Help a Layman Understand the COVID-19 Numbers, Please

[Polar Bear]

We aren't even using the actual statistics. We are making numbers up that happen to be convenient for the calculations. ????

[cdemundo]

22 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

 

On 2/22/2022 at 1:50 AM, 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 comparison is between boosted and unboosted.

90% reduction means that the number of occurrences (deaths) in the boosted group is 10% of the number of deaths in the unboosted group.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by cdemundo

[Danderman123]

4 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?

Stubby’s post questioned the accuracy of a report about vaccine efficacy.

 

He neglected the flip side of his objections, what is the efficacy of remaining unvaccinated? Since the unvaccinated die at a rate some 50 times more than those with boosters, a rational person would opt for full vaccination.

 

 

[Danderman123]

It is common for Covid deniers and anti-vaxxers to sow doubt by questioning various statistics about Covid. Or by discussing questionable clinical trials.

 

The deniers and anti-vaxxers are fed by a misinformation network that constantly produces material for their victims to post on social media. They are not stupid enough to spread the message that vaccines don’t work, but rather to attack around the edges, focusing on posting misleading quotes or poorly conducted clinical trials.

 

this misinformation network is based on the Climate Change Denier lie factory, which has pretty much closed up shop and refocused on Covid.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

We aren't even using the actual statistics. We are making numbers up that happen to be convenient for the calculations. ????

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.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

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.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[robblok]

20 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

Stubby, your anti science.

 

Of course stating reduce the risk by 36% That is a perfect calculation. There is nothing wrong with it at all. 

 

If you have 1 out of 100 lottery tickets and later you have 2 out of a 100 you double you chance to win the lottery. Its that simple its pure math.

 

Maybe you don't understand math and stuff in that case it is indeed much smarter to leave thinking to other people. Its ok Stubby not all of us are equally gifted intelligence wise. 

 

Now if you get 2% interest on your saving and later you get 4% would you say you just doubled the amount of interest you got or did will you say you got 2% more interest (wrong). You get the double percentage you got 100% more interest. I think your trying to muddy the water. But that is ok antivaxers try all kind of things and fail.

[Stubby]

I can see some new posts using the all-too-familiar COVID denier, anti-vaxxer, and anti-science, rhetoric. That is not what this topic is about. I can also see that some Inflammatory and off-topic posts have been removed... probably more name calling. 
 

IT'S OK TO QUESTION
 

Those who question data and want more clarification are not anti-anything. If they were, they would say this is nonsense, that's a lie, and put down any response they happen to disagree with. Such people don't ask questions because they already have their answers. 
 

Some people have taken the time to write detailed responses to the opening post. They've been extremely helpful and appreciated. Those who want a heated debate with COVID deniers, anti-vaxxers, and science deniers are in the wrong place. My advice would be to search the forum and find a topic where you can really let rip.
 

Thank you.
 

Stubby

Edited February 24, 2022 by Stubby

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

I haven't seen as much original data presented by those that are opposed to certain covid vaccines ( saying they are "anti" vaccination is hardly true if they have been vaccinated for other diseases, but how could you know if they have or have not been vaccinated for other diseases? Fake label IMO, designed to deflect from what they are saying. ) as presented by those posters that are pro certain covid vaccines. Mostly it's debunking the data put up by the pro side, IMO. I think both sides can be accused of parroting data they don't understand. Whichever side the data comes from, I basically ignore it, as it's boring.

Far as I'm concerned, I'll get infected, or not, be hospitalised, or not, die, or not. It's coin toss IMO. Whatever happens, I'm not going to hide in my room.

 

Like you, I can’t be bothered to go back and find examples, but at least, while I support 100% those that choose not to get vaccinated, I can hardly be accused of being anti vaccination, though I refused to have pfizer.

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

I can see some new posts using the all-too-familiar COVID denier, anti-vaxxer, and anti-science, rhetoric. That is not what this topic is about. I can also see that some Inflammatory and off-topic posts have been removed... probably more name calling. 
 

IT'S OK TO QUESTION
 

Those who question data and want more clarification are not anti-anything. If they were, they would say this is nonsense, that's a lie, and put down any response they happen to disagree with. Such people don't ask questions because they already have their answers. 
 

Some people have taken the time to write detailed responses to the opening post. They've been extremely helpful and appreciated. Those who want a heated debate with COVID deniers, anti-vaxxers, and science deniers are in the wrong place. My advice would be to search the forum and find a topic where you can really let rip.
 

Thank you.
 

Stubby

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. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute 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. 

Denigrating other posters adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation, though it does say something about yourself.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Denigrating other posters adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation, though it does say something about yourself.

Not really mr beachlover, when someone on purpose portraits things wrong there is no point in debating. If you don't understand basic math how can you even debate things then. A certain level of education is needed to debate and if someone does not understand how to calculate certain stuff then what is the point.

 

If you get 2% on your savings account and they increase, it to 4% interest then that is a 100% increase not a 2%. If someone does not understand something as basic as that then how can you debate?

 

If you normally buy 1 lottery ticket and later, you buy 2 you double your chance its a 100% increase in chance of winning (provided the number of total tickets stay the same). This is how you write stuff down. Its the basis of all things. 

