Any single study should be. Results should be interpreted with due caution, but not outright dismissal.
Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread
- Thread starter FresnoGator
- Start date
Teaching statistics 101
One of the hardest parts about becoming a doctor was learning medical sadistic’s and how to decipher between the BS and the actual good data
The best studies, which have not been done with Covid and won’t be done for quite a while, or large multi center placebo control double blinded research studies. Those take years to do. The most famous ones probably came out of Farmington Connecticut. They define how we take care of cardiac disease.
Definitely. Any research paper I have ever written was required to have limitations outlined and described earnestly by the approver/publisher. Without it, the paper will get an almost immediate desk rejection.
This is a good snapshot read on vaccine hesitancy worldwide:
www.cmu.edu
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates
Utility of vaccine campaigns to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is not merely dependent on vaccine efficacy and safety. Vaccine acceptance among the general public and healthcare workers appears to have a decisive role in the successful control of the pandemic. The aim of this review...www.mdpi.com
Researchers Identify Groups Hesitant about COVID-19 Vaccine - Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences - Carnegie Mellon University
Researchers have determined demographic and belief factors behind vaccine hesitancy that could be used to craft messaging for reluctant groups.
Same, no I haven’t done research in a while and I only wrote about 10 total back in the day. But you had to put your limitations, which almost always include sample size, outlined in detail. Last one I wrote was a service study on tobacco usage In my Marine Corps infantry Battalion deployed in a wreck. I was bored
Agreed. That being said, right now….all these studies need a deeper dive for several reasons.
While they shouldn’t be dismissed, the flip side is they shouldn’t be given too much weight either. For many reasons.
Absolutely. Meta-analysis is the quick cheap dirty version of multi center trial. But they’re frequently accurate as long as you use good reputable studies, a.k.a. none of the ivermectin studies 🤣🤣🤣
All that aside, sharing published research or hospital COVID statistics on the topic of this thread should not offend anyone.Researchers Identify Groups Hesitant about COVID-19 Vaccine - Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences - Carnegie Mellon University
Researchers have determined demographic and belief factors behind vaccine hesitancy that could be used to craft messaging for reluctant groups.
Agree. This is why meta-studies are going to be helpful (there may even be some) and additional literature review. I will post studies and relevant statistics as I find them.
Why would that possibly offend anyone, unless The statistics don’t aline with their conclusions?
🤷
And extremely precise with the statistical methods chosen. As the individual studies utilize different methods, coalescing them into a single product requires expertise in stats.
And expertise in interpreting the studies on the readers part. Hence why we all took about eight statistic classes between college and medical school, LOL
Last edited:
True. In my work I have to present (sometimes) complex statistical results to laypersons. The key is making sure that they do not misinterpret the results, and this can be a little tricky sometimes.
Of course I don’t have a degree in history and economics, so I’ve got that going against me in terms of interpreting coronavirus medical statistics.
Yeah. That's how they do it over at the GatewayPundit and ElectionWizard. Especially the "making sure that they do not misinterpret the results" part.
Likely because he doesn't understand what he's talking about and cannot refute it as a result.
Wait.....now the pro-vaxxxxers are relying on OBSERVATIONAL studies???
Oh my, how the tables have turned.
I can certainly see how that could be interpreted as "finagling results", but that wouldn't help me at all. In my work, if I lied about the results and overstated my findings that would show up when the stakeholders applied my recommendations. If I am not providing advice based upon the evidence and making that clear, it would not serve me well.
You never answer this, but how are these hospitals determining if a patient is vaccinated or not?
Are you applying the 'if we don't know, we put them down as unvaccinated' approach?
I suspect you are, since you won't tell us the complete percentages. Adding up to a perfect 100.0% suggests the numbers have been fudged.
Wow. You have basically resorted to tagging yourself. Things have gotten worse than I thought.
BTW….how many kids you injected with that RSV vaccine today?
Dude. One of you clowns just dismissed a statistical finding because some rando on Twitter claimed an imaginary cruise ship caused it LMAO!
