51–60 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the whole article? At the end it reveals the entire point - that failing to take into consideration the age of study participants in things like Covid death rates render false conclusions from studies.
So a guy posted something on Facebook and got less likes than a teenage girl usually gets on Instagram. And so this another guy decides to preach to the choir because of that? Might as well write an article about microchips in the vaccines and 5G. I guess it also will hit the top on HN.
I do like the original Ghostbusters movie, but I'm not sure that really added to the effect for me.
This article is like the factcheckers fact checking a similar irrelevant thing to avoid having to investigate the real issue
I'm seeing a slight upward trend in the "1 dose" line (indeed just crossing the "unvaccinated" line in a latest month), but the "2 doses" line is much lower than both, and doesn't seem to be changing much.
Still why would people with 1 dose be dying more than unvaccinated?
Wow that seemed like a lot of effort to make a point. Often twitter oversimplifies things, but that could legitimately have been a tweet of the offending graph and a few words about how older/sick people are more likely to have been vaccinated, and also more likely to die because they're old/sick. I do like the original Ghostbusters movie, but I'm not sure that really added to the effect for me.
Tl;dr someone fell for Simpson's paradox [0] and wrote a (probably 'viral') post on how Covid-19 vaccines are killing us; this is a (slightly confusing at first without context, I thought - especially because it starts of joking about correlation/causation that seems a bit different to me) rebuttal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Correlatio...
For example, he portrayed New Zealand's 2-week quarantine requirements for incoming travellers to New Zealand as "indefinite confinement for New Zealanders". When people pointed out the gulf between what he was saying and what the law was, he doubled down. I'd share the exact tweets, but unfortunately his account is now suspended. Twitter really needs a way to access tweets from banned accounts in a way that removes their virality but preserves them for posterity.
Tl;dr someone fell for Simpson's paradox [0] and wrote a (probably 'viral') post on how Covid-19 vaccines are killing us; this is a (slightly confusing at first without context, I thought - especially because it starts of joking about correlation/causation that seems a bit different to me) rebuttal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#Correlatio...
Berenson is one of the most prominent deniers, previously famous for his claims about marijuana being far more dangerous than commonly believed.
I believe you, assume you're correct, he's (nor anyone else like that) just not 'on my radar' at all. I just assumed prominence/virality of at least this one post due to the existence of one (the submission) refuting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its so so clearly a joke. Come on man.
What's the joke? It seems to me they're trying to make a point about the study that appears lower on the page, the one claiming that vaccinated people are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Often, but not in this case, hence my comment.
Did you read the whole article? At the end it reveals the entire point - that failing to take into consideration the age of study participants in things like Covid death rates render false conclusions from studies.
This is Hacker News! Of course not.
This reminds me of the sort of light poking of common "correlation is not the same as causation" and "beware of confounding factors" statistical failures behind the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster "clearly reduction in pirates has caused global warming!" [0]. But it's a major in modern public discourse, and one for once that I'm quite willing to lay heavily at the feet of the public education system. Easily on…
Statistics is probably more useful than Calculus for just about everyone.