Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

Negative efficacity is calculated and the result is negative because the percentage of unvaccinated people among the hospitalized is lower than the percentage of unvaccinated among the general population. It does not suggest that it's more likely to get hospitalized if you're vaccinated, because the people who got vaccinated were most likely more vulnerable in the first place and the unvaccinated were probably more restricted. However, that won't really considerably change the stats really, in a way where vaccine efficacity is considerable.

As for side-effects for 0-19 and the way that would change the stat:

" For example, younger people are said to experience higher intensity side-effects, in comparison to older ones."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/coronavirus-vaccine-how-side-effects-differ-in-younger-people-and-older-people-as-per-studies/photostory/84038767.cms?picid=84038881

It will only increase it.

I found this on the menu of the site, could be interesting:
It says:

General: Synthesis per status, synthesis per age

Vaccine efficacity: COVID cases, hospitalizations, intensive care, deaths

Simulations: Vaccination scenarios, individual probabilities

Other: PCR tests, non-symptomatic, Effects for 3rd dose

Source: Drees data from 31/5/2021 to 3/04/2022 

(Drees is extremely reliable and one of the most cited in France)

The shown statistics are only the ones with a PCR positive test along with them.

Maybe this answers your questions.

   IDK if its new to you people but its new to me.....2 new highly contagious variants found in the U.S.                                                                                                      https://www.yahoo.com/news/highly-transmissible-forms-omicron-may-194229998.html   

https://christine-cotton.1ere-page.fr/evaluation-essais-pfizer/

I found a really good presentation made by Christine Cotton, an expert biostatistician:

It talks about the evaluation of the methodological practices implemented in the Pfizer trials of its mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 with regard to Good Clinical Practices.

Here about Good Clinical Practices

She analyzed Pfizer documents regarding the BNT162b2 product that can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

She also makes a really good point about the need to have a methodology capable of identifying the elements likely to cause the results to deviate from their real value, these elements bear the name of bias.

She identified all of these elements:
1)

First bias shown:

• Possibility of an incomplete report by the patient or him being unable to evaluate his health state.
• Misevaluation of the health state by the staff member after a simple phone call or a teleconsultation.
• Use of antipyretics that are able to prevent the symptoms (they were used 3.5 times more in the vaccine group than in the placebo group).
•  Suspected but unconfirmed symptomatic cases are twice more common in the vaccine group.
• No answer from the staff.

Here's a question mark showing a contrast between the results from the clinical trials and reality:

The reported COVID cases post-vaccination (failure of the vaccine) is 4.6% in the real-life scenario as shown in the post-marketing experience document. The clinical trial shows 0.044%, so about 100 times less.

Among those links I posted earlier, one clearly shows unconfirmed but suspected COVID cases:

Translating what she wrote:

"Dubious estimate of the true number of symptomatic cases of COVID-19
Conclusions on demonstrated vaccine efficacy unreliable
To address these multiple biases in counting symptomatic COVID-19 cases, it would have been much more appropriate to perform PCR tests not only for participants reporting symptoms but for the entire population included in the study. Clinical trial, which would also have detected asymptomatic COVID-19 which are also vectors of the disease.
This was a very surprising way of managing the participants in the clinical trial since any person with COVID-19, even asymptomatic, could infect those around them, thus transmitting a potentially fatal disease, which obviously did not worry the laboratory much.
Why did the lab not choose to perform regular PCR tests on all participants?
Why didn't the lab choose to do serology to check if the participant had COVID-19?

Any efficacy demonstrated on the primary endpoint chosen cannot claim to demonstrate that the vaccine prevents the transmission of COVID-19, see Opinion of HAS and ANSM December 2020
"Without demonstrated impact on transmission"
'Effective vaccine for personal protection'
Any communication aimed at promoting vaccination on the basis of different arguments is therefore not supported by any statistical or scientific evidence. "

To be followed, I don't want the post to be too long.

An interesting new trend in the Coronavirus worldometer site these days -
daily worldwide deaths from Covid ...
seem to have now gone down (looking at the graph) 
to around 2500 per day ...  as opposed to far over 10,000 such deaths per day three months ago.
This is addressed to most people reading - 
the post isn't about me
- its about this new statistical trend.

But new cases per day is still way up there.  
As to the hospitalization rate of new cases - its not on the main chart on that site.
I'm sure there are many charts on the web - some of them probably more trustworthy than others.   
But thats about charts and the web - not about me.  

And in another Covid News item - 
the city of Philadelphia in the USA is being sued for bringing back mask mandates in some indoor areas.
Only in the USA would that happen ?  
A lawsuit because of placing much value on human lives ...
but that could be googled ...
legal anger over saving lives - reducing hospitalizations .. reducing the spread of the disease.
Would some try to distort the statistics - push a misinterpretation of the measures against Covid as hard as they can?
Try to personalize those making a real effort?
Sure they would.  They do.  And with much tactics.
Perhaps pretending that they've 'answered the questions'.
Seems to be a Big Tactic in the open forums on the website -
answer ever post so that it appears that the questions are 'answered' whereas in fact they're not but others then decide not to post.

