Anybody else getting tired of semantic games in the middle of a deadly vaccine crisis?

If it went from 1 to 2 that would be 100% increase too but doesn't mean much.

17 out of 22,000 is 0.00077%
21 our of 22,000 is 0.00095%

Thats a 0.00018 increase...

So, the delta of 0.00018% is NOT significant, but

the PERCENTAGES 0.00077% and 0.00095% are? 

0.00077% = 0.0000077, and 0.00095% = 0.0000095.

Talk about splitting hairs.

If it went from 1 to 2 that would be 100% increase too but doesn't mean much.

17 out of 22,000 is 0.00077%
21 our of 22,000 is 0.00095%

Thats a 0.00018 increase...

WRONG
% is not additive

0.00018/0.00077= 23.377% increase...

So, the delta of 0.00018% is NOT significant, but

the PERCENTAGES 0.00077% and 0.00095% are? 

0.00077% = 0.0000077, and 0.00095% = 0.0000095.

Talk about splitting hairs.

I am saying I don't think the increase of 4, whether by mistake or intent amounts to a statistically significant difference in terms of whether the vaccine is to be considers safe.

I am saying I don't think the increase of 4, whether by mistake or intent amounts to a statistically significant difference in terms of whether the vaccine is to be considers safe.

so now you going back to 4 and ignoring your 0.00077% comments?
talk about moving goalposts...

I am saying I don't think the increase of 4, whether by mistake or intent amounts to a statistically significant difference in terms of whether the vaccine is to be considers safe.

You think trusting experts to provide accurate statistics that could result in harm to millions is warranted even after we find out they can't count to 21?

Right.

so now you going back to 4 and ignoring your 0.00077% comments?
talk about moving goalposts...

That is two sides of the same coin, no goalpost moved.
4 equals 0.00018 of participants in the study. Its like saying 100 cents vs a dollar, its the same thing

That’s the Problem with statistics.
19% increase
0.00018% increase.

Both using same statistics.

Percent is not additive…only if your comparing the same percent to same percent and then extrapolating a percent.
But good example of manipulation.

The increase in percent is greater. That’s true.
But it’s still 0.00095% for those quoting COVID numbers and vaccine numbers. (I did not confirm the numbers.)

Is Death really a cause of death.
Wouldn’t it be 100% the cause of death is Death ?

Some of the causes listed don’t generally occur in a few months if I’m not mistaken.
Was the study long enough ? Definitely no in my opinion.

1 to 2 from Covid. Isn’t that 50% better for vaxxed ?
Heart problems flips the script though.
But 200% better for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
Then there’s all the other crap. Missing is a Cause of death ? Maybe Death caused it.

You think trusting experts to provide accurate statistics that could result in harm to millions is warranted even after we find out they can't count to 21?

Right.

I think experts are humans to. Would you consider yourself an expert in your field? I bet even you make small mistakes. A single tiny mistake in coding can gum up a whole system right? Doesn't mean you sabotaged the system.

I am not rushing to the worst explanation, I am considering all of them. It isn't unreasonable to consider a typo as a plausible explanation. Claiming this is proof Pfizer is lying to us is the same as when meda makes some sensational headline attacking Trump without considering or covering other possibilities.

I think experts are humans to. Would you consider yourself an expert in your field? I bet even you make small mistakes. A single tiny mistake in coding can gum up a whole system.

The difference is that I am not rushing to the worst explanation, I am considering all of them. It isn't unreasonable to consider a typo as a plausible explanation.

a typo?
in what is considered by some to be the panacea to end of this pandemic?
a nearly 25% delta is a typo?

a typo?
in what is considered by some to be the panacea to end of this pandemic?
a nearly 25% delta is a typo?

From 17 to 21 our of 22,000? Sure, that could be a typo, or a number that should have been updated but someone missed it.

Why do you default to the most negative belief about what this discrepancy must mean?

I think experts are humans to. Would you consider yourself an expert in your field? I bet even you make small mistakes. A single tiny mistake in coding can gum up a whole system right? Doesn't mean you sabotaged the system.

I am not rushing to the worst explanation, I am considering all of them. It isn't unreasonable to consider a typo as a plausible explanation. Claiming this is proof Pfizer is lying to us is the same as when meda makes some sensational headline attacking Trump without considering or covering other possibilities.

I've worked on systems that could have resulted in loss of life to our troops and allies, and most definitely resulted in the deaths of our enemies. 

I made damned sure that these systems were tested, were able to suffer outages without impact, and that the information was stored and retrieved exactly. 

Peer review, independent and in-house testing at all levels, etc. made sure I was CONFIDENT the systems performed without problems.

Maybe if the CDC and pharma companies were more transparent with the COVID efforts, others could have checked their work BEFORE they relied on it to make decisions, recommendations and forced vaccinations.

Just saying.

From 17 to 21 our of 22,000? Sure, that could be a typo, or a number that should have been updated but someone missed it.

Why do you default to the most negative belief about what this discrepancy must mean?

please show me where i, "default to the most negative belief about what this discrepancy must mean"?

I've worked on systems that could have resulted in loss of life to our troops and allies, and most definitely resulted in the deaths of our enemies. 

I made damned sure that these systems were tested, were able to suffer outages without impact, and that the information was stored and retrieved exactly. 

Peer review, independent and in-house testing at all levels, etc. made sure I was CONFIDENT the systems performed without problems.

Maybe if the CDC and pharma companies were more transparent with the COVID efforts, others could have checked their work BEFORE they relied on it to make decisions, recommendations and forced vaccinations.

Just saying.

That is certainly ideal. I am just pointing out that a minor typo mistake is also a possible explanation. Given that it was a small change in numbers not a big one.

please show me where i, "default to the most negative belief about what this discrepancy must mean"?

You took issue with my comment that it could be a typo which made it sound like you didn't like considering that option.

You took issue with my comment that it could be a typo which made it sound like you didn't like considering that option.

omg you are dense...

You took issue with my comment that it could be a typo which made it sound like you didn't like considering that option.

funny that you are always "considering all the options"
yet you ASSUME that i am not

omg you are dense...

So do you admit the possibility that it was a typo?

If you do then why do I get flak merely for pointing it out as a possibility?

You took issue with my comment that it could be a typo which made it sound like you didn't like considering that option.

"didn't like considering that option" =/= "default to the most negative belief"
FOCUS

So do you admit the possibility that it was a typo?

If you do then why do I get flak merely for pointing it out as a possibility?

depending on whether or not you believe this pandemic is real, these trials are the most important thing that is going on medically around the world
first, if you accept the possibility of a typo in one direction, who's to say that there are not more "typos" throughout the report?
B if you say that a difference of 4 is not statistically significant, then how are 17 or 21 statistically significant?
read what i said previously, they unblinded the study and gave the control group the vaccine, eliminating the possibility of finding out any longer term effects due to these numbers?
do you not have an issue with "typos" in a study of this supposed magnitude?