BigData Analysis of 145 Countries Shows C-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Using No Vaccines

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
If this has been debunked, just like to the post that debunks it. If you can't, then you are full of crap. it's OK to not have an answer, but when you pretend you do, you look like a pinhead.

Did you not say that you had not read the paper?

What would be the point of pointing you to where it might have been debunked when you have not read it?

SIgh, debunking consists of more then just the usage of the word "debunking". I realize for the mentally challenged, that is sufficient, but for the rest of the world, it's not. In order for it to be debunked, an explanation of what's wrong with it would have to have been posted. And again, "I don't like what it says", isn't a proper debunking.

If you need more clarification as to what debunking actually is, just let me know, and I'll break out the crayons and we can dig into this.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The authors of the paper denied the nature of viruses by using P(A/B) econometric modelling instead of P(t) = 1- exp[(b(t)/N).h.I(t) epidemological modelling. You said this is exactly how it should be modelled rather than establised epidemological modelling that's existed for years.

Back at you with the stereotypes, my degree is in Applied Maths specialising in Markov Chains and Eigen Vectors. I've worked in Uni Pharmacology departments developing automated tools to combat bad science, bad stats and the impact agenda. I don't use 'TV or Pop Science as I know how to read and review papers. I've not had an mRNA vaccination or booster.

The rest of the post is irrelevant ad hom, do you have any comment on the science or maths of the paper in question?

a reply to: bastion

I didn't fully read the paper. I've said this over and over. I don't support this study or the conclusions it makes.

Do you have a comment on the cluster-randomized trial chief troll posted? I desperately want you to criticize just one thing that goes against the narrative.

How is it that in the history of communicable disease we are 100% certain about this one, but no other?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Those who said the vaccines were "rushed" to production too soon, should have stuck with their story. But nope...revenue, income, profit caused those scum to sell us all out.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

You've clearly never read any of my posts on the booster, the CDC or the US not aknowleging natural immunity if you think I've never written anything that goes against the narrative. I don't care about partisanships or official narratives, I care about the maths and science.

Do you have a link to that thread? This thread is about the paper in the OP that you haven't read not the other thread about a study I haven't read.

We're not 100% certain about it; that's dumbed down pop science. Read journals and open editorials if you want a good overview of the real scientific discussion going on.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
If this has been debunked, just like to the post that debunks it. If you can't, then you are full of crap. it's OK to not have an answer, but when you pretend you do, you look like a pinhead.

Did you not say that you had not read the paper?

What would be the point of pointing you to where it might have been debunked when you have not read it?

SIgh, debunking consists of more then just the usage of the word "debunking". I realize for the mentally challenged, that is sufficient, but for the rest of the world, it's not. In order for it to be debunked, an explanation of what's wrong with it would have to have been posted. And again, "I don't like what it says", isn't a proper debunking.

If you need more clarification as to what debunking actually is, just let me know, and I'll break out the crayons and we can dig into this.

OK, rather than spending your time posting ad hominem insults you could try reading Bastion's posts for a start?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
If this has been debunked, just like to the post that debunks it. If you can't, then you are full of crap. it's OK to not have an answer, but when you pretend you do, you look like a pinhead.

Did you not say that you had not read the paper?

What would be the point of pointing you to where it might have been debunked when you have not read it?

SIgh, debunking consists of more then just the usage of the word "debunking". I realize for the mentally challenged, that is sufficient, but for the rest of the world, it's not. In order for it to be debunked, an explanation of what's wrong with it would have to have been posted. And again, "I don't like what it says", isn't a proper debunking.

If you need more clarification as to what debunking actually is, just let me know, and I'll break out the crayons and we can dig into this.

And, if you want to "dig into this" perhaps you might actually read the paper? Before you get your, no doubt well used, crayons out?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Ksihkehe

The authors of the paper denied the nature of viruses by using P(A/B) econometric modelling instead of P(t) = 1- exp[(b(t)/N).h.I(t) epidemological modelling. You said this is exactly how it should be modelled rather than establised epidemological modelling that's existed for years.

