Surgeon General: Vaccine Will Not Prevent Infection, only Reduce Severe Illness. Wear Masks and Continue Social Distancing

huh what wrote:

Inaccurate.

It's simply not proven yet if it prevents infection/contagiousness, but initial data looks promising. Pfizer and Moderna are studying it now. AZ included some limited data in their release showing that the vaccine really curtails infectiousness.

We'll probably know more in a few weeks.

-Barf- Pfizer is studying it. So you are saying this criminal organization that pays millions in lobbying money in Washington and that has a multitude of criminal charges against it and has paid billions in damages and deaths caused is to be trusted? AGAIN? Wth is wrong with you people?? And why are companies like these still allowed to exist?? Let alone listen to their advice...and especially let alone be forced into being injected with their product? holy motha..

Well, at least that got you actually click the link!

You misunderstand several things.

1) If you take the bottom of the 95% confidence interval based on the CDC's models then, yes, we are at ~275k excess deaths. If you take the middle of the estimate we are closer to 350k. Alternatively you can download the unweighted data set (no correction for incomplete recent data) and see the average estimate gives ~346k.

2)In any case, you can see from the time chart that excess deaths have tallied by any threshold in every week since March! Which answers your question: are they still going up? Yes.

3) The CDC does attempt to model underreporting in recent weeks. They suggest that data in very recent weeks is still incomplete as reporting standards have changed in 2020.

4) You claim the "CDC predicts below average amount of deaths" for the week of Thanksgiving. This is pretty silly as thanksgiving week is always a bad week for any stat report -- you should know this.

This guy attempts to calculate excess deaths many ways and, of course, sees deaths still climbing into December. (He is not fooled by Thanksgiving week).

The people taking the vaccine were already never going to take their masks off. They're lifers, permanently over the mental edge.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The people taking the vaccine were already never going to take their masks off. They're lifers, permanently over the mental edge.

Nice we have Mr. 2600 cases and Mr. 2500 deaths in one thread.

Maybe you two's bad predictive abilities will cancel each other out.

Quick work together and give me lottery numbers!

You say it is silly, I am just reading the data they reported. Is the CDC silly and stupid; is this Lyman dude, funny name huh, smarter than the CDC. Are you the Lyingman dude? Maybe you are this "Ly"man dude? I am pretty sure the number above the "upper bound" is the most reliable number and you are using the opposing swing of numbers to amplify your reality, although that is with a much lower level of confidence. That is not how is works, you don't compare the lower bounds with the upper estimate; that is dishonest data reporting. But we all knew you, while certainly being a pure genius, might be a little dishonest.

Harambe wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The people taking the vaccine were already never going to take their masks off. They're lifers, permanently over the mental edge.

Nice we have Mr. 2600 cases and Mr. 2500 deaths in one thread.

Maybe you two's bad predictive abilities will cancel each other out.

Quick work together and give me lottery numbers!

Thanks Mr." I believe everything the MSM, pols, and Big Pharma tells me". Why do you comment? WE can get everything you say directly from the establishment media.

Enjoy the mask and the vaccine and the social isolation

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

You say it is silly, I am just reading the data they reported. Is the CDC silly and stupid; is this Lyman dude, funny name huh, smarter than the CDC. Are you the Lyingman dude? Maybe you are this "Ly"man dude? I am pretty sure the number above the "upper bound" is the most reliable number and you are using the opposing swing of numbers to amplify your reality, although that is with a much lower level of confidence. That is not how is works, you don't compare the lower bounds with the upper estimate; that is dishonest data reporting. But we all knew you, while certainly being a pure genius, might be a little dishonest.

I'm just taking the middle of the confidence intervals. You are welcome to take the most conservative estimate.

It doesn't change the fact that excess deaths have increased each week since March. That was your question and it's been answered.

And, yes, you are misinterpreting the CDC's data but it's easy to do so I don't fault you for it.

No, you did not answer my question. Why deaths predicted to be below normal in late december early january. Why has the total of excess deaths not increased much at all over the last fews months. You again are just saying you answered the question when you did not, you can't because you do not know the answer. It is hard for you to accept that you don't know the answer so you avoid it?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I'm just taking the middle of the confidence intervals. You are welcome to take the most conservative estimate.

It doesn't change the fact that excess deaths have increased each week since March. That was your question and it's been answered.

And, yes, you are misinterpreting the CDC's data but it's easy to do so I don't fault you for it.

No, you did not answer my question. Why deaths predicted to be below normal in late december early january. Why has the total of excess deaths not increased much at all over the last fews months. You again are just saying you answered the question when you did not, you can't because you do not know the answer. It is hard for you to accept that you don't know the answer so you avoid it?

The CDC data is pretty clear, but you may be misinterpreting it.

I looked as well. It was a standard 95% confidence interval. If you took the midpoint you would get 328472.5

The whole point of giving a confidence interval is that we cannot be sure of the exact number of excess deaths. Generally speaking, if I was to talk about the disease with a skeptic, I would usually grant them the lower bound, talking to a maximal interventionist, I would usually grant them the upper bound.

I think what has caused your confusion, though, is that you have received reports in the past looking at the midpoint, or perhaps the upper bound, and now you are looking at the lower bound, and wondering why the current number isn't larger than previous numbers.

