Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

I don't really see where I did that other than that one post I'm being crucified for.

"And now - maybe we'll get more spam.
'So your logic is ...'  looking for bottom post.  "

You've said it 10 times more than I have this hour alone. I really wonder who's causing spam.

It's a right to ignore my posts, but no need to mention it, predict the content of that post and accuse me of spamming a specific sentence when the person with the accusation has been doing it all hour long.

I hope we can shift back to discussing COVID. 

"I don't really see how we're having less spreading"
Apparently he'll Never see anything he doesn't intend to.
And obviously - my posts refer to Covid and continue to do so.
So the suggestion that the posts don't refer to Covid is disingenuous and uncivil.
Does his uncivillity have a use?
Well anybody who would act in a disingenuous way while pushing Covid disinfo - is actually discrediting the disinfo 'front'.  
That could have uses.
Also - new directions of Covid discussion could be pursued - while mostly posting around 'attempts at pingpong' posts.

Note that many persons may be discouraged from posting here if whoever just keeps spamming and trolling disingenuous posts like those beginning with things like:
'so your logic is ...'
'can't see' ...
'lets get back to Covid' ... when all the posts obviously concerned Covid ...
and a good deal of 'playing dumb' and 'playing victim' ...
and trying to infer that others must read his posts or answer his questions -  
Its more hostility from him.  It is tactical.  And its uncivil.  

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
From this:  It appears there are over 43 million Covid cases worldwide.
But with a current death rate of about 1%.
Compared with a death rate in previous years that was as high as 4%.
That's what I remember from the same coronavirus worldometer site back then.
This big reduction in death rate is almost certainly due to vaccination.
When the immune system has been given a big head start on producing antibodies (or related antibodies) - then it becomes more likely that the host will kill the virus internally - before the virus kills the host.
Its a race.  If the host can kill the virus fast enough - then the host wins.
If not - the virus wins and the host dies.

Related to this:  is hospitalizations. 
As opposed to just cases on one side and deaths on the other.
That can be googled too.  And discussed here.
But this post is not addressed to @chamo2074 .
Hopefully others will post instead and in an infinitely better way free of 'so your logic is ...' and other forms of spam and trolling and hostility dressed up to look genteel.
Such disingenuous posts can be posted around.
There are many people on this website who can do infinitely better than heckling with 'can't see' and pretending that the posts aren't about Covid.

Covid is not a cheerful subject.
But there's ways to accentuate positives within the subject.
Australia and South Korea have done over ten times as well as the USA in the Covid deaths per million department.
That could be looked at and discussed by many chess.com members.
And discussed here.  Repeat:  many.  

So the vaccine is doing extremely well at preventing deaths. Not in contention, but it's not doing well for reducing the number of cases because South Korea is literally at 86% vaccinated and they hit the biggest number of new cases. 

And some people have an extremely low risk of dying from this virus. For example, only 15 people between 0-19 years old unvaccinated people died in France due to COVID, out of 1.320M positive tests for people who are unvaccinated.

15 for 1.320M that's about 0.0011% fatality rate. And that's IF one catches COVID in the first place!

The incidence rate in France is 0.02% of serious adverse events, add that to the fact that not all adverse events are reported/attributed to vaccination, and that the fatality rate is generalized for all of COVID, and with omicron being less deadly it's probably even lower, and that the people who died are most likely immunocompromised. Maybe someone fails to do the maths and see that the risk of developing an adverse reaction is 20 times more probable than a 0-19-year-old to die from COVID?

About hospitalizations:

Official numbers from drees:

-81% vaccine efficacity with regards to hospitalizations. A negative efficacity.

Those people who got hospitalized are also mostly unhealthy too, and again that's if one catches COVID in the first place.

I can't help but notice that you narrow your Covid stats down to 0-19, but leave your adverse vaccine incidence rates as general to all ages.

How about about comparing for us the fatality rate of 0-19 vaccinated vs. 0-19 unvaccinated, and breaking out serious adverse reaction rates for 0-19, and more importantly, death rates among 0-19 from adverse vaccine reactions?  I suspect you don't have the latter two sets of data available due to some very fuzzy statistics around serious adverse reactions.

I find the notion of negative efficacy to be fairly dubious, which is probably why I have nopt seen this employed elsewhere .  Consider, for example, that someone that decides to go unvaccinated is far more likely to also go unhospitalized once they do get sick.  You statistics here only show the people that actually got treated and showed up in the stats...unless these stats include some fudge factor estimate to capture the unhospitalized.

As for the exchanges of the past couple of days, let's remember to discuss the facts, not to attack the posters.  Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc. but stay away from directly insulting anyone purely for who they are. 

Largely because I keep the trolls out of it.  Do you have anything to contribute, brand new poster from Oblivion, USA?

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.