Yeah i think you might have a major endogeniety problem here, both in terms of ommited variables and reverse causality (badly hit countries might have higher vaccine update, not the other way around). There is also pretty good evidence from more easily comparable entities (like US states and countries) in terms of outcome (namely vaccina…
Yeah i think you might have a major endogeniety problem here, both in terms of ommited variables and reverse causality (badly hit countries might have higher vaccine update, not the other way around). There is also pretty good evidence from more easily comparable entities (like US states and countries) in terms of outcome (namely vaccinations reducion ICU admissions and deaths in the elderly). Statistical significance isn't everything.
Seems like excuse making for the harms of the shots with no real evidence.
'Sir, the proof the vaccines are safe are maybe in this hill over there, or maybe they took more shots relative to the disease outbreak'
Nonsense, they deployed mandates everywhere and we have vaccination percentages for countries (surprisingly, countries publish this data and it isn't subject to the rampant speculation whims of Substackers). It had absolutely nothing to do with how badly they were hit. Stop making excuses.
It's a critique of the statistical methods employed in this article, which any person who has taken two hours of statistics 101 can come up with (sadly, this does not appear to be the case with you). You can get into all kinds of fancy conclusion when you look at simple correlations without thinking about causality and endogeniety. Get a grip.
Your low key insults don't mean your random speculations throwing about words like 'endogeniety' mean anything. Vaccination rates were based on mandates, which had no correlation to disease severity rates in countries, but the amount of tyranny present in them.
And unlike yourself, I have dived into the raw datasets, and I can confidently assert it isn't by disease severity, and I can easily call your bluff, because I went over the European datasets with a fine toothcomb. You, on the other hand, have no datasets, and are just pulling nonsense out of a hat.
Well, you idiotically accused me of "excuse making for the harms of the shots" and "shilling". I am simply saying that the analysis is not up to par, and while interesting, pretty useless. And I am not throwing around words like endogeniety and ommited variable bias for nothing, this is pretty basic stuff that will wreck any conclusion. Correlation is not causition, mate. And not everything and everyone is a shill, get a grip and go outside once inawhile, you nut.
You're trying to pretend to be educated when you cannot spell 'omitted' correctly.
Secondly, it isn't "endogeniety", it is 'Endogeneity'. Thirdly, your claim it was 'due to disease severity' has been disproven. Yes, you are making excuses for the harms of the shots because your claims are bunk. Nothing "idiotically" about it.
Mutton and illiteracy go together like bangers and mash.
"not everything and everyone is a shill"
I didn't say everybody else is. You are. Specifically. Just you.
"go outside once inawhile, you nut"
Ah, that fine 'research' brain of yours. Unable to refute my evidenced position you have to scream abuse.
I am actually educated, and not a conspiracy nut who thinks every critical comment is a shill or paid opposition. I feel pretty sorry for you. But thanks for helping me with my grammar, hopefully you learned something. Keep working on the statistics though. Muted btw for being a nutcase.
You are a coincidence theorist. If five guys would show up and try to rob you in midday, you would never consider they knew each other from before. It was a coincidence they showed up all at the same time.
Thank god not everyone is like you.
Datapoint A) You claimed that the data was erroneous. That proved wrong.
Datapoint B) You then tried to call an imaginary collinearity. You have to bring that factor in please. Until then that is wrong too.
First Hypothesis: You imagined two different errors in the statistical process of the author's analysis, and coincidentally decided twice to help the author out of care for the Truth and came here to mention them.
Second Hypothesis: You don't like the message of the article and started throwing random arguments hoping one would stick.
Correct Answer: The second.
You see not everyone is a coincidence theorist like yourself.
As for the stats, spare us, the chance that another factor is collinear with the vaccination_rate is not very possible. Try to find the factor and put in the work and we will read what you have to say.
