The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit ‘no evidence’ line to a new line of Very Serious Person language designed to make it easier for everyone to resume.
When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results—they’re looking at all conditions and subconditions, in all regions and subregions, with any possible lag ranges, in order to find something that happened above rate. And for the same reason—people are highly motivated to find a positive result somewhere. I don’t think anyone in a meeting said the word “p-hack”, but no one has denied that the search took place in this fashion, either, nor did they make any attempt to account for it, or notice any issues after they identified what they suspected was the issue. And there’s still no mechanism.
I didn’t intend to explicitly say that the authorities are failing to use an adjusted background rate, but my prior is that they’re not doing so, because no one has mentioned doing the adjustment and in general no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe, because again everyone is on the ‘make the vaccines look unsafe’ team.
The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button.
It was around five or at a maximum ten minutes. They had one press conference in which the first person that spoke for longer laid out both.
The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots … came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit ‘no evidence’ line …
I may be naive and sound like a broken record but I still think it would be helpful if claims about what some said or did were backed up by a link or something.
When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results—they’re looking at all conditions and subconditions, in all regions and subregions, with any possible lag ranges, in order to find something that happened above rate. And for the same reason—people are highly motivated to find a positive result somewhere.
So when you say p-hacking, you don’t really mean people p-hack? Or maybe I don’t understand the aim of your word choice—is this just rhetorics, and not meant to be accurate? It seems related to the questions whether MLK was a criminal, and tax is theft?
I don’t think anyone in a meeting said the word “p-hack”, but no one has denied that the search took place in this fashion, either, nor did they make any attempt to account for it, or notice any issues after they identified what they suspected was the issue. And there’s still no mechanism.
So no one has denied that—was there any public accusation to deny it? Any discussion where it would have to be denied? Or was there at least a serious indication that “the search took place in this fashion”?
I didn’t intend to explicitly say that the authorities are failing to use an adjusted background rate, but my prior is that they’re not doing so, because no one has mentioned doing the adjustment and in general no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe,
“the authorities” seems like a word that doesn’t explain anything. The health minister possibly does not “use an adjusted background rate”, he relies on judgement by a specialized agency. Assuming that this agency does not use an adjusted background rate seems quite a stretch; of course it’s possible, but where is the evidence for that in your summary? Where is the evidence for the claim that “no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe”?
because again everyone is on the ‘make the vaccines look unsafe’ team.
I have no idea why “everyone” should be on that side, and again, I don’t see any evidence for that. Asked by Watson, 220 German politicians today publicly stated their trust in AZ. Your implicit model of politics (or of whatever, I still don’t know who “everyone” is) seems to be wrong.
The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit ‘no evidence’ line to a new line of Very Serious Person language designed to make it easier for everyone to resume.
When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results—they’re looking at all conditions and subconditions, in all regions and subregions, with any possible lag ranges, in order to find something that happened above rate. And for the same reason—people are highly motivated to find a positive result somewhere. I don’t think anyone in a meeting said the word “p-hack”, but no one has denied that the search took place in this fashion, either, nor did they make any attempt to account for it, or notice any issues after they identified what they suspected was the issue. And there’s still no mechanism.
I didn’t intend to explicitly say that the authorities are failing to use an adjusted background rate, but my prior is that they’re not doing so, because no one has mentioned doing the adjustment and in general no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe, because again everyone is on the ‘make the vaccines look unsafe’ team.
It was around five or at a maximum ten minutes. They had one press conference in which the first person that spoke for longer laid out both.
Assuming that you refer to a biological mechanism, there are people who claim to have found just that.
I may be naive and sound like a broken record but I still think it would be helpful if claims about what some said or did were backed up by a link or something.
So when you say p-hacking, you don’t really mean people p-hack? Or maybe I don’t understand the aim of your word choice—is this just rhetorics, and not meant to be accurate? It seems related to the questions whether MLK was a criminal, and tax is theft?
So no one has denied that—was there any public accusation to deny it? Any discussion where it would have to be denied? Or was there at least a serious indication that “the search took place in this fashion”?
“the authorities” seems like a word that doesn’t explain anything. The health minister possibly does not “use an adjusted background rate”, he relies on judgement by a specialized agency. Assuming that this agency does not use an adjusted background rate seems quite a stretch; of course it’s possible, but where is the evidence for that in your summary? Where is the evidence for the claim that “no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe”?
I have no idea why “everyone” should be on that side, and again, I don’t see any evidence for that. Asked by Watson, 220 German politicians today publicly stated their trust in AZ. Your implicit model of politics (or of whatever, I still don’t know who “everyone” is) seems to be wrong.