 

Now if i were to start debating something i have no clue about like cars then I don't expect someone with much more knowledge to take me serious if i don't even know the basics. 

 

That has nothing to do with denigrating but with common sense.

 

In this case I doubt it was just education / intelligence but more him wanting to muddy the water.

[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.

[robblok]

Just now, Stubby said:

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.

There is no problem in being a dimwit like you said Stubby, the problem is when you then try to attack numbers without knowing how they are generated.

 

I would not be stupid enough to do something like that, I know my limitations. I will never be dragged into a debate about cars or other technical things as I don't have the know-how. Im a total dimwit when its about technical things. 

 

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

 

 

[Stubby]

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

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Stubby said:

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

Stubby, 

 

I thought you came here to muddy the water, I did not think you came to be educated. But that was just the impression i got from your later posts not your first ones.

 

You seem to be a vocal opponent of vaccination and covid rules. So that might have given me the wrong impression. 

 

I too come to learn stuff but i pose my questions different from yours less combative on subjects i know little about.  The whole covid debate is combative if you really wanted to learn I would have phrased the questions differently more neutral. You did not. Now that could have been an oversight but I made the call (perhaps wrongly so) that you were muddying the water.

 

If this was e genuine attempt to learn something I hope you learned new things. You seem to be using terminology perfectly right now. Absolute and relative. 

[placeholder]

On 2/23/2022 at 12:42 PM, Stubby said:

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.

Why did you tamper with the quote from Richard Horton? 

And do you think Horton himself has a problem with the science concerning Covid?

"This expanded, updated, and completely revised edition of The COVID-19 Catastrophe is the authoritative guide to a global health crisis that has consumed the world. Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, scrutinizes the actions taken by governments as they sought to contain the novel coronavirus. He shows that indecision and disregard for scientific evidence has led many political leaders to preside over hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and the worst global economic crisis for three centuries."

https://www.wiley.com/en-ie/The+COVID+19+Catastrophe:+What's+Gone+Wrong+and+How+To+Stop+It+Happening+Again,+2nd+Edition-p-9781509549092

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I haven't seen as much original data presented by those that are opposed to certain covid vaccines ( saying they are "anti" vaccination is hardly true if they have been vaccinated for other diseases, but how could you know if they have or have not been vaccinated for other diseases? Fake label IMO, designed to deflect from what they are saying. ) as presented by those posters that are pro certain covid vaccines. Mostly it's debunking the data put up by the pro side, IMO. I think both sides can be accused of parroting data they don't understand. Whichever side the data comes from, I basically ignore it, as it's boring.

Far as I'm concerned, I'll get infected, or not, be hospitalised, or not, die, or not. It's coin toss IMO. Whatever happens, I'm not going to hide in my room.

 

Like you, I can’t be bothered to go back and find examples, but at least, while I support 100% those that choose not to get vaccinated, I can hardly be accused of being anti vaccination, though I refused to have pfizer.

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.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

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.

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’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

L

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Denigrating other posters adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation, though it does say something about yourself.

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.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

Also, just because someone claims to be vaccinated, that doesn't mean that they really are. Could just be social engineering. We're all anonymous here. 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

I don't think I've ever presented myself as anything but an opponent of mandates and suchlike, but that applies to any situation, not just covid.

It's that that I confront, not vaccinations per se, given I have all the relevant vaccinations in my life. I have reservations about pfizer and related vaccines, which I refused to take, but that is related to the technology used and the short time taken to bring it into use. I took an alternative as soon as it became available that didn't use the same technology. Don't bother trying to blind me with science about it as I've heard all the pro arguments and they make zero difference to my opinion.

 

Saying something is "misinformation" 500 times isn't going to change my mind, given that the pro side is IMO trying to bludgeon us into submission. Even if I had no problem with the technology, the attacks by the pro side are such that I'd not have it just to oppose that abuse.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Also, just because someone claims to be vaccinated, that doesn't mean that they really are. Could just be social engineering. We're all anonymous here. 

Exactly right, and applies equally to you and everything you say.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Also, just because someone claims to be vaccinated, that doesn't mean that they really are. Could just be social engineering. We're all anonymous here. 

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

 

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly right, and applies equally to you and everything you say.

No, it would apply to personal, unconfirmable claims made by me. Which is a practice I don't engage in. But when I do make an assertion I either  link to  supporting evidence, or have it available, should that assertion be challenged.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Assuming that is referring to me, you are making stuff up again. I only got vaccinated unwillingly because it would have been too difficult not to be. Luckily I was able to do so as an alternative to pfizer had just become available.

Otherwise, no change in my opinions re idea/movement/political party/candidate.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assuming that is referring to me, you are making stuff up again. I only got vaccinated unwillingly because it would have been too difficult not to be. Luckily I was able to do so as an alternative to pfizer had just become available.

Otherwise, no change in my opinions re idea/movement/political party/candidate.

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.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

Indeed I do, given the severe side effects suffered by a friend of mine after receiving his second jab. Not something I wished to have inflicted on me.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed I do, given the severe side effects suffered by a friend of mine after receiving his second jab. Not something I wished to have inflicted on me.

A statement to be judged in the context with your posting history.

[mommysboy]

On 2/24/2022 at 4:19 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

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 agree with most of your arguments. I don't want to be a grammar bore, and I may be wrong, but..