Scamdemic

Putting aside the obnoxious quote ladders that make it near impossible to engage In a discussion for a moment;

the above post entirely, and the quoted section specifically illustrates that your understanding of statistics is profoundly failing you at a fairly fundamental level - so much so it’s hard to know where to begin. But let me try.

A regular dice with six sides, has a 1/6 chance of turning up any of the individual numbers.

Just because I don’t know what the true probability of rolling a six given the specific conditions at the time, or for a specific dice for which the probability of its population is known does not alter the fact that the chance is 1/6;

Probability is not rendered invalid because of unknown conditions and factors

probability is literally an expression of those unknown conditions and factors when only composite data is known

Or to be more specific to vaccines, given that I can smell a strawman coming :  You could take a warehouse full of random second-hand dice; each of which you can only roll only once; take a large random sample; weight half and roll them all. You have to make generalizations about an individual based on population without being able to control for outcome at an individual level.

The most important thing is we know people vary so we need to know whether a sample is appropriate. If I take from one side of the warehouse, I may not get an accurate representation of the dice. Likewise the age of dice, may play a role, top or bottom of a box, Color, size; but we can adjust for factors we know make a difference

if we do that and randomly sample account for this; the remaining subset of randomly chosen dice should be representative - and will include  enough of various factors of all individuals to be representative -

This is not to say the sampling is perfect;

but it’s testable

and, thus far, is based on known biological factors yielding predictive power - scientific.

The second weighted sample allows you to establish the change in baseline probability after the controlled parameter has been added. Both samples will contain similar populations of weighted dice, or ones for which the weighting will not work - you’ve corrected for age and size and colour, so providing picking any random 100 large black dice from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse is equally likely to turn up loaded size as any other random selection of 100 large black size from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse - those numbers won’t be appreciably different

If you pull a new random dice from the pile ; you can say with some confidence that the chance of you rolling a six increases by a certain amount if you weight the dice. This is true even if you don’t know the specific conditions of that dice. This is because the possible specific conditions and their probability of that dice being non standard is part of the baseline.

The increase in chances of rolling a six incorporates both of the possibility of you picking up a dice for which weighting has no impact, and one for which it does.

For example - if there are no weighted dice in the warehouse, weighting would improve chances of rolling a six by 100x, if there are weighted dice that are unaffected by more weighting - that number would go down to say - 80x.

Rolling Any given dice would be 80x more likely to turn up a six: a probability which incorporates the probabilities of a.) a weighted dice not rolling a six by chance, b.) a weighted dice turning up a six because of the intended action of weighting and c.) a weighed dice not showing a 6 because of some ineffectiveness if the weighting process due to the dice. The statistics applied to the individual is based on the principle that this dice is a member of the broader sample population; and is an expression of the break down of various conditions in that population. When you talk about the probability of the individual - that probability incorporates all those unknowns due to that sampling.

For Covid, if the illness and survival rate for your risk group (age, weight, etc), is 10% to become sick, and 0.1% to die, and that same risk group reduces to 1% and 0.01% - then your risk has dropped by a factor of 10.

You could have some unknown predispoition that means you will die with or without the vaccine; but it’s also more likely you have a predisposition that means you will live with the vaccine and die without; the statistics tells us that the prevelance of the former is at most 0.1% and latter is around 0.9%. 

Unless you actually know what that predisposition is, and whether you have it - it’s only possible to express it as a probability determinable by a population - a probability incorporated into the quantified risk reduction. Your risk has still reduced by 0.9% because that is the probability of having a vaccine preventable disposition - even while the 0.1% remains.

Likewise with seatbelts. Seatbelts will improve your chances of survival. Not because any specific crash you are in yield less chance of dying, but because some types of crashes you can get in will be survivable with a seatbelt;

the chances of occurrence of those types of crash can be determined, with the probability of risk incorporating your chances of getting into one of those, vs one where a seat belt will not help. As it is not possible to tell or control all the individual factors - it must be expressed as a probability based on occurrence within a population controlled for known factors.

Likewise, drunk driving ; the absurdity I point out here is down to your failure to appreciate the meaning of the numbers.

