[random314]

> If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment.

I take it that you did not look at odds ratio. This is probabilistic analysis not if-then-else. With no use of risk analysis this is an emotional judgement, not a logic based one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio

> but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials.

???!! What part of the analysis did you disagree with? It was super straightforward.

> it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.

These numbers are straight up false. The placebo group had at least 10X more infections than treatment group.

[desine]

Odds Ratio can only factor in known risks. I very specifically mentioned in my comment I was concerned about the unknown risks.

If my numbers were wrong, I apologize. I mostly remember not being impressed enough

[random314]

How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis?

Btw, the idea behind a multi stage RCT is to identify the unknown risks in a stage wise manner. The odds ratio does just that.

At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind, and there is really no conversation to be had. 94% efficacy is actually extremely fucking impressive.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

"Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001)."

Your own memory reflects your unconscious bias

> it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.

[desine]

>How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis?

How do I incorporate unknown long term effects of the vaccine? If both offer unknowns, of unknown severity, why should I intentionally take one to avoid another? How are you quantizing these? You seem so caught up in how others have told you to analyze risk, you are unable to do so for yourself anymore.

>At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind,

I find you rather rude

>and there is really no conversation to be had.

Fine by me

[random314]

> You seem so caught up in how others have told you to analyze risk, you are unable to do so for yourself anymore.

I am a professional data scientist[1], and get paid to do these kind of analysis myself every day. Analysis far more advanced than odds ratios. I used that as a simple measure that even laymen can understand. Your non-existent analysis is not an adequate replacement for statistical methods.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29671172#29674008

> I find you rather rude

Whats that popular phrase Ben Shapiro uses ..... - "Facts don't care about your feelings".

If you are willing to lose your job to avoid a protective shot, as demonstrated by every medical review and very basic math, you are long beyond the pale of logic or reason.