Yeah i think you might have a major endogeniety problem here, both in terms of ommited variables and reverse causality (badly hit countries might have higher vaccine update, not the other way around). There is also pretty good evidence from more easily comparable entities (like US states and countries) in terms of outcome (namely vaccinations reducion ICU admissions and deaths in the elderly). Statistical significance isn't everything.
Seems like excuse making for the harms of the shots with no real evidence.
'Sir, the proof the vaccines are safe are maybe in this hill over there, or maybe they took more shots relative to the disease outbreak'
Nonsense, they deployed mandates everywhere and we have vaccination percentages for countries (surprisingly, countries publish this data and it isn't subject to the rampant speculation whims of Substackers). It had absolutely nothing to do with how badly they were hit. Stop making excuses.
It's a critique of the statistical methods employed in this article, which any person who has taken two hours of statistics 101 can come up with (sadly, this does not appear to be the case with you). You can get into all kinds of fancy conclusion when you look at simple correlations without thinking about causality and endogeniety. Get a grip.
Your low key insults don't mean your random speculations throwing about words like 'endogeniety' mean anything. Vaccination rates were based on mandates, which had no correlation to disease severity rates in countries, but the amount of tyranny present in them.
And unlike yourself, I have dived into the raw datasets, and I can confidently assert it isn't by disease severity, and I can easily call your bluff, because I went over the European datasets with a fine toothcomb. You, on the other hand, have no datasets, and are just pulling nonsense out of a hat.
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/solving-the-swedish-mystery
Your efforts to shill for vaccines are as transparent as broad daylight.
'It was like that when we got here' - instantly debunked by Euro surveillance mortality data. Have a nice day.
Well, you idiotically accused me of "excuse making for the harms of the shots" and "shilling". I am simply saying that the analysis is not up to par, and while interesting, pretty useless. And I am not throwing around words like endogeniety and ommited variable bias for nothing, this is pretty basic stuff that will wreck any conclusion. Correlation is not causition, mate. And not everything and everyone is a shill, get a grip and go outside once inawhile, you nut.
You're trying to pretend to be educated when you cannot spell 'omitted' correctly.
Secondly, it isn't "endogeniety", it is 'Endogeneity'. Thirdly, your claim it was 'due to disease severity' has been disproven. Yes, you are making excuses for the harms of the shots because your claims are bunk. Nothing "idiotically" about it.
Mutton and illiteracy go together like bangers and mash.
"not everything and everyone is a shill"
I didn't say everybody else is. You are. Specifically. Just you.
"go outside once inawhile, you nut"
Ah, that fine 'research' brain of yours. Unable to refute my evidenced position you have to scream abuse.
I am actually educated, and not a conspiracy nut who thinks every critical comment is a shill or paid opposition. I feel pretty sorry for you. But thanks for helping me with my grammar, hopefully you learned something. Keep working on the statistics though. Muted btw for being a nutcase.
You are a coincidence theorist. If five guys would show up and try to rob you in midday, you would never consider they knew each other from before. It was a coincidence they showed up all at the same time.
Thank god not everyone is like you.
Datapoint A) You claimed that the data was erroneous. That proved wrong.
Datapoint B) You then tried to call an imaginary collinearity. You have to bring that factor in please. Until then that is wrong too.
First Hypothesis: You imagined two different errors in the statistical process of the author's analysis, and coincidentally decided twice to help the author out of care for the Truth and came here to mention them.
Second Hypothesis: You don't like the message of the article and started throwing random arguments hoping one would stick.
Correct Answer: The second.
You see not everyone is a coincidence theorist like yourself.
As for the stats, spare us, the chance that another factor is collinear with the vaccination_rate is not very possible. Try to find the factor and put in the work and we will read what you have to say.
"But thanks for helping me with my grammar"
Spelling, not grammar. : )
"not a conspiracy nut"
Thanks for publicly exposing yourself as a pharmaceutical shill.
"Muted btw for being a nutcase."
There is no mute feature here, as we'll soon see.
Thanks for showing off your 'education' by being verbally abusive with no actual evidence. Didn't take long to expose your true colours.