Whether persons like Joseph Mercola or Marjorie Greene ...
The Covid disinfo effort appears to be headquartered in the USA - but what country would rank second in Covid Disinformation ?
Could be researched.
Covid Disinformation and Misinformation and Misinterpretation -
is a kind of disease in and of itself.
Its spread could perhaps be charted against time and geographically.

"But new cases per day is still way up there."

You said it yourself, even in countries where 75+% and 80+% of the population are vaccinated, cases are still up there and therefore the vaccination campaigns did not reduce the spreading of the virus.

"the post isn't about me"

Yep, it's about that person being talked about in half of that post. Is it really much better? 

There we go again 
misinterpretation -
the fact that new cases are 'way up there' doesn't mean that the spread of the viruses hasn't been reduced.
In other words - why would the spread of the viruses not be Very Much Worse without the various  measures including Vaccination.
And again - the blatant attempt to make it about me.
I'm talking about a website on the internet - not myself.
So it becomes clearer and clearer why so many are deterred these days in this forum.
Perhaps - a look back will establish when this got bad here.

Because that same website worldometer, shows that the countries recording the biggest number of cases daily are: South Korea (86% of the population fully vaccinated), Australia (83%), Japan (80%), Italy (85%) and Thailand (80%).

They're all above 80%, they're the countries that have recorded the MOST Covid cases in the past few days (repetitively). Many countries have lower vaccination rates and are doing way better with regards to dealing with spreading.

"And again - the blatant attempt to make it about me.
I'm talking about a website on the internet - not myself."

Is this what is being referred to as the attempt? "Yep, it's about that person being talked about in half of that post. Is it really much better? "

Well this suggests your post was about another person, which isn't much better than talking about oneself, like in these examples:

"Is there a person here who will try to make every post promoting the fight against Covid - about the persons so posting?
Just one apparently.  But he can be posted 'Around'.  "

"Would some try to distort the statistics - push a misinterpretation of the measures against Covid as hard as they can?
Try to personalize those making a real effort?
Sure they would.  They do.  And with much tactics.
Perhaps pretending that they've 'answered the questions'.
Seems to be a Big Tactic in the open forums on the website -
answer ever post so that it appears that the questions are 'answered' whereas in fact they're not but others then decide not to post."

Not only does the post talk about a specific person, it also accuses it of disinformation without proof which isn't very tolerable, and in my very humble opinion, shouldn't be exerced every time that specific person makes a posts, basing their arguments on proof. 

That all began March 11th - over a month and over 400 posts ago.
Measures against Covid - slow not only the spread of Covid - but a better way to put it - reduce exponential Increase of that spread.

But the spread of the Disinfo movement can be discussed too.
It can be researched - analyzed - dissected - and discussed here.
But if whoever is very determined - he could personalize every single post about the Disinfo effort or that emphasizes the fight against Covid with 'so your logic is ...' or 'I can't see ...' or even quote a post and then begin his reply claiming that the reverse of what was said - was said.
Issue:  How should other posters deal with such Tactics ?
It may be they'll decide "this isn't worth my time"

"Issue:  How should other posters deal with such Tactics ?"

By showing proof that the provided information is false instead of repetitively making the same accusations regarding that person regardless of whether they apply to the specific post.

It's as simple as that, in fact this has been done: Didier Raoult was shown to be a 'not very reliable reference' in this thread and his preachings are no longer promoted here (in fact @btickler was contacted and mentioned it was okay to quote him which was done a few times, where the said quote were not disinformation and had a different reference along with them), same for Robert Malone.

As for the tactics, each of what you mentioned can be resolved:

The first one was apologized for.

For the second, apologies were offered once again (refused) and summarizing somebody else's sayings isn't an activity known for rudeness and obnoxiousness either way.

For the third, how can one's own incompetence to not see something be used as a tactic in order to spread disinformation? Maybe another poster can simply show what needs to be seen?

The content of the discussion is basically okay...but the personal back and forth is getting out of hand.  If someone doesn't like a poster's points, refute them, but take the personal stuff to PMs.  Playerafar, you're pushing the envelope by leaning on Chamo consistently and not just his arguments.  Chamo has shown himself to be open to changing his mind and reasonable in his arguments, something I wish more of the vaccine-averse were able to do .  I don't agree with his conclusions about young people being vaccinated, but there's an argument to be made there.

The last bullet point of the OP's "don't do this" list, for reference:

- One on one arguments and unilateral attacks on other posters.  This thread is not a chat room.  Take it to PMs.