Could you clarify that bolded bit, please. If I tried to give that to any of my compilers, it would be rejected ...syntax and grammar is all wrong...i.e. your notation is broken...

a reply to: Jimy718

I forgot to close the square bracket of the exponential function (I'm used to doing these by hand or Matlab at a push - I don't rely on compilers as it's much quicker to just derive it yourself than translate it all to coding and back)' ATS can't display correct syntax due to coding.

It's a stochastic markov chain for probability of infection of an exponentially spreding virus using SEIR/PLEIRS modelling via function of time with Beta(t) being the ammount of people leaving the SEIR/PLEIRS function, h being the step function (i.e 1 = 1 day) and I(t) = I^+t + I^-t.

You need to work out the ODE to calculate the spread and eigen functions which will providee R(0) = b[p.u- + (1 - p).u+] to provide effective reproduction rate then plug it into i,j,k vector calc/matrices.

a reply to: Jimy718

Compilers don't do math... compilers do digital logic, which can be used to perform arithmetic. Expecting a compiler to perform math is akin to expecting a word processor to write "Gone With The Wind" without human input. Bastion is correct in his notation, at least insofar as the gross limitations of computer technology permit.

Closing end bracket notwithstanding, of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The forgetting to close the square bracket is an embarrasing schoolboy error but slightly excused due to me being used to doing it on paper while it looks awkward trying to squeeze it into Vbb code. As you state yoou can't plug that equation into a compiler and expect an answer as there's 20 - 30 pages of integration and differentiation, matrices, vectors, eigen vectors, eigenvalues, eigenfunctions etc.. to deal with and impossible to plot those correctly without knowing the equations inside out,

The reason I believe someone from the computer science field did this 'paper' is their code execution and use of R seems flawless; at the very least It's far better than I could achieve but the flaws of the paper are the authors understanding of the equations and their relevant application that's the flaw. People from a maths background know the maths inside out but find it a massive pain in the arse/unnatural to code, while computing students find the code easy but have no comprehension of the maths involved.

In pretty much every other field deriving the equations yourself and working from there is incredibly inificient re-inventing the wheel but as Markov chain computation is so time consuming it saves far more time and effort by spending a couple of hours deriving all the relevant model and equations so the subsequents application follows mathematical logic and law. From experience it's obvious to me the authors aren't from a mathematitcal background as they're totally reliant on borrowing the R code from the google ad model instead of deriving their own which is the point of using an MCMC approach.

a reply to: bastion

Haha, I picked up on the end bracket, but dismissed it; that's such a minor deal it wasn't worth really mentioning. I know exactly how you feel: trying to type out an equation, with a few exceptions, is an exercise in frustration for me as well. Usually what I come up with is understandable by someone with a math background (i.e. can speak the language fluently), but anyone else... maybe they'll get it, maybe they won't.

I think some of the confusion may have come from the fact that you used functions as variables... quite common, frequently necessary (as in this case), but not something most people are used to seeing. Unfortunately, that is just something that we have to deal with.

Another thing some do not comprehend is that computers do not do math! A computer cannot work an integral, because the concepts are not rigidly defined. It can simplify using basic mathematical rules, but it cannot apply. The application is the important part.

People from a maths background know the maths inside out but find it a massive pain in the arse/unnatural to code, while computing students find the code easy but have no comprehension of the maths involved.

I have stated basically the same thing since the 1980s. The problem with getting computers to perform actual good lies in the fact that the programmers typically do not understand what it is they are programming for, and the people who do understand the application are typically poor programmers. Most of the programs that have come into wide use in STEM fields are written either through intense collaboration between programmers and experts, or by one of the select few who can handle both tasks well.

In any case, I understood your equation and analysis, and I will take your analysis of the paper under consideration. You seem to be more motivated to dig through it than I am.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bastion

The absence of your ending square bracket wasn't the issue, and was more directed at the use of unTyped variables.

