Coronavirus. Your thoughts? [Serious and Non-Serious]

"There are lies, damed lies and statistics." Good stats and probability tell you not to imply that an event is all true or all is false. Key word is good stats and probabilities. Bad stats and probabilities are meaningless. However, the quote implies that statistics are lies. It doesn't hedge good vs bad statistics. That's a cute quote. But implies all statistics are lies. Which is untrue. Not all statistics are lies. To imply otherwise would be laughable. There are true statistics. I didn’t want to get super technical, but alas. Suppose the following: A = flip of a coin 2-sided coin. N being the number of coin flips. As N tends to infinity. The probability of heads tends to 1/2 or 50%. B = roll of the dice 6-sided dice. Dice numbered 1 through 6. N being the number of roll of dice. As N tends to infinity. The probability of getting 1 tends to 1/6 or about 16.7% Probabilities are truer as N gets larger and larger. It is not impossible to get 10 heads in a row. But highly unlikely. But as N gets larger and larger the probabilities get closer to 0.5. As N gets larger. The probability of heads tends to 50%. The flip of a coin A and the roll of a dice B. Events A and B are two completely independent uncorrelated events. Compare two independent uncorrelated events with each other at N large. If you were to flip a coin and roll dice at N large. Where in both cases A and B. N large is some arbitrary large number at 10 million, 50 million, 100 million etc. At N large, the chance of getting heads is about 3 times more likely than getting 1 on the dice. You may say. That’s all well and good. But the hell do coins flips have to do with anything about Covid? Hold on, I’m getting there. Now apply that same process to my previous example. A = fatality from covid vaccine B = someone getting struck by lightning over a lifetime Fatality from covid vaccine A and someone getting struck by lightning over a lifetime B. Events A and B are two completely independent uncorrelated events. Compare two independent uncorrelated events with each other at N large. Where the # of people that got the covid vaccine is an N large number. And the # of people that participated in the struck lighting process is an N large. That came out sounding funny. Not my intention Lol. In this both cases A and B. N is in the hundreds of millions. At N large, the chance of getting fatal outcome from the covid vaccine is smaller than someone getting struck by lightning over their lifetime. "One does not go dancing into a flat, open field during a lightning storm exclaiming he's more likely to be hit by a car" A particular is singular event. A general is that occurring at N large number. You compared two particular events to one another. One cannot generalize a general to a particular. I compared two general events at n large. Your lighting storm and car example are two particular events. Someone going out to particular lighting storm is not the same as N large sample size for getting struck by lightning over an entire lifetime. The former is a particular. The latter is a general. I'm comparing 2 events with sample sizes in the millions of people. You can't generalize a general to particular. You also cannot generalize a particular to a general. That may sound confusing. But let me expand further. A particular coin toss lands head. The general states that it is 50% tails. If heads came out, then tails must come out next to even out the probabilities. Flip the coin. But the coin lands at heads again instead of tails. You can't generalize a general to particular. It is 50% with a big enough sample size. You can generalize a general at N large coin flips. The same with lighting example. It is at N large over an entire lifetime. "Let’s say there was a drug that offered absolutely no benefits but advertised a low chance of death. No sane person would add to their risk for no reason even if unlikely. The vaccine is not zero benefit, but similarly it's not a forgone conclusion that you both be infected, and that it will be effective. You need to adjust based on the benefit profile to get a meaningful measure of risk.” NGL, this is a very strong argument. Best argument I've heard so far in this thread against the vaccine. But you’re still arguing from a particular. I'll make the counter argument at N large size. I’ll counter with the following thought experiment. Population A and population B have the same size. Both populations are infected by Covid-19. Population A gets fully vaccinated. Population B does not get the vaccine. Which population will have a higher death rate? Does the vaccine have a higher death rate or does Covid-19 have higher death rate? In there lies your answer. Covid-19 has a higher death rate. Unvaccinated population B would have more deaths. The data bears this out as well. 90 plus percent of new deaths are from the unvaccinated. It is not a risk without a reason. Just in the US alone. A good portion of the population has been infected. If you live out in the middle of nowhere with no human contact. It is reasonable not to take it. But if you live in a city or a place with a high concentration of human beings. Where the odds of infection are a lot higher. And if you're a sane 20 something year old and don't want to get vaccinated. Then roll the dice that at the very least you won't get infected. The chances of infection are not extremely low, but at the very least moderate. If infection does occur. That sane 20 something year old will be part of the unvaccinated population B, with the higher death rate. As even a healthy 20 something year is more likely to die from Covid, then from the vaccine. I am insane, hence I will take my chances with the fully vaccinated lower mortality population A. I’ll take the risk at N large. More people died unvaccinated then from the vaccination itself. "Dividing two numbers isn't statistics that's just math". Putting aside all the complexity. Forget about N, infinities, formulas and whatnot. At very fundamental most elementary level. What basic operations do you in stats and probability? You add, multiply, divide, subtract. What is adding, multiplying, dividing, subtracting? That is nothing, but applied math. Anywhere you manipulate numbers via operations is just math. Stats and probability is nothing but applied math. Lol, come on now. Goddamn, I went too much into weeds with my response, but whatever @umi_nezumi

