Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

Some pretty nasty uninformed shit right there. We even saw it on this board. Absolutely despicable behavior.

Please, explain the science, especially the assumptions made to "model" that outcome.

[kalm]

Please, explain the science, especially the assumptions made to "model" that outcome.

The study is in the link. Knock yourself out.

[SeattleGriz]

Please, explain the science, especially the assumptions made to "model" that outcome.

The study is in the link. Knock yourself out.

Don't need to. This "study" has already been ripped apart.

[kalm]

The study is in the link. Knock yourself out.

Don't need to. This "study" has already been ripped apart.

Sure it has.

[SeattleGriz]

Don't need to. This "study" has already been ripped apart.

Sure it has.

First. This is a mathematical model study. Someone had to make assumptions in order for the model to function.

Second. This is also why you don't vaccinate the placebo arm of your RCTs. That's why it was such a big deal when Pfizer and Moderna both vaccinated their placebo arms at 4 months. That was one of the best forms of data.

The claims that are now being made are all done from the lower levels of evidence. Math models are near the bottom.

At least they didn't throw in car accidents prevented due to vax status like the other study people made fun of.

[BDKJMU]

Lawl, looks like Kalm just got dunked on…

[kalm]

Lawl, looks like Kalm just got dunked on…

Did I?

Guess I’ll have wait for the actual studies that paint a different picture.

[houndawg]

Please, explain the science, especially the assumptions made to "model" that outcome.

Thats probably exactly what the article tells you.

[houndawg]

The study is in the link. Knock yourself out.

Don't need to. This "study" has already been ripped apart.

By whom?

[SeattleGriz]

Don't need to. This "study" has already been ripped apart.

By whom?

The vaccine makers own phase III data. It showed there were more deaths in the vaccinated crowd than the unvaccinated. Pretty straightforward.

Not to mention, a MODEL.

It's why I never posted the mathematical model showing 80% of the population has pre-existing levels of immunity when COVID hit. Models make multiple assumptions and it's hilarious to see what gets output when you have multiple teams creating their own models from the same data.

[kalm]

By whom?

The vaccine makers own phase III data. It showed there were more deaths in the vaccinated crowd than the unvaccinated. Pretty straightforward.

Not to mention, a MODEL.

It's why I never posted the mathematical model showing 80% of the population has pre-existing levels of immunity when COVID hit. Models make multiple assumptions and it's hilarious to see what gets output when you have multiple teams creating their own models from the same data.

Woo boy…the first sentence in your last paragraph.

Show one recognized scientific org that supports exactly what it is you’re trying to lay down (and no…you don’t get to do a data dump to flood the disinformation pond).

Otherwise it’s pretty much the same as the climate debate 20 years ago. Contrarianism mixed with some politically driven funding.

Yawn.

[SeattleGriz]

The vaccine makers own phase III data. It showed there were more deaths in the vaccinated crowd than the unvaccinated. Pretty straightforward.

Not to mention, a MODEL.

It's why I never posted the mathematical model showing 80% of the population has pre-existing levels of immunity when COVID hit. Models make multiple assumptions and it's hilarious to see what gets output when you have multiple teams creating their own models from the same data.

Woo boy…the first sentence in your last paragraph.

Show one recognized scientific org that supports exactly what it is you’re trying to lay down (and no…you don’t get to do a data dump to flood the disinformation pond).

Otherwise it’s pretty much the same as the climate debate 20 years ago. Contrarianism mixed with some politically driven funding.

Yawn.

Uh, the peer reviewed paper that was put out into the scientific libraries supports that modeling came up with 80% of the population had some level of pre-existing immunity to COVID.

Oh,I forgot. You support that liar on the climate side. Mr Hockey stick. Won't show his data or methodology.

[kalm]

Woo boy…the first sentence in your last paragraph.

Show one recognized scientific org that supports exactly what it is you’re trying to lay down (and no…you don’t get to do a data dump to flood the disinformation pond).

Otherwise it’s pretty much the same as the climate debate 20 years ago. Contrarianism mixed with some politically driven funding.

Yawn.

Uh, the peer reviewed paper that was put out into the scientific libraries supports that modeling came up with 80% of the population had some level of pre-existing immunity to COVID.

Oh,I forgot. You support that liar on the climate side. Mr Hockey stick. Won't show his data or methodology.

So you’ve got nothing but your own speculation.

BTW, Mann’s work was validated years ago. He’s still working in climate science in fact.

You’ll get there someday, son. I’m rooting for ya!

[SeattleGriz]

Uh, the peer reviewed paper that was put out into the scientific libraries supports that modeling came up with 80% of the population had some level of pre-existing immunity to COVID.