Sorry. I was being sarcastic. The GatewayPundit, as with most other crackpot outlets quoted by the crackpots here, does not share your sense of responsibility.
But you can cut and paste off Google and pass it off as your own work almost as well as @BSC911 does. So you have that going for you.
Remember.....masters can speak on a topic confidently from a point of knowledge. Posers repeat what others say.
TGP reports on stories that are counter to @Uniformed_ReRe's agendas.
He no likey TGP. Plus he gets his information from more credible sources.....like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN.
We have a saying in my space: Experts share what they know. Fakers share what other people know.
The biggest observational study out there? The CDC is recommending booster shots. That says more than anything
The gateway pundit doesn't actually report for themselves much - it's an aggregate site like Drudge or Bongino report with a different format. The find news from other sources, editorialize it, then post the source. Intelligent people can then review to source to determine if its BS or not. Sometimes it is, GP is very partisan and doesn't hide it.
But go on with your tin foil hat and CNN conspiracies.
Of course not. But there should be a way to verify the stats and the people presenting them should be comfortable answering basic questions about how the numbers were arrived at.
That's not happening here. We are given numbers that paint an incomplete picture, we ask for more context, and the personal attacks fly.
And @Uniformed_ReRe knows all that. Just like he knows that myself and other posters have said the same thing about the site that you just did.
On the flipside, he thinks The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN are all credible journalists that report the news objectively, and truthfully.
He does the very thing he accuses others here of doing.
@gator1776
Our hospital is taking a beating. I was asked if I would do shifts in the ICU to help out. Thanks absolutely nuts!!! I haven’t looked at vent settings in years.
It’s becoming really hard for me to engage with these crackpots any longer. They haven’t seen what hospitals look like. All they do is argue semantics of vaccines, mRNA, monoclonal antibodies like they have any freakin idea what each of those are. You and I have administered hundreds of different types of those things knowing all side effects, efficacy and what to expect. We hold our patients well beings close to our hearts and for internet morons to come on and debated nonsense like we have an agenda except for the wellbeing’s of our patients, I can’t handle any longer. F em. If they get sick, we will treat them all the same, but my compassion is running thin.
Our hospital is taking a beating. I was asked if I would do shifts in the ICU to help out. Thanks absolutely nuts!!! I haven’t looked at vent settings in years.
It’s becoming really hard for me to engage with these crackpots any longer. They haven’t seen what hospitals look like. All they do is argue semantics of vaccines, mRNA, monoclonal antibodies like they have any freakin idea what each of those are. You and I have administered hundreds of different types of those things knowing all side effects, efficacy and what to expect. We hold our patients well beings close to our hearts and for internet morons to come on and debated nonsense like we have an agenda except for the wellbeing’s of our patients, I can’t handle any longer. F em. If they get sick, we will treat them all the same, but my compassion is running thin.
I haven't attacked anyone, at least not recently that I recall, lol. Furthermore, I present the evidence for anyone's review. If you or anyone infers the findings differently from me, then that is where the conversation should start IMO.
Remember a week or so ago when I posted that the CDC said the vaccines no longer work? Remember how a few posters here said that was a lie, the CDC didn't say that? I even included a video interview with CNN where the director of the CDC admitted this.
Now we need boosters. It's amazing to me how some people here are willfully ignorant when it comes to covid and these vaccines. The truth is all in front of you, just look at it without an agenda.
Fair enough, but in my profession experts share each other's work all the time. Either to validate knowledge or to challenge it. But I am not a medical expert, so in medical cases I defer to those who are.
Sorry, wasn't talking about you, was talking about @gator1776. You missed some of his bigger meltdowns, but noticed even with the numbers he posted this morning, he's already dodging questions about them.
That's not how you establish trust and credibility.
As you already know (we have discussed this many times) I regard the NYTimes, WaPo, and CNN as having a left-leaning bias with a tendency toward sensationalism, especially in the last decade.
Similar threads
