The claim is that vaccinated are more likely to have an unreported case. It is not that testing numbers are âaccurateâ (which is essentially a meaningless statement). You understood that in your previous post⌠for some reason the bar has suddenly changed.
Your citation does not support that claim.
If you feel differently, you can quote the part that supports that claim.
Church is also posting charts with case numbers. If itâs all bullshit then we have to disregard whatever it is heâs driving at.
This is a good example of how data that have systematic errors can still be useful. Like, we can agree that many asymptomatic people are being undercounted and still conclude that cases are dropping.
JT can you quote the âoriginal claimâ that youâre referring to here?
Neither wookie or I have said this. Itâs frankly dishonest to say this tbh.
This frankly, is a lie. Stop.
Well maybe you should scroll up, because that was indeed, what the conversation was originally about.
No, they donât. They donât know just like you donât know. You canât prove this by âthinking about it.â
gmafb. The data I provided is cited. Churchillâs claim was that there was a bias in that data that remains wholly unsupported.
I mean you weirdly left out the entire exchange between Churchill and I in the middle of that, but sure JT, feel free to jump in with the last word here, as this argument is assinine at this point.
If anything, itâs more likely that cases were being missed at a higher rate at the peak, which means youâre even more than 74% off the peak.
Your citation does not support your assertion. Furthermore, it refers to March 2020 guidelines when there basically was no testing and is nothing close to true now.
Feel free to try again, but it sure seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, you need to support the claim that vaccinated individuals are less likely to show up in case counts.
Yeah, I agree.
I know. I literally was a frontline doctor in March 2020 in NYC JT. We only tested admitted people and it took 1-2 weeks to get tests back. Thatâs not the case today.
It does not, and itâd be irrelevant if it did. Itâs not March 2020.
Again, please support the assertion that current numbers of NYC are signficaitnly distorted by relative testing differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
I understand some of the confusion because churchill originally replied to CNâs post about vaccines being efficient specifically in NYC, but he also received pushback from saying
This is from Santa Clara County and their recommendations seem like they would lead to an underreporting of cases as churchill claimed in the quote above
NYC has totally different testing recommendations so their case numbers are probably more accurate than places like Santa Clara County.
Great! Also not what was cited!
Also it specifically references March 2020, when this effect was the worst. You have no idea what youâre talking about and are clearly here to stir up shit and nothing more. Bye.
JT you can keep tried to rework that into a citation that supports churchill, but it just doesnât. Itâs not going to work. Vaccination continues to protect people from infection, hospitalization, and death.
A new variant arrives, cases shoot up, it peaks, they drop. This is true regardless of whether your theory is correct or not. Surely we can all agree on this part, right?
Now, what you and CN and jman seem to be arguing about is whether tons of vaccinated mild cases are being missed. But in a general sense it doesnât matter. Unless youâve got some theory for why the cases being missed would be different on the upside or at the peak than on the downside, so different that it would meaningfully change the shape of the curve, then it doesnât matter.
I havenât seen anyone even theorize about that, so in a general sense, cases went up, they peaked, theyâre coming down. Unless something changed drastically in the last few weeks, that seems pretty hard to dispute.
Now, if you were arguing about a certain threshold to scale back personal precautions based on nominal case numbers relative to summer 2021 or winter 2020-21 or spring 2021, that might be a different story.
I think you can logically argue both sides and while Iâm comfortable saying weâre missing a ton of cases Iâm not comfortable saying weâre missing more than at one of those prior key points in the pandemic. We may be missing them for different reasons though, and that probably has an impact on what conclusions we should draw.
Cool, I never said that. Iâm sure this will be the end of it instead of another 5 paragraph post titled - how jt doesnât understand how the null hypothesis works in scientific discussion.
Youâre arguing with several people over whether we are missing a higher proportion of vaccinated cases than unvaccinated. Both sides have logical reasons to support their assertions, but itâs impossible to know for sure either way.
My post is an attempt to tie it back in to some sort of tangible way it matters, because I donât see the point in arguing over case numbers just to argue. The case numbers are able to help us draw general conclusions about the situation and adjust accordingly with our personal choices. If your point ultimately leads to saying we should add some multiplier relative to past numbers in order to normalize them for those decisions, well, arenât we just going to be making a wild ass guess?
Iâm also not close to definitively convinced weâre missing more cases in vaxxed than unvaxxed people. But thereâs no way of knowing right now, so to each their own on that I guess.
I support the null hypothesis. This is how scientific discussion works. You need to positively prove a claim. Itâs not up to me disprove whatever nonsense you claim.