South Africa to Broaden Vaccine Rollout With Pfizer Doses Monday

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,591
No because it is a relatively new situation which caused me to actively think about it. I don't need to constantly re-evaluate, but I do get to benefit from ZA's slow rollout compared to other countries while they start giving us real world data instead of claims from research groups.
Ok
Um lets see.
I am going to give you a scenario, there is no trick involved, think about your answer ( but don't google it ) then reply.

A man is 42 years old, he lives alone. He is rather thin and wears glasses. He does not watch television but likes to read books. Is this man more likely to be a farmer or a librarian?
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,652
Ok
Um lets see.
I am going to give you a scenario, there is no trick involved, think about your answer ( but don't google it ) then reply.

A man is 42 years old, he lives alone. He is rather thin and wears glasses. He does not watch television but likes to read books. Is this man more likely to be a farmer or a librarian?
not enough information for a conclusion, I can make an equally strong argument for either outcome

EDIT: and now that I've googled it after the fact, something like the number of each profession in this man's country would certainly be handy information that was not stated
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,591
Ah ok so you were not willing to state in case you were wrong, but your edit is insightful.

You were caught by the representative heuristic. You already knew that farmers are far more common than librarians, but you concentrated on the irrelevant information you were given to form an opinion.

Thinking about thinking is fascinating.

Anyway off to ride my bike
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,652
Ah ok so you were not willing to state in case you were wrong, but your edit is insightful.
no, I stated my actual conclusion, who's acting on assumptions now? The edit is merely honest.

You already knew that farmers are far more common than librarians
No I didn't, nobody said where this guy is from, I guarantee you there are countries in the world where that doesn't hold true ... do you think Monaco has more farmers than librarians?

you concentrated on the irrelevant information you were given to form an opinion
the only information I was given, not my fault you only provided the irrelevant kind
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,591
no, I stated my actual conclusion, who's acting on assumptions now? The edit is merely honest.


No I didn't, nobody said where this guy is from, I guarantee you there are countries in the world where that doesn't hold true ... do you think Monaco has more farmers than librarians?


the only information I was given, not my fault you only provided the irrelevant kind
You are proving the point over and over again.
You were deliberately not given the information. Remember this is to see how we make decisions in the absence of information.

You were asked what is most likely.

You could have made a perfectly valid argument that he was more likely to be a farmer as in the absence of other information you would have argued that the base rate you were using was the base rate that you know which is that there are more farmers worldwide than librarians. But if you are honest base rates did not enter your decision matrix in coming to an answer.

Our "ego" represents that all our decisions are rational, yet we see people making irrational decisions all the time. Whenever I bring up the topic of biases and heuristics with friends or colleagues the response is always defensive, it feels like I am threatening "your" thinking. Its not that at all, its simply gaining an understanding of our thought "processes".

For example a patient presents with flank pain and blood in the urine, sudden onset. That is such a representation of a kidney stone that it is difficult ( often impossible ) to consider other diagnosis. Occasionally it is actually a ruptured aorta and the patient dies while waiting for his cystoscopy.
If you speak to a doctor and ask what his process is in coming to a diagnosis, he will tell you that he takes a history, then does and examination, some investigations, then puts all that information together and comes up with the most likely diagnosis. And he really believes that is his process. What really happens is shortly into getting a history a diagnosis pops into his mind, and what happens thereafter is efforts to confirm this initial diagnosis. So in the above example he will ask if perhaps the patient has had a stone before, a yes answer will add confirmation. A BP of 100/60 and pulse of 110 will be dismissed as a pain response.

Of course understanding where these biases and heuristics can trip us up means you can employ strategies to counteract them. Train yourself to think flank pain and haematuria = rupture aortic aneurysm, even though it very rarely does but just having that thought process means you won't miss it. Try to actively disprove your first thought.
 

