Marcus, The data are fresh from the horse's mouth, Phizer themselves. Their main report https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf and their supplementary data https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf
Maybe you want to read the very first email in this thread again? Pieter On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 18:37, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just so’s you know, > > > > I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone. > > > > And remember. Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another. You (we) are > writing to 300 other people. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:32 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true? > > > > Trials are done in phases. First they have to establish that the > treatment does no harm. That’s what this was about. Some anti-vax jerk > probably dug up this reference and started quoting it out of context, like > you are. > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of * > thompnicks...@gmail.com > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:28 AM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true? > > > > You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony. > > > > Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths? > You are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your > sense of the plain meaning of words. Sheesh! > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true? > > > > sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as > a reported cause of death. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp < > piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote: > > For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data > https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf > > Reported Cause of Death BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo > (N=21,921) > Deaths 15 > 14 > Acute respiratory failure 0 > 1 > Aortic rupture 0 > 1 > Arteriosclerosis 2 > 0 > Biliary cancer metastatic 0 > 1 > COVID-19 0 > 2 > COVID-19 pneumonia 1 > 0 > Cardiac arrest 4 > 1 > Cardiac failure congestive 1 > 0 > Cardiorespiratory arrest 1 > 1 > Chronic obstructive pulmonary > disease 1 > 0 > Death 0 > 1 > Dementia 0 > 1 > Emphysematous cholecystitis 1 > 0 > Hemorrhagic stroke 0 > 1 > Hypertensive heart disease 1 > 0 > Lung cancer metastatic 1 > 0 > Metastases to liver 0 > 1 > Missing 0 > 1 > Multiple organ dysfunction > syndrome 0 > 2 > Myocardial infarction 0 > 2 > Overdose 0 > 1 > Pneumonia 0 > 2 > Sepsis 1 > 0 > Septic shock 1 > 0 > Shigella sepsis 1 > 0 > Unevaluable event 1 > 0 > > > > On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pittsburgh irony: Ooh. Yinz are rill tough. I'm skeered. Cf. Kasich, > who is from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn" > Pittsburgh. > > > > Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not > increase the total (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor > of 1.6. > > Oh I am so glad. So reassuring*. > > > > You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens. > > > > N > > > > PS to Frank. There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh. I count on you to > recognize it. > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true? > > > > Thank you Roger, > > Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty > manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing > conclusion > > If: > a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and > b) a total of 15 out of 22000 (again all causes) of the vaccinated group > died > Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not > increase the total (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor > of 1.6. > > My Python program to do this is as follows: > > import random > total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0 > r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, > with 1000 test runs for a probability of 99% > numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead > for i in range(1000): > x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), > k=22000)) > if( sum(x)<16): > > total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1 > > print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16) > > # iteration tally: > # with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105 > # with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69 > > > Pieter > > > > On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > > Pieter - > > > > The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England > Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020, > https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother > language and inline graphics. It also has fewer deaths in the treatment > group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the first two > months of the study. > > > > The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these > reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in > the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate > otherwise. Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is > expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population > in the trial. > > > > If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate > response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop > torturing yourself with statistical data. You're making and agonizing over > distinctions that the data can never support. The number of deaths in a > population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which > are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time. In > any particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories > that the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term > average even as they wander above and below the average. > > > > I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > # from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm > death_rate = 869.7 # raw deaths per 100000 per year > > > > # simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' > individuals for 'days' of time. > > # convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie > death_rate/100000/365.25, > > # allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value, > > # fill the array with uniform random numbers. > > # if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score > 1 death. > > # this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than > once, YODO! > > > > simulate(death_rate, sample, days) = > sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/100000/365.25) > > > > # accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results. > > # run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for > 'days' time. > > # accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation > > accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) = > [simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials] > > > > # check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 100000 > individuals and 365.25 days, > > # the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the > original death_rate. > > # we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts > > julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 100000, 365.25, 50)) > (868.34, 31.64188002361066) > > # That's in the ball park > > # Now what are the expected deaths per 22000 over 180 days > > julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 22000, 180, 50)) > (94.3, 10.272312697891614) > > # that's nowhere close to the 14 and 15 found in the report. > > # Probably the trial population was chosen to be young and healthy, > > # so they have a lower death rate than the general population. > > # let's use 14.5 deaths per 22000 per 180 days as an estimated trial > population death rate > > # but convert the value to per_100000_per_year. > > julia> est_death_rate = 14.5/22000*100000/180*365.25 > 133.74053030303028 > > > > # check the model: > > julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 50)) > (14.96, 3.6419326558007294) > > # in the ball park again. > > > > # So the point of this simulation isn't the exact result, it's the pairs > of results that this process can generate > > # let's stack up two sets of simulations, call the top one 'treatment' and > the bottom one 'control' > > # treatment and control are being generated by the exact same model, > > # but their mutual relation is bouncing all over the place. > > # That treatment>control or vice versa is just luck of the draw > > > > julia> [accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 20), > accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 20) ] > > 2-element Vector{Vector{Int64}}: > [12, 12, 13, 11, 22, 13, 14, 16, 13, 14, 21, 17, 13, 14, 19, 11, 20, 11, > 9, 19] > [11, 14, 15, 17, 11, 19, 17, 12, 16, 14, 18, 16, 11, 16, 12, 16, 10, 14, > 17, 13] > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:25 AM Pieter Steenekamp < > piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote: > > In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA > COVID-19 Vaccine" ( > https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf) , > I picked up the following: > > "During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo > recipients died" > > Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in > the vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group? > > I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something. > > But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine > efficacy was 91.3% > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/