The statistics do not imply that on a given drive home on Sunday, where a specific accident - say a truck plows into you from behind - would be more or likely to occur whilst drunk or sober; but because there are a subset of accidents which can be caused by being drunk or prevented by being sober that have a given probability of occurring based on population statistics. The increase in risk from drunk driving incorporates that general change in risk given that it’s not possible to calculate or know all the factors to know the exact per journey risk - in exactly the same way that you can’t calculate all relevant physics for a dice.

That’s how probability works. The boiling down of unknown events in terms of a likelihood of occurring. For risk statistics - it’s all baked into the numbers. It’s the mechanism by which insurance companies can consistently and reproducibly make billions of dollars; by accurately assessing risk of an individual by virtue of analyzing the population they are part of.

I would highly suggest you find an actuary, and suggest that the risk to an individual cannot be determined by assessing occurrence in a population. If you’re lucky, they will be incapacitated from laughter so long you could steal their jaguar.

You can’t complain

that your specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown so you cannot speculate as to the efficacy of a vaccine

because expressing things you don’t know based on their chance of occurrence in a particular scenario is the whole freaking point of having probability and statistics in the first place.

Tone arguments are unwelcome.

Non sequitur.

No, probability is the estimation of an event's occurrence given known conditions. It doesn't express unknowns. 

Why do you "have to"? Do you have to, or is it just a method to which you've grown accustomed?

And how have you determined which factors "make a difference?"

Presumption with no substantiation. Representative of what? The individual or the parameters dictated by the sample?

No need to express the imperfection of sampling; my contention isn't against the notion of perfection; my contention is against the irresponsible inferences based on fallacious reasoning.

What is "testable"?

KNOWN BIOLOGICAL FACTORS =/= HOMOGENEOUS IMMUNOLOGICAL RESPONSE.

We've finally arrived at the actual argument. How is survival rate determined? What is "predictive" about these rates? If 10 percent of those with whom I've been arbitrarily grouped whether based on age, weight, ethnicity, etc. have contracted a virus and 1/100 of them died, what does this predict about me

The sample is heavily reliant on the ASSUMPTIONS of its parameters--notably, ceteris paribus, the results of INSTANCE being reproducible. 

Limitations, again, don't speak to fact.

Circular reasoning. Your conclusion is the same as your premise.

A population which does not speak to individual autonomous behavior. People are not dice.

That is an impression; it's neither an observation nor a mode of logic.

Once again, people aren't dice.

...I wouldn't know anything about that, now, would I

Why would I need to find an actuary. If I'm going to appeal to authority, then I could do just well, appealing to my own. 

Non sequitur. It isn't my contention that a "specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown..." It is my contention that results of population sampling mean squat to an individual because the sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF. AND FOR THIS REASON, SAMPLING RESULTS CANNOT BE PREDICTIVE for any particular individual.

Once again, probability doesn't express "unknowns"; it's a method of estimation using known conditions.

You are calling my argument "absurd" because you're engrossed in your fallacious reasoning, and any line of reasoning--albeit accurate--which undermines your fallacious reasoning, you will render "absurd."

A premises confirmed in fallacious reasoning for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Unsubstantiated. And even if we were to indulge your fallacious reasoning, your argument would still be incorrect given that an overwhelming majority of the unvaccinated have survived the exposure to this virus for over two years

You HAVE SHOWN NOTHING. You've only attempted to patronize my arguments with a hackneyed attempt at teaching me about statistics--a lecture I neither solicited nor required. You attempted to analogize probability of DICE TO HUMAN BEINGS WITH COMPLEX IMMUNE SYSTEMS. You've also been strawmanning this discussion by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors. 

Here's my argument in a nutshell: Individual A's being ascribed to Group A DOES NOT MEAN that Individual A is subject to the sampling results of group A. Case in point: 

P1. 95% of an unvaccinated sample of French Polynesian men have died from COVID-19

P2. Athias is an unvaccinated French Polynesian man.