So, as a software engineer, I'm kinda 'hung-up' on data types. So if ya could...data types, and a wee comment on data usage, if you please.

I am familiar with SEIR, but cannot find anything on PLEIRS (though I can guess some of it). If you please; what is the "PL"?

The thing that 'threw' me was your use of the "Dot Syntax", it appears rather different than what I use, yet I think that strangely, it may be more closely related than appearance would give.

You are also trying to use a "method" as a variable; major exception. I know what that 'construct' means to Math types, but to the computer; you are trying to set an 'operation' (method) to a value. Our languages are some different; you speak Math, I speak "C" (my preferred programming language is C#, though I speak over a dozen different languages, some quite obsolete).

As for using calculators like Matlab is not how one gains accuracy, nor precision, and of course "by hand" is even worse. To do this kind of analysis requires large amounts of data, not the sort of task that should be delegated to a Human, a machine is vastly faster, and more accurate.

You are correct thinking that software types understand less than the Math types. As software engineer, I can "code" any equation you (as a Math type) might come up with, and I don't need to understand your equation beyond its simple mechanics. Though, I think you will find that 'that' software engineer understands far more than you think and may have an understanding of the process that you don't.

By the way, if I understand your equation correctly...I can 'code' that in a single line.

ETA: Do you have a link to a PDF with that equation?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Jimy718

Compilers don't do math... compilers do digital logic, which can be used to perform arithmetic. Expecting a compiler to perform math is akin to expecting a word processor to write "Gone With The Wind" without human input. Bastion is correct in his notation, at least insofar as the gross limitations of computer technology permit.

Closing end bracket notwithstanding, of course.

TheRedneck

That, Sir, was nearly an insult. I'm a 75 YO. retired Software Engineer, been doing it for over 45 years. I was required to write a compiler for my CS degree. So, I do know what compilers do, don't do, shouldn't do, but given that its software, there is no "can't".

No, you are correct; a compiler doesn't do math. What it does do is take apart the equation and build the necessary machine language "steps" to solve that equation, sometimes using external libraries to do so. This requires a rather strict enforcement of both grammar and syntax. The lack of the ending bracket wasn't the issue, it was the use of "variants" as data types. "Variants" as a data type can be the source of misunderstanding.

"at least insofar as the gross limitations of computer technology permit", my a55, ever hear of a thing called a ".PNG"? Its an image file, viewable on virtually every device deployed.

a reply to: Jimy718

You can't code it in a single line - there's around 40 - 50 applied equations involved an derivation of the relevant variables. Thinking you can just shows you don't understand the processes involved (no offence intended it's a very recent and niche subject, there weren't any textbooks or papers on it when I learnt it) - there's a big difference between reading code/equations and understanding what they actually mean in the real world.

I honestly wouldn't know where to begin trying to explain it in code; it's a completely different language I don't understand/speak. Hats off to you for knowing it and seemingly being very proficient and skilled in the area. I find it increadibly difficult and migraine induciing and lack the understanding of coding to accurately translate/explain it.


Personaly I think the exercise is compltely pointless if you don't know the method, subject, processes, relevance, equations and what it is you're trying to model; - The method is the most important part of a study, there's no point making a model unless you understand thae subject and how to apply relevant maths - bad input = bad output and without true comprehension of the maths involved there's no way of understanding the results of the model.

The '.' means multiply (x) - it's the standard notation used in this area of maths as it's too easy to confuse x with x. You can't code it in one line there's around 50 other equations involved it takes a few hundred lines of code. This is why you need to know the maths before trying to use a model.

I can't really explain it on here as there's around 1000 equations you need to know inside out with 12 core equations you can derive every other equation. It takes several years of intense study to get to know it inside out - the papers I posted earlier give a good rundown of how these are derived.

