5/n The first obvious issue here is in the NNTV It is not a great statistic, but here it is used in a WILDLY misleading waypic.twitter.com/RD4Js8byZ0
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
5/n The first obvious issue here is in the NNTV It is not a great statistic, but here it is used in a WILDLY misleading waypic.twitter.com/RD4Js8byZ0
6/n NNTV is easily calculated - you just divide 1 by the absolute risk difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In the Israeli study, the risk of death was 0.006% higher in unvaccinated people, therefore the NNTV was 1/0.00006 = 16,667pic.twitter.com/OVwkvDdVA0
7/n But here's the thing - this trial was only 6 weeks long. Fewer than 3% of the total population got COVID-19 in that time, compared to at least 30% of the entire of Israel over the last 12 months
8/n This means that the NNTV from this study is INHERENTLY MISLEADING unless you assume that vaccines will stop working entirely after the 6-week period (obviously false)
9/n If you extrapolate this efficacy out linearly, and assume that the RELATIVE risk of death after vaccination remains similar over time, at 52 weeks you'd get an NNTV of 1/((0.00006/6)*52) = 1 per 1,960
10/n If you assume that everyone who stays alive will get infected without a vaccine eventually - which is a fact - the ABSOLUTE risk difference approaches the RELATIVE risk difference, and so NNTV = 1/0.84 = 1.2 I.e. 1 life saved for every 1.2 vaccines given!
No, it’s not a fact. There exists pre immunity and cross-immunity. Why are so many of you falling in the fallacy of assuming “everyone” will get infected as if natural immunity doesn’t exist? That is plainly false! https://idp.nature.com/authorize?response_type=cookie&client_id=grover&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41586-020-2598-9 … https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22036-z …
I stopped reading the thread about here. It's a childish simplification of the complexity in epidemiology and immunology to state that everyone is eventually going to have every transmittable disease without a vaccine.
True, but it's also fair to say that SARS-Cov-2 is highly transmissable, so a large percentage will likely get infected at some point. I think his critique of the paper makes perfect sense though. It's crap. So was the FDA not announcing the ARR from the trials. Time matters...
The paper is not crap. There might be points open for discussion, but calling it crap is simplistic. Health nerd is a pharma shill and will cherry pick all he can to discredit the article and perpetuate the narrative. Follow @waukema to learn more about the data they used.
Who do you think is paying me? Please be as specific as possible
Find my answer in the quoted tweet.
"Pharma shill" is a tedious insult, but if you're accusing me of being paid by some corporation presumably you have evidence that this is the case, or at least a specific company that is paying me that you can identify So who is it?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.