C. Therefore, Athias has a 95% chance of dying of COVID-19. 

This reasoning is fallacious because the sample results of P1 have no bearing on my chances of living or dying. The sample results are nothing more than a composite of discrete individual results compiled under some arbitrary category. It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc. THE SAMPLE RESULTS ASSUME HOMOGENEITY UNDER ITS PARAMETERS. That's the reason it's called an ECOLOGICAL INFERENCE FALLACY--A STATISTICAL FALLACY--which is a form of division fallacy in which conclusions rendered about an individual is determined solely on the analysis of a group to which they are ascribed. 

P1. 95% of an unvaccinated sample of French Polynesian men have died from COVID-19

P2. Athias is an unvaccinated French Polynesian man.

C. Therefore, Athias has a 95% chance of dying of COVID-19.

You seem to have dedicated this entire post to completely avoiding my argument through this strategy.

Misrepresenting how that statistic is applied - by asserting that risk parameters are making specific statements about your risk with all known and unknown factors considered - which it is not

Throwaway dismissals like this are themselves fairly meaningless.

If the true chance of death due to Covid in a population - P(death) is 95%, if you are part of that population - you have a 95% chance due to Covid. (If 95% of balls in box are blue, any given ball from the box has a 95% chance of being blue.)

justifying the reasons I take issue with what you said.

if 95% of balls in a box are blue - the probability of any individual box being blue is 95%.

there is a 100% chance that if one of those 95 blue balls is picked at random, it will be blue and a 100% chance that if one of the "not blue" balls is picked at random, it will NOTbe blue

Probability is about the if - a point you evade by magically bypassing the bit the probability applies to.

this is much different than claiming that each ball has a 95% chance of being blue

ecological fallacy, in epidemiology, failure in reasoning that arises when an inference is made about an individual based on aggregate data for a group.

Because you're assuming that these entities are separate. They are ALL answerable to their sponsors. As for the reason the medical/science community would go along with it, well let me just point this out: physicians sport on their lab coats the caduceus, or the winged staff of mercury (a.k.a. Hermes) which is associated with the Baphomet. [I know this for a fact because there are many physicians in my own family.] Why would they do that? And who would want them to do that, especially in an allegedly JUDEO-CHRISTIAN nation?

But even if we were to forget the "conspiracy theories," one needs only apply critical thinking, right? Why were they pushing the vaccine just after a few months of trials despite the fact that vaccines typically undergo years of trials?

Why were lockdowns being implemented despite the enormous benefits of Vitamin D intake from sunlight and the ventilation from being out in the open especially as it concerns a respiratory infection?

Why did they exaggerate the mortality rates?

Or failed to specify the susceptibility of those with compromised immune systems, the elderly, and the obese?

Why have there been patents--and this is a verifiable fact--for this virus spanning back to 1984? Or that current strains can be modified? Why is it that after two years of exposure, despite the overwhelming majority of the unnvaccinated having not succumbed to the virus, the media is still being pushing for vaccination?

I'm currently unvaccinated, and outside of my seasonal allergies, I haven't had so much as a sniffle.

As a child, I used to read my mother's books on pathology and the number one countermeasure to the contraction of infection is GOOD HYGIENE. Even the CDC will admit as much.

I've known people who've been vaccinated--both shots and the booster--and they still caught the virus, so what does vaccination actually accomplish (with quantifiable measure) other than a placebo to this media-induced paranoia?

I don’t care what you welcome or not

your style is disjoint

incoherent

and seems intended to discussion because you’re making a 1000 individual empty objections (you seem not to be making arguments) rather than a single cohesive counter argument.

You seem

Case in point: you define a difference between humans and dice : and then claim that this invalidates everything I said. No explanation of how and why: simply an empty objection you use to dismiss almost everything I said.

Why? How? Without any explanation this is an empty argument.

Probability is not rendered invalid because of unknown conditions and factors

Non sequitur.

Probability is both

the two statements mean the same thing

an estimation of an event given known conditions by summing the impacts of [all known] factors that cause the results of an event to be different.

Empty objection. Does it matter? How does it impact what I said, or how it works? Just object to a statement for some reason with no argument - without dealing with content.

By analyzing the sample for corrections between an occurrence and various traits.

I can spoon feed you on this if you wish.

An empty objection - I substantiate this in detail in the next paragraph (which you arbitrarily dismiss with another empty objection)

Empty objection - And?

How representative the sample is of the population it is sampled from.