To generalize, you must compare lower bound to lower bound, midpoint to midpoint, and upper bound to upper bound. You didn't do that in this case, although I agree with Harambe that you were presented with a situation where such an error would be easy to make.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I'm just taking the middle of the confidence intervals. You are welcome to take the most conservative estimate.

It doesn't change the fact that excess deaths have increased each week since March. That was your question and it's been answered.

And, yes, you are misinterpreting the CDC's data but it's easy to do so I don't fault you for it.

No, you did not answer my question. Why deaths predicted to be below normal in late december early january. Why has the total of excess deaths not increased much at all over the last fews months. You again are just saying you answered the question when you did not, you can't because you do not know the answer. It is hard for you to accept that you don't know the answer so you avoid it?

It has increased. Look at the chart. Look at the data table. There are excess deaths tabulated per week. By my count 15% of the excess deaths have come since October 1st -- and this is only data up to the week of Thanksgiving! It doesn't capture the terrible weeks we've had in early December with COVID deaths over 2500 per day!

And yes, you asked a second question. The answer is that the last week reported is Thanksgiving week. The only "prediction" the CDC is making is attempting to adjust for slow reporting. They are not forecasting into the future. Recent weeks are often incomplete, as the CDC says: "Provisional death counts are weighted to account for incomplete data. However, data for the most recent week(s) are still likely to be incomplete." Holiday weeks compound this because reporting/testing/tabulation is often on hold. Do you disagree with this?

I also don't see any prediction about deaths in that data (wouldn't expect it) I see info collected thorugh November 28. I imagine more recent information is still being compiled.

Regardign the SG's statement. We would expect a doctor to over-warn, and under-promise. I would be shocked if the vaccine didn't dramatically decrease the vaccinated person's ability to infect others. The amount of virus one is initially exposed to has a great deal of effect on disease severity (it gives the virus more of a jump on the immune system).

Wait, are we not comparing actual reported numbers to a predicted level? Yes, yes we are. We are not comparing upper bound to upper bound. Actual numbers over the upper bound of the prediction, which is still a prediction, ~270,000. Yes, there is also data sets comparing a threshold to a prediction, and I would guess here they would do mid to mid or upper to upper, but really only the mean prediction to the mean prediction, but then we are just comparing predictions. Still, the predictions say deaths are predicted to be lower now, but why. And to repeat, the 270 is comparison of real over the upper bounds of what was predicted based on previous years....anything below this upper bounds is overstating things and certainty. Harambe, do you usually use another alias to chime in to support your weak arguments? That seems dishonest as well. Don't worry, we all still think you are genius, especially when you post predictions from adjunct employees at a liberal think tank and treat it like real scientific data.

Not Harambe, I don't post stuff from twitter. He does appear to know how to interpret research data, though.

I don't see how you are interpreting excess deaths as a prediction. It is essentially taking the number of deaths we have had to date, and SUBTRACTING the prediction one would have made for number of deaths on 12/31/2019. Again, the upper bound is 381896

, the lower bound is 275049 per the CDC website.

What do you think the 381896 number represents?

Also, I think we are not communicating effectively. What I am suggesting is that(for example) at some point in October, the CDC found that the lower bound of excess deaths for 2020 to that point in time was 250,000 and the upper bound was 300,000. Someone then reported that there were 275,000 excess deaths to that point in time. You look at the website today, see the lower bound is 275,000 and ask "why haven't there been any excess deaths lately? We are right where we were in October."

Sorry, reread your post, and we do understand the bounds the same. I don't have a problem with using the lower bound. I just don't recall previous reports being the lower bound, so I presume they were using the midpoint. Is there data that you can refer me to that would suggest that the lower bound hasn't moved?

Given that all the weekly reports (save thanksgiving week, which was abviously troublesome) were reporting excess deaths, in order for the yearly number to not have advanced, earlier weeks would have had to have been adjusted down.

I would put a lot my money on the issue being comparing midpoint to lower bound than early weeks being adjusted down, but am open to being proven worng,

Bad Wigins wrote:

The people taking the vaccine were already never going to take their masks off. They're lifers, permanently over the mental edge.

? I f—ing hate masks and I’m pumped to take the vaccine. Vaccine = harder to justify masks

1) We are comparing a model of excess deaths. There is uncertainty in what is "excess" so the CDC reports 2 numbers: 1) the average of their model and 2) the upper bound of the 95% CI -- a more conservative measurement.

2) Regardless, excess deaths by either standard have been increasing steadily. They have not leveled off. You are welcome to only look at the most conservative numbers but the trend is still intact.

3) The week of Thanksgiving -- the only data point that supports your argument of "deaths predicted to be lower now" is incomplete AND a bad week for data collection.

Do you acknowledge that the most recent week is likely not complete and shouldn't be used to judge trends in excess deaths? The CDC says this over and over. We had the same argument about Sweden which has notoriously slow death reporting so deaths always look like they are "falling."

4) As far as I know Lyman Stone is a Christian conservative (I think he voted for Kanye lol). You are welcome to call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "liberal" but that doesn't really get us anywhere.