Verdict is out. Sinovac is useless. HK statistic very bad..
#91

(21-03-2022, 10:20 AM)guffaw Wrote:  Ok ok, I think I summarize your points very well already. I don't think you dispute my summary.

I totally ignore your summary, as I dont know what gibberish you spewing after so many posts..
Reply
#92

(21-03-2022, 10:21 AM)guffaw Wrote:  Ok ok, you disagree with all mainstream data, analysis and research because they are all fake. I get you.

Stop twisting my words, you don't yet qualify to do that, get it?
Reply
#93

(21-03-2022, 10:17 AM)guffaw Wrote:  Yes, your analysis is top notch, with top notch lack of data to analyze to get the top notch analysis based on air. 
Well done.

No wonder no one here like your posts, and you should know why, but I really doubt you do
Reply
#94

(21-03-2022, 10:25 AM)Sentinel Wrote:  No wonder no one here like your posts, and you should know why, but I really doubt you do

All right, I think we can stop now. No need waste bytes.
Reply
#95

(21-03-2022, 10:26 AM)guffaw Wrote:  All right, I think we can stop now. No need waste bytes.

I rest my case, as you have no more worthy rebuttals left

LOL
Reply
#96

(21-03-2022, 08:38 AM)lionkingch55 Wrote:  Without disclosing the source is to protect the source mah!

Exactly. Bloomberg is truthful by even mention they cannot disclose the source. If it is ccp propaganda site, they will not even post anything that their leader will not like
Reply
#97

(20-03-2022, 05:56 PM)guffaw Wrote:  https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-a...cine-media?

This Bloomberg article which the Straits Times simply publishes without any input is a classic case of lying through statistical manipulation. If you read the headline 87% of deaths among vaccinated is Sinovac, it sound super scary and will naturally conclude the vaccine is useless compared to Pfizer. This can be seen by many comments above by people who simply fall for it and go all ballistic.

BUT..... The good thing is with internet there is data transparency and here's the REAL STORY:

In another ST article https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kongs-covid-19-death-rate-is-now-worlds-highest , it was reported that most of the deaths came from elderlies >80 years old, so the question is what is the type of vaccination breakdown amongst this age group? 

Here's what I found here https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/en/dashboard You can view the vaccination numbers by age group and type of vaccine each age group took. For the >80 years old crowd, Sinovac is 175k pax and Pfizer 51k, i.e. the breakdown is actually Sinovac 77% and Pfizer 23%. So that means if Sinovac and Pfizer are of equal protection, the death contribution should be 77% Sinovac and 23% Pfizer deaths.

Now let us look in context the 87% deaths by Sinovac, we can see that Sinovac's 87% death is higher than expected 77%, but nowhere near the sensationalist headline that Bloomberg is implying. So the REAL story is it is undeniable that Sinovac offers slightly lower protection that Pfizer, but nowhere near catastrophe that Bloomberg fake news is implying.

Moral of the story - do you own research and think through carefully. In this day and age where most data is available on the internet, there is really no reason to accept mainstream media blindly.
[+] 2 users Like maxsanic's post
Reply
#98

(21-03-2022, 11:40 AM)maxsanic Wrote:  This Bloomberg article which the Straits Times simply publishes without any input is a classic case of lying through statistical manipulation. If you read the headline 87% of deaths among vaccinated is Sinovac, it sound super scary and will naturally conclude the vaccine is useless compared to Pfizer. This can be seen by many comments above by people who simply fall for it and go all ballistic.

BUT..... The good thing is with internet there is data transparency and here's the REAL STORY:

In another ST article https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kongs-covid-19-death-rate-is-now-worlds-highest , it was reported that most of the deaths came from elderlies >80 years old, so the question is what is the type of vaccination breakdown amongst this age group? 

Here's what I found here https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/en/dashboard You can view the vaccination numbers by age group and type of vaccine each age group took. For the >80 years old crowd, Sinovac is 175k pax and Pfizer 51k, i.e. the breakdown is actually Sinovac 77% and Pfizer 23%. So that means if Sinovac and Pfizer are of equal protection, the death contribution should be 77% Sinovac and 23% Pfizer deaths.

