Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

snowyco

Members
  • Posts

    1,499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

snowyco last won the day on August 12 2016

snowyco had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

2,900 profile views

snowyco's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

232

Reputation

  1. We live in Yucatan, not far from Campeche. We got Sinovac in Campeche. ... Both of us are Mex. citizens, over age 60. Merida is doing Oxford-AstraZenica at some sites and Sinovac at others. In the north Yucatan beach coast areas they used only Pfizer's vaccine.
  2. ?? We got our first Sinovac vaccination 26 days ago, and we got our text message - scheduling us to get our second Sinovac jab on Saturday. Everyone we know who have gotten a 1'st jab here in Mexico, have been called back for their second shot.
  3. Here's the Brazilians "10,000 person study", that has only 85 vaccinated patients in the key COVID Treatment group used to calculate the Sinovac's %Efficacy ... and just 168 unvaccinated patients in the key Control COVID group used to report Sinovac's %Efficacy report of"50.7%" Efficacy. https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf Compare that way-too-small Brazilian study with just 86 vaccinated patients used to report %Efficacy, versus the larger Sinovac trials in Turkey that got 84% Efficacy for Sinovac's "Coronavac". https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P
  4. The latest results for the Brazilian "Phase III" trial results for Sinovac's "Coronavac" are in ... and the results reveal a poorly conducted study with only a tiny group of just " 85 COVID cases ... in the vaccine group" and a trivial "168 COVID cases" in the placebo-Control group. Who believes a study that has just 85 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) and a paltry 168 patients in the Control group for the key %Efficacy report ? Seriously ... Why believe the NY Times and AP and other Big Media source talking heads who only repeat the HEADLINE of "50.7% Low Efficacy for Chinese Sinovac " when they don't even bother to read the study to find the key %Efficacy calculation-conclusion was based on just 88 TOTAL Vaccinated patients... ? => An invalid result, due to too small of a group of patients. Notice that the big Sinovac study in Turkey shows 84% efficacy versus the tiny Brazilian study's "50.7%" . Here's the actual research report that exposes the NY Times, AP et al's sloppy, lazy reporting https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf
  5. The latest results for the Brazilian "Phase III" trial results for Sinovac's "Coronavac" are in ... and the results reveal a poorly conducted study with only a tiny group of just " 85 COVID cases ... in the vaccine group" and a trivial "168 COVID cases" in the placebo-Control group. Who believes a study that has just 85 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) and a paltry 168 patients in the Control group for the key %Efficacy report ? Seriously ... Why believe the NY Times and AP and other Big Media source talking heads who only repeat the HEADLINE of "50.7% Low Efficacy for Chinese Sinovac " when they don't even bother to read the study to find the key %Efficacy calculation-conclusion was based on just 88 TOTAL Vaccinated patients... ? => An invalid result, due to too small of a group of patients. Notice that the big Sinovac study in Turkey shows 84% efficacy versus the tiny Brazilian study's "50.7%" . Here's the actual research report that exposes the NY Times, AP et al's sloppy, lazy reporting https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf
  6. Notice that when the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 22% of vaccinated people with COVID infections had "severe COVID disease" ... with up to 45% of them being hospitalized after 2 doses of Pfizer vaccine, THIS IS A NEW FINDING... not reported by Pfizer. Notice that when up to 12% of vaccinated patients GOT COVID ... "at 7 or more days after the second dose" ... it means the vaccine did not work up to 12% of the time. As such, the New England Journal of Medicine report results are NOT for your claimed supposed "21 days " or less after the 2'nd dose. Cheers! No
  7. So... AndyPanda trusts a Brazilian study, that had just 88 vaccinated patients in the Vaccine's %Efficacy group? Why? ... Because "the NY Times says so" ... ? Think about it for a moment: 88 patients is simply too small to provide a valid result for a vaccine efficacy trial.
  8. Believe the scientific posts out of the New England Journal of Medicine instead. Believe the scientific reports for the 10,000 patient Sinovac study performed in Turkey that reported 84% efficacy for the Sinovac. Why would anyone believe a Brazilian study of just "50% efficacy", that had just 88 vaccinated patients in the Treatment Group for calculating the vaccine % efficacy? ... Just because the NY Times & AP guys repeat it? Why would anyone believe a Brazilian study of just "50% efficacy", that had just 175 unvaccinated patients in the Control Group for calculating the vaccine % efficacy? ... Just because the NY Times & AP guys repeat it? Journalists don't know how to interpret, nor what to look for in scientific report. ... The NY Times & AP news staff have been slashed over the years, gutting their research & fact checking departments. Why believe me? I'm a Doctor of Public Health, with 44 yrs of professional experience, who was also a staff editor for 7 years of a BioMedical journal, reviewing & editing years of medical research reports. I've worked on successful Public Health clean-up programs at all of the USA's biggest DOD & DOE sites. I was a professional scientific expert witness for both the US Dept of Justice & the US DOE. I've worked on 2 big virus-transmission control studies of over $2 million for the US NIH & the Gates Foundation. I've personally managed over $37 million of very successful Public Health & Environmental Health programs.
  9. The NY Times and AP are not scientific journals. The "50%" was not quoted from a Chinese Medican official, the "50%" value comes from a very small unreliable Brazilian study. Sadly, the NY Times & AP are unable to read & interpret scientific studies, unable to tell the difference between a good valid study versus a poor small study. The bigger 10,000 patient Turkish study showed Sinovac 83.5% efficacy, and Sinovac was 100% effective in stopping severe illness & hospitalization. ... and there were no significant side effects. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P In contrast, the small Brazilian study's "50.38%" Efficacy reported by NY Times & LA is not valid. ... The Brazilian 'study' of Sinovac was so small that there were just 88 total vaccinated patients who were counted in the %Efficacy calculation and just 175 total unvaccinated (Control Group) patients with COVID, used to calculate that "50%" value that the NY Times & AP keep repeating. Does anyone really trust a study that has just 88 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients)? Sadly even the NY Times & AP don't actually read the primary source material of their news reports, they just repeat things they read from other sources on science & medical issues. The NY Times & AP editors dropped the ball, badly on this one. For comparison: Notice that 83.5% Sinovac efficacy is 10% smaller than Pfizer or Moderna - which troubles the 1 regional Chinese official complaining**, but it is 10% larger than Oxford AstraZenica, and 30% larger than JnJ. **When we read the whole press release by the 1 regional Chinese official, we find he is complaining that China is not allowing the highest efficiency m-RNA vaccines, and he wants to combine those highest-efficiency vaccines with the Chinese vaccines in mixing different jabs of different vaccines.