Oh,I forgot. You support that liar on the climate side. Mr Hockey stick. Won't show his data or methodology.

So you’ve got nothing but your own speculation.

BTW, Mann’s work was validated years ago. He’s still working in climate science in fact.

You’ll get there someday, son. I’m rooting for ya!

What specifically are you asking for? The study that modelled 80% of the population had some level of COVID immunity, or a scientific group that supports cross reactivity due to similarities of other viruses?

If Mann's work was validated, and by whom, then why didn't he use it in his trial? Because nobody outside his group has seen the data or methodology, that's why.

[kalm]

So you’ve got nothing but your own speculation.

BTW, Mann’s work was validated years ago. He’s still working in climate science in fact.

You’ll get there someday, son. I’m rooting for ya!

What specifically are you asking for? The study that modelled 80% of the population had some level of COVID immunity, or a scientific group that supports cross reactivity due to similarities of other viruses?

If Mann's work was validated, and by whom, then why didn't he use it in his trial? Because nobody outside his group has seen the data or methodology, that's why.

Any substantive rebuke from a legitimate source of the Lancet Journal’s findings.

You obviously haven’t read up much on the whole history of Mann’s research and litigation. Apply the same scrutiny you show with defending Trump and Putin but again, use unbiased sources. His work was validated quite awhile ago regardless of the obvious smear campaign by Nat. Review, CEI and others.

This has been discussed before.

But don’t take my word or Heartland Institute’s word for it. Here’s a relatively recent update from the National Academy of Science….

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118

[SeattleGriz]

What specifically are you asking for? The study that modelled 80% of the population had some level of COVID immunity, or a scientific group that supports cross reactivity due to similarities of other viruses?

If Mann's work was validated, and by whom, then why didn't he use it in his trial? Because nobody outside his group has seen the data or methodology, that's why.

Any substantive rebuke from a legitimate source of the Lancet Journal’s findings.

You obviously haven’t read up much on the whole history of Mann’s research and litigation. Apply the same scrutiny you show with defending Trump and Putin but again, use unbiased sources. His work was validated quite awhile ago regardless of the obvious smear campaign by Nat. Review, CEI and others.

This has been discussed before.

But don’t take my word or Heartland Institute’s word for it. Here’s a relatively recent update from the National Academy of Science….

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118

https://brownstone.org/articles/more-fl ... ves-saved/

Here ya go. Some of the incorrect assumptions that were incorporated into the model. It's a table and looked horrible when I tried to paste.

By the way, while it doesn't make me an expert on the topic, I worked as a Product Manager for a team of data scientists, so I know a thing or two about assumptions and what it can do to a model.

Switching topics. How come all the current weather models are incorrect and don't match reality? Proxy data (calculated) and assumptions.

[JohnStOnge]

This will not affect SeattleGriz. He will just say, again, the you can't trust mediabiasfactcheck. But I do consult mediabiasfactcheck. And I thought the rest of you may be interested in what it has to say about the source SeattleGriz chose to rebut the modeling study on COVID-19 vaccinations:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownsto ... tute-bias/

Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.

It's just ridiculous. Don't believe credible sources like the CDC, the FDA, the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Virology, etc. Believe a political think tank called the Brownstone Institute. Right.

[SeattleGriz]

This will not affect SeattleGriz. He will just say, again, the you can't trust mediabiasfactcheck. But I do consult mediabiasfactcheck. And I thought the rest of you may be interested in what it has to say about the source SeattleGriz chose to rebut the modeling study on COVID-19 vaccinations:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownsto ... tute-bias/

Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.

It's just ridiculous. Don't believe credible sources like the CDC, the FDA, the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Virology, etc. Believe a political think tank called the Brownstone Institute. Right.

Can you refute the author pointing out the flawed assumptions in the model? That's all that matters, not your ad hominems, non sequiturs and weak ass appeals to authority.

[houndawg]

This will not affect SeattleGriz. He will just say, again, the you can't trust mediabiasfactcheck. But I do consult mediabiasfactcheck. And I thought the rest of you may be interested in what it has to say about the source SeattleGriz chose to rebut the modeling study on COVID-19 vaccinations:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownsto ... tute-bias/



It's just ridiculous. Don't believe credible sources like the CDC, the FDA, the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Virology, etc. Believe a political think tank called the Brownstone Institute. Right.

Can you refute the author pointing out the flawed assumptions in the model? That's all that matters, not your ad hominems, non sequiturs and weak ass appeals to authority.