Now let us look in context the 87% deaths by Sinovac, we can see that Sinovac's 87% death is higher than expected 77%, but nowhere near the sensationalist headline that Bloomberg is implying. So the REAL story is it is undeniable that Sinovac offers slightly lower protection that Pfizer, but nowhere near catastrophe that Bloomberg fake news is implying.

Moral of the story - do you own research and think through carefully. In this day and age where most data is available on the internet, there is really no reason to accept mainstream media blindly.

Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part except this. 

Out of all elderlies, I trust your number is correct that 77% took sinovac, 23% took mrna.

So 100% = 77%(sino vac)  + 23% (mrna)

Right?

Now let's go to the deaths.

100% = 87% ( sinovac) + 13% (mrna).

The gain from reduced death using mrna is 23% - 13% = 10%, a whopping 44%.
Reply
#99

This was what I read from SinMing yesterday…
Did we do a good job?
Obviously they want to divert their attention…

[Image: 8627-B118-776-C-4-D4-A-BB3-F-72-CF40-A3063-A.jpg]

“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"
[+] 1 user Likes RiseofAsia's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 11:52 AM)guffaw Wrote:  Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part except this. 

Out of all elderlies, I trust your number is correct that 77% took sinovac, 23% took mrna.

So 100% = 77%(sino vac)  + 23% (mrna)

Right?

Now let's go to the deaths.

100% = 87% ( sinovac) + 13% (mrna).

The gain from reduced death using mrna is 23% - 13% = 10%, a whopping 44%.

Again, like the dumbass that you are, you again swallow hook, line and sinker what was written, even agreeing on it, because it fits your narrative, isn't it?

Have you considered that those who died are due to old age, but precipitated by Covid infection and that there should not be any erstwhile conclusion nor comparison to be made between Pfizer and Sinovac, because it more than likely make not much difference what vaccine these older folks took, because even a common cold or flu could have killed them off?

If you are one with critical thinking, you would seek for more detailed data other than numbers, like what pre-existent conditions they were having and how many doses they had taken when they got infected with Covid, because for Sinovac, it is known that its efficacy takes maximum effect after 28 days or so after the first dose, etc, etc

Only a conniving person like you with a hidden agenda to push here will just ledge on to anyone else who post something that closely fits your narrative instead of using your critical thinking if you have one to filter and seek for more detailed data before hurriedly post some silly, shallow comment like: Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part

*Pathetic*
[+] 1 user Likes Sentinel's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 12:10 PM)Sentinel Wrote:  Again, like the dumbass that you are, you again swallow hook, line and sinker what was written, even agreeing on it, because it fits your narrative, isn't it?

Have you considered that those who died are due to old age, but precipitated by Covid infection and that there should not be any erstwhile conclusion nor comparison to be made between Pfizer and Sinovac, because it more than likely make not much difference what vaccine these older folks took, because even a common cold or flu could have killed them off?

If you are one with critical thinking, you would seek for more detailed data other than numbers, like what pre-existent conditions they were having and how many doses they had taken when they got infected with Covid, because for Sinovac, it is known that its efficacy takes maximum effect after 28 days or so after the first dose, etc, etc

Only a conniving person like you with a hidden agenda to push here will just ledge on to anyone else who post something that closely fits your narrative instead of using your critical thinking if you have one to filter and seek for more detailed data before hurriedly post some silly, shallow comment like: Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part

*Pathetic*

Show data to talk. Oh ya, you have no data, don't believe in data, research, only critical think using air. No need reply. I don't indulge in air talk.
Reply

Cannot be leh..they can made virus but cannot Vaccine? Hahaha...lousy la..
[+] 1 user Likes Sharexchange's post
Reply

let look at china, how they handle covid=wuhan virus, real clown, LOL LOL.




有人确诊,凌晨2点整栋楼被带走,儿子结膜炎没有药,婆婆瘫痪在床,通通都被带走 ,年轻的宝妈崩溃大哭。




[+] 1 user Likes kokee's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 12:56 PM)guffaw Wrote:  Show data to talk. Oh ya, you have no data, don't believe in data, research, only critical think using air. No need reply. I don't indulge in air talk.