From the initial equation there's around 50 seperate equations involved that need to be derived using calculus, vectors, tensors, scalars, matrices, eigen vectors, eigen values etc...you cant't just plug it in and get an answer. There's a lot of maths involved which is where the i, j, , y'1, y2'' etc.. comes in.

I don't know how you got that opinion of Matlab - It's accurate and industry standard and used by millions of engineers around the world and hundreds of Universities. It requires an uderstandng of the maths to generate a model and input the relevant equations before you can use it. You learn accuracy and precision years before using it as it's the core of maths.

With Matlab I've designed water waste treatment systems using bacteria to break down the waste and ensure the water feeding into rivers is within EU polution regulations - it requires proper understanding of the maths involved to generate the model and derive there relevant equations.

Doing it by hand is industry/Uni research standard and by far the best way to construct accurate models and have a true understanding of the relevance of the results; computers can't do this, it requires human input, fuzzy logic and an understanding of the subject - it takes 20mins to an hour max to do and then then is translated and inputted into code - with time you can visualise the answer without doing the equation based on prior results.

When familiar with stochastic matrices mathematics it only takes a couple of minutes to input and calculate - computers can't do fuzzy logic, it requires human analysis to generate the model and proper application of the laws of logic in order to generate the equations.

I can't translate it to C++ as I'm terrible at coding and it would take a few weeks to write and there's far better software out there from a maths perspective; though C# follows similar logic to coding but you'd need to teach the computer how to derive hypothetical abstract real world situations and estimate their relevance within the model; I don't think that's possible towhen it's so much easier for a person to derive them using common sense/logic in a couple of minutes.

Don't get me wrong I'eve got much respect for people who can code, it's a fantastic skill to have but the whole point of using MCMC is you have to generate the equations for variables using human input as it's modelling human behaviour - It takes time and careful analysis to generate the equations.

Most other areas you can just chuck a one line equation and spit out an answer; at this level you have to derive it yourself and apply it appropriately - the problem with the paper in the OP is they copy/pasted an irrelevant model into code as they weren't aware of the mathematical field and need to generate equations for the variables to fit the situation then follow MCMC methodology.

Appologies if any of this sounds offensive or aimed at you - that's not my intention; it just this is final year masters stuff and takes nine months of doing it all 20 hours a day sacrificing social life, food, sleep etc to gain true understanding of it's application; the maths is really easy it just painfully dull.

It's not something you can just type into a compiler, get an answer and understand what the answer actual means. This paper gives a good rundown of how the equation should be generated and applied. Once that's done and tripple checkced with the by hand version it's time to translate it into relevant code and process the data. PDF Sars paper



EDIT: I do have code for it stored on my TI-89 calculator I can PM you if I remember where I put the bloody thing, I'm not sure what language it uses but it may be BASIC or Csharp,.

Thread totally deflected - no longer about correlation between vax and deaths/adverse effects, just a ding-dong about coding/maths?

Funny how that keeps happening.

Other robust info out there also points to the cvax's being dangerous, more dangerous than the illness purported as protection against.

But lets forget about that and argue computer semantics.

a reply to: teapot

The OP is a maths and coding paper - it's hard to discuss and critique it properly without mentioning those subjects. If the maths or coding are incorrect the answer is incorrect as in this case.

It's how scientific papers are analysed and scrutinised. Methodology is the most important part of a paper and the first part a 'peer' would read as if there's an error in the method then the results are all going to be wrong and any conclusions drawn from it are also wrong.

Correlation and answers from this paper are all incorrect as they've not used the correct modelling procedure so there's little/no point discussing them.

It can't be used as evidence the vaccines are safe, just that this paper is bunk and needs a little bit of tweakinng in the model to generate accurate data.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Half the people here, being generous, that request peer-reviewed studies for everything have no idea what they're even looking at. They have no idea what it means.

Half? I think the number is much higher.

Also, the vast majority refuse to acknowledge that a large percentage, if not majority of the so-called peer-reviewed studies, even those 'gold standard' ones, are pure unadulterated BS wrapped in cellophane.