Groggyme

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
234
@NarrowBandFtw show me your maths!
These threads are great for filling up your ignore list on this forum. No matter what you say, sources you provide, stories about family members dying you tell etc. they will find a "source", do the "maths" and do the mental gymnastics to prove you "wrong". There is no intelligent discussion or debate with these types. Just ignore and move on is a suggestion of mine.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,652
If it's so simple then you should have no problem showing us your calculations
oh no problem, just that it is so simple that the description of https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...er-doses-monday.1137133/page-28#post-27730304 made it perfectly clear imo

a = actual recorded death rate of the unvaccinated (alpha variant) = 2%
b = vaccine efficacy = 100%
c = estimated death rate among the vaccinated (delta variant) = a x (1 - b) = 0%
d = % of population vaccinated = 80%
e = actual recorded death rate, combined vaccinated and unvaccinated, Delta variant = 0.2%

solve for 'e':
(d x c) + ((100% - d) x a) = e

with the numbers above, which are purposely high to favour the theory of the vaccine causing the drop in death rate, you come to a weighted average death rate of 0.4%

given that 0.4% > 0.2% it is impossible for the vaccine alone to explain the drop, ergo, the Delta variant is less deadly
 

ck1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
130
so responding in kind and promptly forgetting that you ever existed is now a 'meltdown'? :ROFL:

add your thoughts on being a very low rank troll to your answer please :laugh:

Show us on the teddy where the nasty vaccine touched you.
 

Nurple Derple

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
22,380
oh no problem, just that it is so simple that the description of https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...er-doses-monday.1137133/page-28#post-27730304 made it perfectly clear imo

a = actual recorded death rate of the unvaccinated (alpha variant) = 2%
b = vaccine efficacy = 100%
c = estimated death rate among the vaccinated (delta variant) = a x (1 - b) = 0%
d = % of population vaccinated = 80%
e = actual recorded death rate, combined vaccinated and unvaccinated, Delta variant = 0.2%

solve for 'e':
(d x c) + ((100% - d) x a) = e

with the numbers above, which are purposely high to favour the theory of the vaccine causing the drop in death rate, you come to a weighted average death rate of 0.4%

given that 0.4% > 0.2% it is impossible for the vaccine alone to explain the drop, ergo, the Delta variant is less deadly
So according to your "calculations" the Delta Variant is less deadly because people are vaccinated?
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,591
oh no problem, just that it is so simple that the description of https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...er-doses-monday.1137133/page-28#post-27730304 made it perfectly clear imo

a = actual recorded death rate of the unvaccinated (alpha variant) = 2%
b = vaccine efficacy = 100%
c = estimated death rate among the vaccinated (delta variant) = a x (1 - b) = 0%
d = % of population vaccinated = 80%
e = actual recorded death rate, combined vaccinated and unvaccinated, Delta variant = 0.2%

solve for 'e':
(d x c) + ((100% - d) x a) = e

with the numbers above, which are purposely high to favour the theory of the vaccine causing the drop in death rate, you come to a weighted average death rate of 0.4%

given that 0.4% > 0.2% it is impossible for the vaccine alone to explain the drop, ergo, the Delta variant is less deadly
A few thoughts.
You have dispersed the vaccination equally across the entire population, while in reality the more vulnerable populations have a higher vaccination rate. This alone could explain your difference.

Otherwise perhaps it's nothing to do with the virus but we are better at treating people with severe Covid.

Or perhaps we are better at detecting people with very mild Covid.

Many possibilities to explain the difference.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18,337
A few thoughts.
You have dispersed the vaccination equally across the entire population, while in reality the more vulnerable populations have a higher vaccination rate. This alone could explain your difference.

Otherwise perhaps it's nothing to do with the virus but we are better at treating people with severe Covid.

Or perhaps we are better at detecting people with very mild Covid.

Many possibilities to explain the difference.

Short answer (posted many pages back) is Bayes Theorem:
For example, if the risk of developing health problems is known to increase with age, Bayes' theorem allows the risk to an individual of a known age to be assessed more accurately (by conditioning it on their age) than simply assuming that the individual is typical of the population as a whole.
 

zolly

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
4,370
These threads are great for filling up your ignore list on this forum. No matter what you say, sources you provide, stories about family members dying you tell etc. they will find a "source", do the "maths" and do the mental gymnastics to prove you "wrong". There is no intelligent discussion or debate with these types. Just ignore and move on is a suggestion of mine.

My ignore list has gotten huge. Unfortunately I occasionally go "show ignored" and find myself getting sucked into the absolute hogwash some of these people are spewing out.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,652
So according to your "calculations" the Delta Variant is less deadly because people are vaccinated?
/facepalm

"my calculations"
represent run of the mill, super simple stats, if you have a more elegant (yet simple) approach I'd be all ears

why not actually inspect the method rather than don those blinkers and just reject by calling it "mine"?

take a page out of @Daveogg 's book

to answer you grossly (intentional?) misinterpreted response though: no, that simple math shows that the Delta variant must be less deadly, because there is a larger drop in death rate than can be explained by the vaccine efficacy alone
 
Top