That's exactly what I'm saying, show data, more data, more detailed data and then study properly the efficacy of Sinovac and Pfizer and when their efficacy kicks in, all these info can be found easily on the web, but instead of doing that, you hurriedly took the incomplete data furnished by someone and starts doing your silly calculations and seemed fking pleased with the result you calculated out, without bother that your calculations are so fking flawed because you have incomplete and most possibly dubious data from the article writer

Listen, its not rocket science but if you dont have a critical thinking mind, i really suggests you stay away from data analysis, for you really CMI

*DUH*
[+] 1 user Likes Sentinel's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:09 PM)Sentinel Wrote:  That's exactly what I'm saying, show data, more data, more detailed data and then study properly the efficacy of Sinovac and Pfizer and when their efficacy kicks in, all these info can be found easily on the web, but instead of doing that, you hurriedly took the incomplete data furnished by someone and starts doing your silly calculations and seemed fking pleased with the result you calculated out, without bother that your calculations are so fking flawed because you have incomplete and most possibly dubious data from the article writer

Listen, its not rocket science but if you dont have a critical thinking mind, i really suggests you stay away from data analysis, for you really CMI

*DUH*

I am using phone, so I cannot type too much. But I am laughing at your so called 'critical' thinking.. old people blah blah blah, complete nonsense. As if singapore has no old people, and complete ignoring of HK old people statistics. Please.... It's complete nonsense. It's critical nonsense.
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:13 PM)guffaw Wrote:  I am using phone, so I cannot type too much. But I am laughing at your so called critical analysis, old people blah blah blah, complete nonsense.

I'm not the one doing silly critical analysis, you are.  I just using my critical thinking to bash you left right and centre because I know you are using data for convenience only, as long as it fits your sinister hidden agenda to thumb Sinovac down as it is from China, you are more than willing to sacrifice integrity and completeness of the data

You're really beyond any redemption, Darwin will do his cull on you, but more than likely, you will walk across the busy road with your eyes blindfolded because NATO promises you membership on the other side of the road

That's how idiotic you are
Reply

Say something about US lah. 

Almost one million died from covid, how good is the vaccine? 

Rotfl  

.
[+] 1 user Likes webinarian's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:20 PM)Sentinel Wrote:  I'm not the one doing silly critical analysis, you are.  I just using my critical thinking to bash you left right and centre because I know you are using data for convenience only, as long as it fits your sinister hidden agenda to thumb Sinovac down as it is from China, you are more than willing to sacrifice integrity and completeness of the data

You're really beyond any redemption, Darwin will do his cull on you, but more than likely, you will walk across the busy road with your eyes blindfolded because NATO promises you membership on the other side of the road

That's how idiotic you are

So you are already agreeing this is your fake analysis. Posting critical rubbish using air to back up. Disregard any mainstream data and research information. Consuming conspiracy 'fact' as you say. Very obvious who will enjoy the Darwin cull.

And seriously, you are non other than fraud, calling yourself covid expert.
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:28 PM)guffaw Wrote:  So you are already agreeing this is your fake analysis. Posting critical rubbish using air to back up. Disregard any mainstream data and research information. Very obvious who will enjoy the Darwin cull.

Did I analyse the data, or you just cut and paste the dubious analysis of the article writer and reinforced your stupigity by doing sill calculations on incomplete data

I certainly did not analyse any data, but I did analyse your lack of integrity in reading and presenting the data findings and yes, I also analyse with my critical thinking that you CMI as a data analyst, as you obviously is lacking in this faculty

Enough? Or you still like me to whack you further?
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:34 PM)Sentinel Wrote:  Did I analyse the data, or you just cut and paste the dubious analysis of the article writer and reinforced your stupigity by doing sill calculations on incomplete data

I certainly did not analyse any data, but I did analyse your lack of integrity in reading and presenting the data findings and yes, I also analyse with my critical thinking that you CMI as a data analyst, as you obviously is lacking in this faculty

Enough? Or you still like me to whack you further?

You are a joker  Rotfl

You are whacking yourself, make afool of yourself. Don't trust data, don't have data, sprout rubbish as critical thinking.  Rotfl

And ya. Call yourself covid and vaccine expert.  Rotfl
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:43 PM)guffaw Wrote:  You are a joker  Rotfl

You are whacking yourself, make afool of yourself. Don't trust data, don't have data, sprout rubbish as critical thinking.  Rotfl

You are a clown and a comedian, are you Zelenskyy's father? Because you think like this moron, like son, like father
Reply

(21-03-2022, 11:52 AM)guffaw Wrote:  Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part except this. 