  10. Note the "50% efficacy " research report that the NY Times quotes & that the AP site quotes HAS ONLY 88 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) with COVID ... and just 175 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Control Group (unvaccinated patients) with COVID. No good scientist anywhere trusts tiny-study results that have just 88 Treatment (vaccinated) patients ... and 175 Control (unvaccinated) patients in their study from Brazil. The "50% " report is scientifically invalid ... and medically invalid ... because the study was so small. The bigger 10,000 patient Sinovac study showed 84% protection. Cheers!
  11. By definition, Medians have alway been averages. Read a basic dictionary: "The median is another form of an average." https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/#:~:text=What is the median%3F,when it's ordered by rank. But that is not the point. The minor point, Bisbeegal, is that when human data sets are very large (like the Israeli data for over 1 million patients), and when they are normal distributions, then, with 95% Confidence: ½ the people in the big study have results below the "Average" (arithmatic mean) and ½ the people in the big study have results above the "Average". The bigger point is that the Pfizer vaccine has gaps in protection up to 12% being unprotected. Cheers!
  12. Think back to normal distributions and the Central Limit Theorem for very large data sets of over 1 million individuals. You are quoting a High School level math oversimplified definition, which ignores what a 1.6% RSD means for a symmetrical normal distribution. Readers can note that ALL Medians are "Average" values... just as ALL Means are "Average" values. "Average" is the overall umbrella term, that literally means 'central value' or 'central tendency' ... which can be either a Mean or a Median.... With over 1 million patients, and a tiny 1.6% RSD, and a symmetrical 88% - 95% distribution, then half the patients got less than 92% average protection, and ½ the patients got more than 92% average protection. Readers can also note that the up to 12% gap in "effective protection from COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccine is real - especially because it comes from a 1.2 million patient study ... Which means to stay safe, we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks and socially distancing for the months to come. The 16% average gap in Sinovac protection, average 24% gap in Oxford AstraZenica vaccine protection, and average 34% gap in JnJ vaccine protection means we get some protection from vaccines, but we still need to keep masking-up & socially distancing. Cheers!
  13. Please read the study results, focusing on the 95% Confidence Interval ranges. Note the fun & revealing study results, like: " ... for documented COVID infections ... 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) " The key is the 1.2 million patients in the study. The big 1.2 million patient Israeli study, from the New England Journal of Medicine reports as low as 88% protection for some people, with a maximum of 95% protection of others - with an 'average' central value of 92% protection. If you know scientific reporting, you realize that a range of 88% to 95% with an average of 92% efficacy ... FOR OVER 1 MILLION patients ... is a symmetrical distribution that really does have as many values below the mean (average) as above the mean (to within less than 1% error). Then notice how tightly centered the distribution is, around the mean, with a Standard Deviation of just 1.5% ... on the mean of 92% ... That Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) of a tiny 1.6% ... says the distribution is symmetrical, with roughly equal numbers of values above & below the mean-average value.
  14. Despite some claims that COVID vaccines supposedly protect us from serious COVID disease & hospitalization, there are proven gaps in the protection of all the COVID vaccines. Remember, when Pfizer reports an "average 92%" efficacy of protection, there are ½ the patients who had less than 92% protection. Note that the world's biggest study of Pfizer's vaccine by Israel's biggest healthcare provider, using 1.2 million patients, reported by the New England Journal of Medicine, reported up to a 22% risk of "severe COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccinated patients at 95% Confidence levels. The Israeli study further reported that up to 45% of the Pfizer vaccinated patients with "severe COVID disease" required hospitalization. ALL of the current vaccines have significant gaps in protection, ranging from a 12% average gap in protection for Pfizer patients ... a 16% average protection gap for Sinovac ... a 24% average gap for Oxford AstraZenica patients ... and an average 35% gap for JnJ. This means we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks & socially distancing until COVID transmissions are choked off. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
  15. The world's biggest study of Pfizer's vaccine by Israel's biggest healthcare provider, using 1.2 million patients, reported by the New England Journal of Medicine, reported up to a 22% risk of "severe COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccinated patients at 95% Confidence levels. The Israeli study further reported that up to 45% of the Pfizer vaccinated patients with "severe COVID disease" required hospitalization. ALL of the current vaccines have significant gaps in protection, ranging from a 12% gap in protection for Pfizer patients ... a 16% protection gap for Sinovac ... a 24% gap for gap for Oxford AstraZenica ... and a 35% gap for JnJ. This means we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks & socially distancing until COVID transmissions are choked off. Also notice that the "average" protections reported for vaccines, are just that: Averages. There are typically 50% of patients who get less than 'average' protection ... especially older patients. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
×
×
  • Create New...