Comments by "Stephen D Green" (@stephendgreen1502) on "Decisions, overwhelmingly wrong" video.

@christopherrobinson7541 It is not too hard. X = Percentage vaccinated in population. Y = percentage vaccinated among the dead. If Y >> X then it says something.
2
We all are not surprised because we foresaw that flattening the curve would prolong the curve. We all know the expression “you cannot cheat death”.
1
Can correlation be made somehow between excess deaths and how many (what percentage) who died were vaccinated?
1
@christopherrobinson7541 Do kids still have AS level maths exams with real world tricky questions. Just include this one and review the answers. If X is excess deaths and Y is percentage of deaths overall where there was vaccine taken, what would be expected X if all excess deaths were due to taking vaccine? As extra hard optional question, if 90% of deaths were due to vaccine, how would it affect X. Extra hard for top marks or for degree level maths: devise a calculus partial differential field equation for infinitesimal deviations from 100% correlation with vaccine, expressed in terms of X and Y.
1
@christopherrobinson7541
1
@christopherrobinson7541 My AS level answer. Say: Overall 70 % took vaccine. Excess deaths was 20%. How many of those dying overall would be expected to have taken vaccine? If say 100% excess deaths were due to vaccine: normal deaths with vaccine would be 70%. If say there are 120 overall deaths, 20 of which are excess. That means the normal 70 of the deaths would be with vaccine. 30 no vaccine. Now there are 20 more. Of those 100% took vaccine. So overall number of deaths with vaccine equals 70 plus 20. That means 90% deaths overall would be expected to have had vaccine. Now if the percentage correlation decreases by 5. So 95 percent correlation. 95% of the excess deaths relates to vaccine and 5% unknown factor. Now 70 still have vaccine among normal deaths but now only 19 of excess die having had vaccine. 1 dies of unknown cause. Overall 89 percent of those dying expected to have been vaccinated. Draw it as a chart or model it with, say, partial differential equations. If the latter it might feed a computer modelling system like that used for the pandemic by Imperial College. Then compare with actuals to see possible correlation with vaccine.
1
@christopherrobinson7541 I can do it. I only have BSc level advanced maths. University College London.
1
Say: Overall 70 % took vaccine. Excess deaths was 20%. How many of those dying overall would be expected to have taken vaccine? If say 100% excess deaths were due to vaccine: normal deaths with vaccine would be 70%. If say there are 120 overall deaths, 20 of which are excess. That means the normal 70 of the deaths would be with vaccine. 30 no vaccine. Now there are 20 more. Of those 100% took vaccine. So overall number of deaths with vaccine equals 70 plus 20. That means 90 out of 120 deaths overall would be expected to have had vaccine. Now if the percentage correlation decreases by 5. So 95 percent correlation. 95% of the excess deaths relates to vaccine and 5% unknown factor. Now 70 still have vaccine among normal deaths but now only 19 of excess die having had vaccine. 1 dies of unknown cause. Overall 89 out of 120 of those dying expected to have been vaccinated. Draw it as a chart or model it with, say, partial differential equations. If the latter it might feed a computer modelling system like that used for the pandemic by Imperial College. Then compare with actuals to see possible correlation with vaccine. Can the professionals not do this and do it better than my undergraduate maths can do?
1
Say: Overall 70 % took vaccine. Excess deaths was 20%. How many of those dying overall would be expected to have taken vaccine? If say 100% excess deaths were due to vaccine: normal deaths with vaccine would be 70%. If say there are 120 overall deaths, 20 of which are excess. That means the normal 70 of the deaths would be with vaccine. 30 no vaccine. Now there are 20 more. Of those 100% took vaccine. So overall number of deaths with vaccine equals 70 plus 20. That means 90 out of 120 deaths overall would be expected to have had vaccine. Now if the percentage correlation decreases by 5. So 95 percent correlation. 95% of the excess deaths relates to vaccine and 5% unknown factor. Now 70 still have vaccine among normal deaths but now only 19 of excess die having had vaccine. 1 dies of unknown cause. Overall 89 out of 120 of those dying expected to have been vaccinated. Draw it as a chart or model it with, say, partial differential equations. If the latter it might feed a computer modelling system like that used for the pandemic by Imperial College. Then compare with actuals to see possible correlation with vaccine. Can the professionals not do this and do it better than my undergraduate maths can do?
1
@christopherrobinson7541 My calculation using four numbers, total deaths, expected deaths, percentage of population vaccinated, percentage of deaths vaccinated, is not intended to be a viable working solution but an illustration of how it is feasible. A proper model would potentially include inputs about the existence of which I am not privy. Stochastic models, deterministic models or a simple calculation along the lines I have illustrated could all be used.
1
@christopherrobinson7541 “so few unvaccinated still alive” you say. Lol.
1
@christopherrobinson7541 Since the start of this, the only people I knew who died were 1) vaccinated and 2) admitted to hospital for unrelated things and caught it there and died, despite being vaccinated. I know lots who did not get vaccinated and only one of those got ill (me). My only close associates who got vaccinated took risks by travelling, etc. and ended up catching it, some of them catching it twice. All the unvaccinated people close to me are fine and I’m the only one I know unvaccinated who definitely caught it and I never went to hospital and am now as immune as anyone. So I do not buy your analysis at all.
1
@christopherrobinson7541 data is not fact
1