Out of all elderlies, I trust your number is correct that 77% took sinovac, 23% took mrna.

So 100% = 77%(sino vac)  + 23% (mrna)

Right?

Now let's go to the deaths.

100% = 87% ( sinovac) + 13% (mrna).

The gain from reduced death using mrna is 23% - 13% = 10%, a whopping 44%.

On the surface, yes. But we do need to take into account two very glaring nuances:

1) The 87% number is based on Bloomberg claims without any disclosure of how it was arrived at. From the rabidly anti-China articles pumped out by this news media to date, I think it's fair to say that they are likely being very liberal with their methodology to attribute deaths to Sinovac.

2) As mentioned in the article itself, Sinovac's main appeal is its lower side effect, so it is likely that people who have morbid conditions would generally choose Sinovac over Pfizer. This means that from the start Sinovac's recipient pool is of lower health than Pfizer.

The inability to conduct a full double blind test with proper control sampling means that it is very difficult to know what the exact adjusted death composition really looks like. I am of the view that both Sinovac and Pfizer are qualified vaccines that perform what they were supposed to do. However, Pfizer is probably slightly to moderately better than Sinovac in terms of protection.

If one doesn't have a history of allergy or health conditions and both Pfizer and Sinovac are available for free, than Pfizer is a better choice. However if one has allergy and medical conditions, than it's probably a 50:50 case up to one's risk preference. If Pfizer is not available or need to wait, it makes more sense to do Sinovac without a doubt. This is a far cry from Bloomberg's nonsensical scare mongering title which is further endangering public health by making false insinuations banking on the masses' misunderstanding of statistics and/or lack of proper context.
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:43 PM)guffaw Wrote:  You are a joker  Rotfl

You are whacking yourself, make afool of yourself. Don't trust data, don't have data, sprout rubbish as critical thinking.  Rotfl

And ya. Call yourself covid and vaccine expert.  Rotfl

Why should I provide data? I'm not the one foolishly analysing the incomplete and possibly dubious data but fools like you are
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:46 PM)Sentinel Wrote:  You are a clown and a comedian, are you Zelenskyy's father? Because you think like this moron, like son, like father

Lol, after you get exposed as a fake covid and vaccine expert.... You are really a joker...at best  Rotfl
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:49 PM)maxsanic Wrote:  On the surface, yes. But we do need to take into account two very glaring nuances:

1) The 87% number is based on Bloomberg claims without any disclosure of how it was arrived at. From the rabidly anti-China articles pumped out by this news media to date, I think it's fair to say that they are likely being very liberal with their methodology to attribute deaths to Sinovac.

2) As mentioned in the article itself, Sinovac's main appeal is its lower side effect, so it is likely that people who have morbid conditions would generally choose Sinovac over Pfizer. This means that from the start Sinovac's recipient pool is of lower health than Pfizer.

The inability to conduct a full double blind test with proper control sampling means that it is very difficult to know what the exact adjusted death composition really looks like. I am of the view that both Sinovac and Pfizer are qualified vaccines that perform what they were supposed to do. However, Pfizer is probably slightly to moderately better than Sinovac in terms of protection.

If one doesn't have a history of allergy or health conditions and both Pfizer and Sinovac are available for free, than Pfizer is a better choice. However if one has allergy and medical conditions, than it's probably a 50:50 case up to one's risk preference. If Pfizer is not available or need to wait, it makes more sense to do Sinovac without a doubt. This is a far cry from Bloomberg's nonsensical scare mongering title which is further endangering public health by making false insinuations banking on the masses' misunderstanding of statistics and/or lack of proper context.

To address your first concern, you can check singapore number too. It's publicly available. If multiple countries  share consistent result, it should be about right. 

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/s...owest-rate

On your second point, it's an assumption. Like you say there is no data to suggest yes or no.