You seem a little touchy about called out on your biased source, SG.

Curious, your degree is in Computer Science?

[houndawg]

This will not affect SeattleGriz. He will just say, again, the you can't trust mediabiasfactcheck. But I do consult mediabiasfactcheck. And I thought the rest of you may be interested in what it has to say about the source SeattleGriz chose to rebut the modeling study on COVID-19 vaccinations:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownsto ... tute-bias/



It's just ridiculous. Don't believe credible sources like the CDC, the FDA, the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Virology, etc. Believe a political think tank called the Brownstone Institute. Right.

Can you refute the author pointing out the flawed assumptions in the model? That's all that matters, not your ad hominems, non sequiturs and weak ass appeals to authority.

Sounds like your peevishness should be reserved for mediabiasfactcheck. They called your source out for failing to fact check and for promoting misinformation regarding covid-19. Charges you have yet to rebut.

[SeattleGriz]

Can you refute the author pointing out the flawed assumptions in the model? That's all that matters, not your ad hominems, non sequiturs and weak ass appeals to authority.

Sounds like your peevishness should be reserved for mediabiasfactcheck. They called your source out for failing to fact check and for promoting misinformation regarding covid-19. Charges you have yet to rebut.

Bro. Nothing of the sort was done. Reread. StOnge used the homegrown site to base his judgement of Brownstone. He did not refute any of the statements by the author from Brownstone showing the flaws in the mathematical model.

[SeattleGriz]

Can you refute the author pointing out the flawed assumptions in the model? That's all that matters, not your ad hominems, non sequiturs and weak ass appeals to authority.

You seem a little touchy about called out on your biased source, SG.

Curious, your degree is in Computer Science?

C'mon. You're smarter than that and should be able to see StOnge has nothing other than an appeal to authority that is not warranted.

No, I got a BS in Microbiology with a minor in Chemistry. Worked as an OR Tech in the military and sold clinical laboratory testing and pathology for six years. In addition to two military national cycling championships in which I got invited to the Olympic Training Center, I also taught Nutrition, Business Development and Anatomy and Physiology at the trade school level. Performed the PCR test as a bench tech and worked in an RNA lab in college. Lastly I worked with two time Mr Universe, Lance Dreher, as a personal trainer for five years.

I know a thing or two about health, wellness and the medical industries.

[houndawg]

Sounds like your peevishness should be reserved for mediabiasfactcheck. They called your source out for failing to fact check and for promoting misinformation regarding covid-19. Charges you have yet to rebut.

Bro. Nothing of the sort was done. Reread. StOnge used the homegrown site to base his judgement of Brownstone. He did not refute any of the statements by the author from Brownstone showing the flaws in the mathematical model.

You did not refute mediabiasfactcheck's calling out Brownstone for failing to fact check and for promoting disinformation about covid, you presented Brownstone as an unbiased source.

[houndawg]

You seem a little touchy about called out on your biased source, SG.

Curious, your degree is in Computer Science?

C'mon. You're smarter than that and should be able to see StOnge has nothing other than an appeal to authority that is not warranted.

No, I got a BS in Microbiology with a minor in Chemistry. Worked as an OR Tech in the military and sold clinical laboratory testing and pathology for six years. In addition to two military national cycling championships in which I got invited to the Olympic Training Center, I also taught Nutrition, Business Development and Anatomy and Physiology at the trade school level. Performed the PCR test as a bench tech and worked in an RNA lab in college. Lastly I worked with two time Mr Universe, Lance Dreher, as a personal trainer for five years.

I know a thing or two about health, wellness and the medical industries.

So disprove his stats with some of your own, show us where he's gone wrong

[SeattleGriz]

Bro. Nothing of the sort was done. Reread. StOnge used the homegrown site to base his judgement of Brownstone. He did not refute any of the statements by the author from Brownstone showing the flaws in the mathematical model.

You did not refute mediabiasfactcheck's calling out Brownstone for failing to fact check and for promoting disinformation about covid, you presented Brownstone as an unbiased source.

Do you know the history of mediabiasfactcheck? Already pointed out to StOnge they have been called unreliable because the guy who runs the site has no formal education in journalism or any other related fact checking field and no published methodology. He's a nut with an axe to grind.

Brownstone is the group that came up with the Great Barrington Declaration. They were for targeted protection of those most susceptible, but didn't agree with total lockdowns. The main authors are epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford (if I remember correctly).

The article points out errors in the assumptions made by the model authors. Just because StOnge doesn't like the source, doesn't mean that 2+2 isn't 4. A truth is still a truth. The model made some seriously flawed assumptions.