And? This is irrelevant to the point being made; given that is neither dependent upon, nor an assumption of anything I’m saying.

This is literally explained in the paragraphs above - which you ignored. Indeed, the entirety of my exceptionally large posts I made is almost entirely geared towards explaining that risk is not an explicit prediction of what will happen to you personally, but an expression of the risk you have as a member of a group.

As I keep saying, your issue - as typified by this response is that you don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the statistics.

The above describes in detail the mechanism by which we can make valid statements about individuals despite not being able to reproducible and why we can consider them valid.

And? Feel free to tell me which part of that argument is untrue in the context of the example. Another vacuous, empty objection.

Unless you actually know what that predisposition is, and whether you have it - it’s only possible to express it as a probability determinable by a population

Given that it’s description - not an argument presents reasoning

Actually it does speak to it - it’s covered in the argument above that you dismissed.

An actuary’s income - and insurance in general - depend on the principle you think is clearly false - being true;

it’s not an appeal to authority as much as pointing out you’re proving too much.

Firstly, if that were true -it would make what I said a straw man, not a nonsequitor (you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means).

What you say your contention is, and the contention you’re objecting sort of mean the same thing. 

If the properties and outcomes of an individual are accurately expressed in the sample - sampling results will be predictive.

See above. Yes it does.

I’m calling it absurd because you can clearly make specific probabilistic statements about an individuals based on the population - the justification for which has not yet been addressed.

Firstly the reasoning is clearly presented above, and other than your collection of empty objections  - has not been challenged.

Also; this dispute is indeed about whether statistics can account for individual factors.

Indeed, in paragraphs above you literally said “sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF” below you literally say your objection to the statistics

is “It does not take my immunology into account, it does not take my xx into account”.

So please don’t accuse me of making a strawman by accurately representing a portion of the dispute.

You should have led with this unmitigated disaster of a straw man (this is not the argument anyone uses to justify vaccination data) with your first reply

If the true chance of death due to Covid in a population - P(death) is 95%, if you are part of that population - you have a 95% chance due to Covid.

(If 95% of balls in box are blue, any given ball from the box has a 95% chance of being blue.)

So if the sample is valid, and satisfies all the conditions above, yes - without knowing anything else about you - your risk is 95%.

Firstly, you continue to make the constant and repeated error of assuming risk statistics apply or are being applied explicitly to you personally

Some get more granular, and therefore are more likely to be accurate - but all of them apply to you, not as Athias the individual personally, but as a ball plucked from a population.

Secondly - your reasoning here invalidates the entire field of statistics.

The very concept of risk as measured can’t work with this reasoning; your argument suggests you can’t apply population probability to individuals at any level - which given the general predictive success of many such statistics at predicting outcomes at the individual level- is clearly patently false - making this a case is proving too much, as well as a straw man above.

Indeed, you invalidate a very basic example of high school probability: if 95% of balls in a bucket in a warehouse are blue - the chances of a ball picked from someone random part of the warehouse will be blue is 95%.

Your argument invalidates that basic maths.

The ecological fallacy doesn’t cover this application of statistics

but covers statements such as - the chances of picking a blue ball from the west of the warehouse is 95% - which is the ecological fallacy.

The fallacy is typically used in relationship to a variety of correlations in the population that appear at the level of a population, but disappear because of subdivision within the population. It’s about structural trends that are missed or overlooked in population data: for example, assuming that thin people have the same risk of diabetes as fat people because the statistics incorporate both sets. The ecological fallacy disappears in cases when those subdivisions can be largely ruled out, or are mostly accounted for - which is the entire purpose of all the rigorous data sampling employed.

It is why granular subsets - obesity, age, race, etc, are factored in to your these risk factors; your risk of death as a 64 year obese old black man is not the same as a 16 year old Caucasian. Sampling to determine these risk factors as noted above - is a big part of the statistics - statistics break down risk to the various at risk groups for the purposes of avoiding a big part of the ecological fallacy

And disappears with my first point - that their level of applicability to an individual is generally caveated to known risk factors.

