90%' without knowing the actual numbers, it's impossible to say.

But if the mortality rate in the unvaccinated is 1% (I made that number up), so 1/100 people infected die, or 10/1,000 then a 90% reduction would mean 0.1/100 or 1/1,000 die.

OK, thanks for taking the time to explain that, PB. You're a lot smarter than I am, that's for sure.

I've concluded that medical stat reporting - although accurate - is perhaps not always honest. But I could also be wrong ????
 

Best regards,
 

Stubby

[Polar Bear]

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.

[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

[placeholder]

4 hours 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%).

Nonsense. It's not a matter of the media wanting anything. Comparative percentages is how epidemiologists assess the effectiveness of vaccines. So if over a given stretch of time 1/10th the percentage of the unvaccinated are affected in respect to the unvaccinated, that's an effectiveness of 90%. And when the death rate of the unvaccinated outnumbers the death rate of the vaccinated by 14 to one, that's roughly a mortality effectiveness of 93%. And if you think that's just some number that the media are exploiting to alarm the general public tell that to hospitals and health care workers where ICUs are being overrun thanks to the unvaccinated.

[Polar Bear]

Please read the topic properly. None of the headlines Stubby gives as examples are about vaccine efficacy. For example,

 

BOOSTER SHOTS REDUCE COVID-19 HOSPITALIZATIONS BY 50%

 

2% – 1% = 1% risk reduction.

 

His question is 50% of what, and it's a fair question. And the explanation is points Vs % which is often problematic.

 

There is so much poor reporting of the statistics, (both to make them look better and to make them look worse, depending on the agenda of the newspaper), it's no wonder people get confused.

 

We can argue about whether that's done deliberately for dramatic effect, or whether it's just incompetent reporting. Either way, it undermines public confidence in the figures and the science when the public see data that looks contradictory because it's poorly explained.

[Atlantis]

@Polar Bear

 

Thank you for taking the time to write clear, well-balanced, and on-topic posts. You are much more generous with your time than many of us. Good on you.

 

 

[cdemundo]

If group A has a risk of 2/100, that is 2% risk.

If group B has a risk of 1/100, that is 1% risk.

 

Group B has half the risk of group A.

That is a 50% reduction of risk.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post reported and removed.  

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

Please read the topic properly. None of the headlines Stubby gives as examples are about vaccine efficacy. For example,

 

BOOSTER SHOTS REDUCE COVID-19 HOSPITALIZATIONS BY 50%

 

2% – 1% = 1% risk reduction.

 

His question is 50% of what, and it's a fair question. And the explanation is points Vs % which is often problematic.

 

There is so much poor reporting of the statistics, (both to make them look better and to make them look worse, depending on the agenda of the newspaper), it's no wonder people get confused.

 

We can argue about whether that's done deliberately for dramatic effect, or whether it's just incompetent reporting. Either way, it undermines public confidence in the figures and the science when the public see data that looks contradictory because it's poorly explained.

Of course, it's about efficacy. That's how efficacy (or effectiveness to be precise) is calculated. 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.

[Scott]

A couple of posts which are starting to go off-topic have been removed.  The topic isn't about anti-vaxxers; it's about statistics and calculations. 

 

There is so much noise around various statistics, it's worthy of a discussion.  

 

Keep it civil and stay on topic.

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, Stubby said:

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, Stubby said:

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

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.

 

 

[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

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, Stubby said:

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

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.

 

 

 

[Stubby]

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. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Stubby said:

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. 

I like robust debate and intelligent debate.

 

Pleased to see you willing to engage in this.

[Danderman123]

On 2/22/2022 at 5:19 AM, Stubby said:

OK, thanks for taking the time to explain that, PB. You're a lot smarter than I am, that's for sure.

I've concluded that medical stat reporting - although accurate - is perhaps not always honest. But I could also be wrong ????
 

Best regards,
 

Stubby

You are missing the forest for the trees. 

 

If you don't want to die from Covid, get vaccinated, early and often. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Stubby said:

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

Get vaccinated. There is no serious disagreement among scientists about the importance of vaccines in saving lives. 

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, Stubby said:

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

Those are old quotes, based on the problem that there are a lot of worthless clinical trials. The scientific community weeds out bad clinical trials, like the early studies of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

During October–November, unvaccinated persons had 13.9 and 53.2 times the risks for infection and COVID-19–associated death, respectively, compared with fully vaccinated persons who received booster doses, and 4.0 and 12.7 times the risks compared with fully vaccinated persons without booster doses.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Polar Bear]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

You are missing the forest for the trees. 

 

If you don't want to die from Covid, get vaccinated, early and often. 

 

 

There is nothing, literally nothing, in any of Stubby's posts (or mine) about whether someone should get vaccinated or not. 

Where is all this stuff coming from?

[Scott]

2 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

There is nothing, literally nothing, in any of Stubby's posts (or mine) about whether someone should get vaccinated or not. 

Where is all this stuff coming from?

I am not sure where it is coming from either, at least not on this thread.  I took a crap-load of statistics when I was in University and we had to do a variety of experiments and present them in a paper.   I was never particularly intuitive with numbers although I did well in the courses.   We had pretty specific instructions about how to present our numbers.  

 

A lot of non-scientific publications presenting data for lay people do a lot of mathematical gyrations with numbers.  It takes me a few minutes to figure out where it is going.  

 

I for one, appreciate, the refresher course on the numbers.

 

As far as vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, it's pretty well known that much of the decision has a basis in politics.   There are some people, and I know a few, that have no political leanings, but they still won't get vaccinated.  There is no particular number that will change their mind, it doesn't matter if it is a % or points or X times greater, they are not getting vaccinated.  

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Stubby said:

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

Well said.

 

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, but it's so confusing to me that I tend to ignore it all and go on the reported death rate.

Just because x number of people become infected, IMO it doesn't mean it's necessarily as bad as one side of the debate wants us to believe. After all, some don't even know they were infected without a test.

Seems to me that there are a lot of vested interests involved in this pandemic, and some are using data to try and make people fearful. They've been quite successful till recently, but at last reason seems to be taking over as some countries give up the mandates and try to return to some sort of normal.