@btickler
The above quote illustrates what I'm talking about.
The 'So you're saying Australia did not use the precautions as much as the US? .... '  reply is an Obnoxious tactic.
In that reply he is saying the opposite of what I said.
Right there in the same post.
That post can be accessed directly with this link   https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?quote_id=68230065&page=183#comment-68230065
The 'so you're saying ...' line is a direct reference to me personally and his reply is a slander of what I said.
Its right there.
Its him getting on me - not me getting on him.
In a previous post you seemed to suggest I had a right to expose these tactics.
I could dig that up too.
But I don't want to argue with you:
My point:  If you let him get away with this kind of thing - it does not serve a good purpose.  It will encourage him to continue with 'so your logic ..." and other personalization posts.

In another previous post - you asked him to delete something unsupported and he agreed to delete.
Idea (respectfully)  Ask him to delete the slandering post and to apologize for same with no silly 'ifs' or phony 'ready'.
And to promise to try harder to refrain from such ...
With another idea in mind:
that all his past similiar tactical posts are then ignored by addressing that single one ....
with him thus having made amends (is he capable of same)  then the whole thing gets 'put behind' in a legitimate way.  
I'm not going to take blame for his totally reversing my posts.

I am not going to dig it up, but I am under the impression that Chamo later apologized for that?  In any case, it matters little .  The proportion of your response is out of whack.  I would not have to go back nearly as far as you just did to find a dozen or more pokes or prods from you towards him.  When I read that post originally, I actually thought he just misunderstood, not that he tried to purposefully misrepresent you.

@btickler
There is no need to dig it up.
I provided a direct link to the post.  Here it is again.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?quote_id=68230065&page=183#comment-68230065
You may not be aware that the paperclip button on each post can be clicked and the link to it goes into the clipboard for copy/paste.
when the link is then posted - you can click it and it will not only take you to that page - it will highlight the post concerned in grey.

He 'apologized'?  Then why has he been repeating this behaviour?
You have refuted several of his posts - but he hasn't tried these tactics with you - apparently because he's scared of you.
He knows you'll block him if he tries that stuff with you.
Another thing:
When he first posted he indicated that maybe he won't be 'welcomed'.
Suggesting he's tried this elsewhere and it was rejected.

His post was a direct opposite of what I said - not a misunderstanding.
In other words it wasn't stupidity (it would have to be grossly stupid - to be so) - it was disingenuous behaviour.
He's repeated this multiple times.
Also I tried to PM you a while back - I got no reply.
You don't have to PM me back - I know that.
But if this is to be resolved it might be a way to do so.

I was referring to digging up Chamo's apology.  If he's repeated this "opposite" behavior multiple times, I haven't seen it emerging as a trend ...so you'll have to point these occurrences out explicitly.  I think you're overreacting, and that the casual observer would read these exchanges as you hounding Chamo, not the other way around.

@btickler - "Whether you think it makes a difference doesn't matter one iota."
there you are trying to firmly reason with this person.
If it had been me or somebody else - it would have been pingpong from him.
If you are the only one who can firmly talk back to him - 
then he potentially will pull this with everyone else except you.  
Hence his initial post when he first started posting here -
that maybe he wouldn't be 'welcomed' here.
Its like he knew what was going to happen.  

"and that the casual observer would read these exchanges as you hounding Chamo, not the other way around."
Which would be what he wants.
I think you 'cured' him of the nursing thing ...   
but he's not going to let go of his tactic of ignoring the reality that if somebody's immune system has defeated the virus earlier because of previous  vaccination - then how would that person then spread the disease ?
Is it like talking to a wall?
Not exactly.  

What should be done about whoever -
if anybody says ...  well  A =  B + C ...
and then the other then keeps saying: 

'you mean  D = F + G'
and you say - 'will you Kindly not keep changing what I say and also personalizing?'  and he then screams  "please don't be Hostile - its a big misunderstanding"
Is it possible that this person simply can't even ever consider any other point of view other than his own?  (except for ridiculous strawman versions of what the other person just said)

Side point: 
There's a difference between Disinformation and Misinformation.  

@btickler I think you're doing a good job of interfering with Covid disinformation and misinformation.
In your posts.
But reinterpreting posts about Covid measures - is also Covid disinformation.
Are we all allowed here to interfere with these Tactical attempts at Covid disinformation ?   Or at Covid misinformation?
The difference would seem to be:
Disinformation is a malicious and calculated operation.
Misinformation - is more like stupidity and stupid rumor-mongering about downplaying measures against Covid.
But Tactical Misinformation is something else again.
I see these dynamics all the time in discussions of other subjects.
And it almost never matters and can be ignored 99% of the time.
Cognitive disonnance.  Cognition bias. 
Or even crazy Flat Earth stuff.  
But this is different.
This is somebody serving notice that he'll tactically both misinterpret and personalize any and every post that interferes with his Covid misinformation - except such interfering posts from the original poster.  
He will do so Consistently.  Every time.