It would be valid to say (given the above) that UFPMs generally have a 95% chance of death to Covid

but the ecological fallacy to say that all UFPMs taller than 6’3 also have a 95% mortality rate - and not the ecological fallacy that you, as a UFPM have a 95% mortality - even if you happen to be taller than 6’3.

it's a critical point

your chances of PICKING a blue ball at random may very well be 95%

this is much different than claiming that each ball has a 95% chance of being blue

the blue balls have a 100% chance of being blue

the "not blue" balls have a 0% chance of being blue

ecological fallacy, in epidemiology, failure in reasoning that arises when an inference is made about an individual based on aggregate data for a group.

are you suggesting that individual risk is informed by group risk ?

That broad population wide 1% number - doesn’t really mean anything - it’s too broad to have use. When we break down that risk in far more detail with more detailed risk factors with more accurate sampling: where age, co-morbidities, obesity, etc - are factored in; then expressing your risk as a member of that smaller and more granulated population, for which causation is better understood -  is still not expressing your exact specific personal risk based on all your factors - but It is a much more reasonable estimation of your risk because the most common influencing factors that could substantially change your risk have been factored in - leaving fewer factors and fewer conditions that could cause a deviation.

that sounds reasonable

Lol   💀 You can't learn everything on Wikipedia but you can learn this. 

They were afraid more people could die than were actually at risk; the data was incomplete.

Vaccines for similar viruses have been in development for 20 years. 

However I am more than happy to blame Trump and his administration's role in Operation Warp Speed if you prefer that answer. I guess he is p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶  the leader of the global conspiracy then, right? 

Because the less people you're around, the less opportunity for an airborne virus to transmit. 

Link me to the research that shows the enormous benefits of vitamin D on Covid that accounts for additional variables.

If you don't know offhand I'm sure you can go ask someone on Reddit. 

Is the supplement industry somehow immune from manipulation and lies?

Most likely the result of incomplete data and faulty models. How did you learn the real number of deaths?   

On the contrary they have been talking about the immuno compromised, elderly and obese being the most at risk groups non-stop

I don't know anything about that fact and I have no interest in looking it up, to be honest. If you want to link me info I'll read about it at some point. 

"The media" is pushing the vaccine because the world's top medical professionals are pushing the vaccines and it's the media's  job to report that. I put media in quotes because I assume you're going to pretend that conservative media doesn't exist for the sake of your talking point. 

I know unvaccinated people that died from Covid. What's your point? 

Yes it is - and yes they do - but unfortunately if you breathe something in, you can't wash it off with soap and water. 

It's interesting that you read pathology books as a child though. That checks out lol. 

That's like someone saying "I have eyes - why do I need glasses?" I acknowledge the efficacy of the vaccine is waning which was the prediction all along, thus the early push for quick vaccination and booster shots. I won't sit here and justify every government, media or pharmaceutical action. I don't agree with all of them.  What I will do is challenge the prolifically stupid conspiracy theories (when I'm in the mood to do so).  As I said to YYW, you can resist the policies without giving credence to the people who think this entire thing is a hoax or elaborate lie. It's one thing to be resistant to mandates or challenge limited research; it's another to believe that hospitals were really empty and the whole world is  conspiring to make up fake deaths to "control the population." It still hasn't been explained how that was achieved since the majority of the country went back to life as normal a long time ago. 

I asked why   every single country, including our enemies, would espouse the same lies and how they could convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it. You said that I assume the entities are separate. That is true. I assume that countries are separate. I don't see how your observation about what US doctors wear on their lab coats (lol, I can't) remotely even attempts to answer that question.

If you think it's connected then please explain it in plain terms if you feel so inclined. I do see countries and scientists as separate from one another often with separate, competing goals.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Some other unanswered questions: Does Dr. Fauci control Kim Jung Un?

Did our Deep State force Russia to develop their own vaccine?

How did China benefit from locking down their population at the expense of a trillion+ dollars?

How did this achieve any type of mass population control when the most significant effect was a vaccine mandate in 3 cities that is barely enforced?

Once you start asking specific questions

Admittedly this Scamdemic one is more believable than the prolifically stupid idea that Jan 6 was a false flag not carried out by Trumpkins but I digress. 

I don't doubt this especially since this virus received its first patent almost 30 years ago