"You made the percentages seems so miscule that no one was dying from it at all." You gave the numbers. It’s data you provided. It's not my data. It's your data, Lol. All I did was calculate percentages. 3,848 per 276,000,000 million is about 0.001394%. Your feelings may not like that miniscule percentage of 0.001394%. But facts don't care about your feelings. Why was the percentage so minuscule? IDK? Why did you give data that gave miniscule percentages? ROFL, Bruuuuuuh. "Soooo whats my point?" I made my point pretty obvious, but I'll try to simplify even further. My point is that you misinterpret data. My point is that you don’t understand what those large numbers actually mean. When analyzing large human populations. You look at per capita or percentage, not raw numbers. Human beings are not very good at interpreting large numbers. 3,848 sounds high. But per 276,000,000 million. It is actually 0.001394%. They are mathematically the same thing. I’ll make it even more digestible. 3,848 per 276,000,000 million is the same as 1 per 71,726. A person is more likely to die unvaccinated, then vaccinated. The likelihood of infection is moderate, but not nonzero. Death rate of corona vs. death rate from vaccine. Death rate for corona is higher. Plus, the added protection from full vaccination. Yeah, I’ll hedge my chances on the vaccine. “People were still catching covid THE REGULAR covid with the vaccine.” The vaccine is not 100% effective. Nothing is 100% effective. Cancer drugs are not 100% effective. Drugs against HIV are not 100% effective. I don’t know where people get this false notion that drugs are only effective at 100%. For the fully vaccinated it is around 80% effective. 80% is not 100% but still more likely than not to be effective. @Pandus

This was the video Panda was talking about. For the record I find it insightful, but I still have questions. Dr. Hoffe says the D-timer shows signs of blood clots, but he can't be sure where or when. He specifically tested his own patients and is a family doctor. So his pool of data is restricted to his own personal test group. He counters with the assurstion that no other doctors will support his claim via government interference. This may be true, but he is at this time one man stating his specific view. It's equally likely that other doctors don't agree. The blood clots can't be seen so his theory is not a fact until we get more data as to the truth. Clotting is a real side-effect of the vaccine, but to what degree? I agree that doctor Hoffe's research is relavent and needs to be further researched. https://youtu.be/5sIWb9GTbbE That said, it's a theory and one doctor's research.

@a1ephy First, I'm not anti-vaccine if that was your assumption. You seem to have taken a bit of what I've said personally, which is understandable. I was indeed being snarky because I don't share your belief that statistics are plain as daylight. I'll ignore addressing the dumb fluff I added because your rebuttal is correct on those accounts. "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.". You are interpreting and de-structuring it too literally to your own benefit, and it comes across as disingenuous. The quote is used to draw attention to the authority numbers hold and the way in which completely legitimate statistics can be misleading either intentionally or by accident. It's just a quote to frame a discussion. Come on now. You at least partially acknowledged my main point. I was never arguing that the numbers are not in favor of the vaccine. I was arguing against your assessment with comparison to being struck by lightning. You rectify your point by comparing the two death populations instead. That's a meaningful way to make a decision. If you're shifting away from the context of the lightning comparison I've nothing left to disagree with.

It's all fun and games until the Covid vaccine crashes your computer. I mean first they infected people with 5G and now they're coming for that hard drive!