Regarding pointing out these 'opposite' and other 'alterings' of things posted (not even addressed to him) ...
I have a suggestion for now ...
yes - I could dig up some of those (he could just go back and delete them of course - which might actually do some good)
but instead - its likely there'll be more.  
Other people might post soon.  I might post too.
We could just see if he pulls this again.
I don't think he's going to pull it with you.
I could even try to repost something I posted earlier ...
But for now - I want to see if some people will post now.
I try to avoid consecutive postings  - especially three or more.

You'll note that after asking for examples of these occurrences that you are convinced are consistent and happen every time, you produced only a hypothetical about how Chamo would react to you posting something I posted.

You posited that Chamo will "ping pong" with anyone...but somehow it's only with you.  If it turns out later to be everyone else, then I will do something about Chamo (I have not conferred sainthood upon him or anything), but that does not justify your behavior now.

Last warning.  Stop harassing Chamo directly, and stop talking about it indirectly.  Your next meandering tirade directed his way will result in a block for spamming, and I doubt anyone will speak up on your behalf should that happen.  If you wish to refute his discussion points, go ahead and dispute the facts, but without the personal aspersions.

I'm reposting something I said earlier - with some slight alterations.
I want to see what happens.
And I've added a note at the bottom too.  

//////////////////////////////////////

An interesting new trend in the Coronavirus worldometer site these days -
daily worldwide deaths from Covid ...
seem to have now gone down (looking at the graph) 
to around 2500 per day ...  as opposed to far over 10,000 such deaths per day three months ago.
This is addressed to most people reading - 
the post isn't about me
- its about this new statistical trend.

But new cases per day is still way up there.  
That however - does not mean that vaccination does not slow the spread of Covid.  Of Course it slows the spread.
But graphs and figures can be Egregiously misinterpreted to argue an illogical contrary.
As to the hospitalization rate of new cases - its not on the main chart on that site.
I'm sure there are many charts on the web - some of them probably more trustworthy than others.   
But thats about charts and the web - not about me.  

And in another Covid News item - 
the city of Philadelphia in the USA is being sued for bringing back mask mandates in some indoor areas.
Only in the USA would that happen ?  
A lawsuit because of placing much value on human lives ...
but that could be googled ...
legal anger over saving lives - reducing hospitalizations .. reducing the spread of the disease.
Would some try to distort the statistics - push a misinterpretation of the measures against Covid as hard as they can?
Try to personalize those making a real effort?
Sure they would.  They do.  And with much tactics.
Perhaps pretending that they've 'answered the questions'.
Seems to be a Big Tactic in the open forums on the website -
answer ever post so that it appears that the questions are 'answered' whereas in fact they're not but others then decide not to post.

Whether persons like Joseph Mercola or Marjorie Greene ...
The Covid disinfo effort appears to be headquartered in the USA - but what country would rank second in Covid Disinformation ?
Could be researched.
Covid Disinformation and Misinformation and Misinterpretation -
is a kind of disease in and of itself.
Its spread could perhaps be charted against time and geographically.

/////////////////

Regarding being asked for 'explicit' examples of a certain thing -
I hesitated to do so because one blatant example appeared to be sufficient.
There's been several - but if I had brought them out -
then I could have been alternately blamed for doing that too.
If I cannot defend myself against misinterpretations of my posts made in a personal way that name me and call me out -
then that is an unfair thing that is going on.
There are several instances.  They are easy to find. 

Regardless of whether somebody 'comes to my aid or not'.
I go by the merits of the situation.  Not forum politics. 
Not likes and dislikes either and not power plays.
Should interfering with the peddling of Covid misinformation about vaccination be disallowed?
I say no.  It shouldn't be.   
The opening poster even mentioned 'cognition bias'.
Nobody else can?
/////////////////////////////////////
I got this too:  from the opening poster:
"Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc."
I can give the link information.
I've been doing this - so why would I then get warnings about doing exactly what was obviously permitted ?
Its beginning to look like harassment.

That's the full post.
With
 Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc.
Here's the link to it ... https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?page=194#comment-68916755

That's what I've been doing - pointing out that tactics are being repeated.
And I've been doing that my way - rather than being bullied into doing it somebody else's way.
Regarding reportability of all of this to staff - I imagine its not -
as people can block who they wish.
Interfering with Covid misinformation and disinformation -
its been a good forum.
But talking back to those personalizing that interference - not allowed?
Not good.

I got 2 Pfizer shots, some time passed, I got sick with pneumonia but tested negative for Covid-19. Some time passed and was sick again. This time we all tested positive for Covid-19 and I had pneumonia again. Should I get the boosters?