This technique is called "SHOUT HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK".
> easily verifiable information in this thread
As others have pointed out, none of the information you've posted in this thread supports the conclusion you think it does. You questioned whether the ONS mortality data linked to by kadkadels had a problem you say ONS data used to have. It did not, as it was easy to see by clicking through the link. You haven't been able to produce any ONS data which ever had this problem, which is strange.
You then linked to some Dutch data which, when translated, concludes that "Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction."
You did not check either of these links yourself, so it's a bit rich to criticise others for failing to do so.
> which is a meaningless tautology, as the entire argument is about the definition of vaccinated used by the public health agencies.
The ONS mortality stats linked to by kadkadels at the start of the thread contain data related to people who received at least one COVID vaccine (counted from the day they received it, subdivided by time since reception and number of boosters), as well as an unvaccinated category who never did. This is clear to anyone who read the link that kadkadels posted.
Both you and armchairdweller falsely claimed that the unvaccinated category included people who received the vaccine less than N days ago, presumably because you believe that some deaths caused by the vaccine shortly after people receive it are hidden by these stats. But in fact, the vaccinated category starts from the day of vaccination, the unvaccinated tended to die more back when COVID was new, and the ASMR for unvaccinated and vaccinated converged by about the end of 2022, presumably because we've nearly all had COVID at least once so being vaxed now isn't doing a whole lot of good. Both the "vax did more harm than good" crowd and the "we should still be wearing masks" crowd are wrong.
Though the prime mover, Narice Bernard, seems to have moved on to newer conspiracies involving "climate lockdowns" and "15 minute cities", people who conclude that nothing HART say on COVID topics can trusted are well within reasonable bounds.
> The statistically invalid time-windowing games the public health agencies all played in which people who had taken vaccines were classed as unvaccinated
As I have just replied to the other commenter, the ONS data he appears to object to categorises various "vaccinated" categories starting immediately after vaccination. The regulator's reply to Fenton makes this clear: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/ed-hum...
I assume this reply is what you refer to when you say that the ONS admit the data cannot be used that way. However, since that reply, the ASMR calculation now uses data linked to the 2021 census which covers around 91% of the population. Paul Mainwood graphed the ASMRs here: https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1627979309812965381
I see no evidence here that being vaccinated makes you more likely to die, which is what the original thread was about.
The ONS data linked the comment you're replying to is clear that it counts "vaccinated" from the day of vaccination. What ONS data are you referring to which "used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as unvaccinated"?
> By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.
> But even if science proposes God as the hypothesis at step 3, the next problem comes at step 4: how are you going to test it? "Um, God, could you do that again? And, um, sign it this time?" You can't run the experiment. I don't see how you could run the experiment even in principle.
There have also been things like experiments on the efficacy of healing prayers whose negative results lend credence to the idea that a god who answers prayers does not exist. https://www.noctua.org.uk/blog/2010/07/08/healing-prayer-exp... discusses that (the links to the Premier Radio forums are dead, alas).
> even if we can't see it with science, we might see it with history. We might find historical record of God doing something.
"It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages."
What happens is that the nutters follow and reply to popular threads (see epidemiology Twitter during the pandemic, for example). If there are more of them, Twitter loses value.
Twitter has started to let you control who can reply, but that removes some serendipity, so if everyone worth following does that, Twitter loses value.
That's not how Section 230 works: it's explicitly designed so that some editing does not open you to full liability for user provided content (but it's common to think it does the opposite). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no... explains.
> But, it's not the same thing at all, because if you were to separate yourself from the violinist, they would die from their disease / from not being given very extraordinary aid, but if you were to separate yourself from the fetus, it would die from not being given very ordinary means of sustenance.
Why does whether it's a common (pregancy) or uncommon (violinist hooked up to sleeper) occurrence alter the moral status of disconnecting the person who is reliant on their connection to another for their continued existence?
The Redditors on /r/cambridge routinely tell American applicants that the whole "extra-curriculars" thing is only relevant if whatever you did demonstrates enthusiasm for or ability in your subject, both of which you will need to survive. Ability for the obvious reason, enthusiasm because you will get the shock of it no longer being effortless and meeting peers who are better at it than you.
For me, the "HR interview" was "what would you say to convince me of your enthusiasm for physics?" (as in, I was explicitly asked that very question) not "tell me about how your adventures pogo-sticking up the Khyber on your gap yah made you a well-rounded person" (and the "technical interview" asked you do actually do some physics).
As someone who couldn't have afforded a gap yah and would probably have been too frail to go on one, I'm pretty happy about that.
The thing that I'm told they will do is look at your school and weight things like GCSE results and A level results accordingly (as in, if you are at a bad school, they'll make allowances for that). https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambri... is interesting from that point of view.
This is called "whataboutery". It's also disingenuous.
In general, there's a fast statistic about COVID deaths, which is something like "deaths within N days of a positive PCR". This will catch some people who died for another reason, though if you think that's a serious problem, you'd need to argue that so many people could be expected to die for some other reason within N days that this would significantly bias the stat.
There's a slow stat, where COVID is a contributing or underlying cause on a death certificate. In the UK, these are in rough agreement. Notably, at the start of the pandemic, when testing wasn't available, the fast stat was an underestimate. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/measuring-mortali... has some links to the ONS and places like that.
The first sentence of the article is that it's about "People who are fully vaccinated against Covid yet catch the virus". If the vaccines don't lower P(transmission|infection) but do lower P(infection), then they lower P(infection & transmission) (because that's the product of those two).
This is incorrect: we don't know the rates, because we don't know the denominators. Published figures use estimated denominators: "because the proportion of unvaccinated people is small and the NIMS population estimates are high, it makes the unvaccinated population appear significantly larger than it is. As a consequence, the Covid case rate per 100,000 unvaccinated people, when calculated using this figure, is suppressed. Just being out by 1 or 2 per cent could change the apparent population of unvaccinated people by 30 per cent." (from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfaadc98-35ab-11ec-8ef4-8... )
> easily verifiable information in this thread
As others have pointed out, none of the information you've posted in this thread supports the conclusion you think it does. You questioned whether the ONS mortality data linked to by kadkadels had a problem you say ONS data used to have. It did not, as it was easy to see by clicking through the link. You haven't been able to produce any ONS data which ever had this problem, which is strange.
You then linked to some Dutch data which, when translated, concludes that "Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction."
You did not check either of these links yourself, so it's a bit rich to criticise others for failing to do so.