Both vaccines would definitely help, but a 40% gain in reduction of deaths using pfzier is also not insignificant. Of course, there is no accounting for side effect in this statistic.
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:50 PM)guffaw Wrote:  Lol, after you get exposed as a fake covid and vaccine expert.... You are really a joker...at best  Rotfl

"Thank you for the good analysis. I agree with you on most part"

KNN, if SgTalk has a title for MOST BRAINLESS FORUMER, you earned it hands down!
[+] 1 user Likes Sentinel's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:49 PM)maxsanic Wrote:  On the surface, yes. But we do need to take into account two very glaring nuances:

1) The 87% number is based on Bloomberg claims without any disclosure of how it was arrived at. From the rabidly anti-China articles pumped out by this news media to date, I think it's fair to say that they are likely being very liberal with their methodology to attribute deaths to Sinovac.

2) As mentioned in the article itself, Sinovac's main appeal is its lower side effect, so it is likely that people who have morbid conditions would generally choose Sinovac over Pfizer. This means that from the start Sinovac's recipient pool is of lower health than Pfizer.

The inability to conduct a full double blind test with proper control sampling means that it is very difficult to know what the exact adjusted death composition really looks like. I am of the view that both Sinovac and Pfizer are qualified vaccines that perform what they were supposed to do. However, Pfizer is probably slightly to moderately better than Sinovac in terms of protection.

If one doesn't have a history of allergy or health conditions and both Pfizer and Sinovac are available for free, than Pfizer is a better choice. However if one has allergy and medical conditions, than it's probably a 50:50 case up to one's risk preference. If Pfizer is not available or need to wait, it makes more sense to do Sinovac without a doubt. This is a far cry from Bloomberg's nonsensical scare mongering title which is further endangering public health by making false insinuations banking on the masses' misunderstanding of statistics and/or lack of proper context.

And in HK news, sinovac isn't entirely risk free either. 

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/arti...ds-ordered
Reply

Many fanboys forgot about this already.  Big Grin


[Image: 210327_hkman_sinovac.jpg]
[+] 1 user Likes starbugs's post
Reply

(21-03-2022, 01:49 PM)maxsanic Wrote:  On the surface, yes. But we do need to take into account two very glaring nuances:

1) The 87% number is based on Bloomberg claims without any disclosure of how it was arrived at. From the rabidly anti-China articles pumped out by this news media to date, I think it's fair to say that they are likely being very liberal with their methodology to attribute deaths to Sinovac.

2) As mentioned in the article itself, Sinovac's main appeal is its lower side effect, so it is likely that people who have morbid conditions would generally choose Sinovac over Pfizer. This means that from the start Sinovac's recipient pool is of lower health than Pfizer.

The inability to conduct a full double blind test with proper control sampling means that it is very difficult to know what the exact adjusted death composition really looks like. I am of the view that both Sinovac and Pfizer are qualified vaccines that perform what they were supposed to do. However, Pfizer is probably slightly to moderately better than Sinovac in terms of protection.

If one doesn't have a history of allergy or health conditions and both Pfizer and Sinovac are available for free, than Pfizer is a better choice. However if one has allergy and medical conditions, than it's probably a 50:50 case up to one's risk preference. If Pfizer is not available or need to wait, it makes more sense to do Sinovac without a doubt. This is a far cry from Bloomberg's nonsensical scare mongering title which is further endangering public health by making false insinuations banking on the masses' misunderstanding of statistics and/or lack of proper context.

One more data to digest. Death rate by country. 

As of today, both Singapore and HK has about 1m infection cases. Both countries test extensively even thought actual number would be more. 

Singapore has 1200 death, while hk has close to 6000 death. We use predominantly mrna vaccines but you can also say they have high unvax rate. Even if you discount the unvax, this is still quite glaring differences. 

And it shows that, please go vax, if can, vax mrna. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+de...by+country
Reply

(20-03-2022, 08:15 PM)lionkingch55 Wrote:  Don't talk cock.the figures are all there for vac and non vac ( include partial) for fatalities.
Why you look at the data reported and no more report in perspective leg? Why no more report? Simple question to ask. Easy to answer right?  However It may be a can fullof worms to open right? logically thinking along this line, the a Mrna vac may be as deadly as the covid, hence no more reporting. Who is responsible to lead me into thinking negatively of the west mrna? The government? I do thinks so.
[+] 2 users Like Kgliangp's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)