The Vaccine Thread

[JennyD]

Israel is vaccinating health workers first, then anyone over 60 or in a risk group/partner of someone in a risk group, then essential workers, then the general public.

[Corraleno]

Administration officials claim the hold up in vaccine distribution is due to production issues on Pfizer's end.  Pfizer says this is not true, the vaccines are sitting in the warehouse ready to go but the administration hasn't told them where to send them. From their press release:

"Pfizer is not having any production issues with our COVID-19 vaccine, and no shipments containing the vaccine are on hold or delayed.

This week, we successfully shipped all 2.9 million doses that we were asked to ship by the U.S. Government to the locations specified by them.

We have millions more doses sitting in our warehouse but, as of now, we have not received any shipment instructions for additional doses."

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Administration officials claim the hold up in vaccine distribution is due to production issues on Pfizer's end.  Pfizer says this is not true, the vaccines are sitting in the warehouse ready to go but the administration hasn't told them where to send them. From their press release:

"Pfizer is not having any production issues with our COVID-19 vaccine, and no shipments containing the vaccine are on hold or delayed.

This week, we successfully shipped all 2.9 million doses that we were asked to ship by the U.S. Government to the locations specified by them.

We have millions more doses sitting in our warehouse but, as of now, we have not received any shipment instructions for additional doses."

And I have zero reasons to believe administration officials about anything, so yeah, they probably screwed up. 

Is it possible some aspect of the distribution is being run by a group of Kushner's interns again and they forgot to write some e-mails? 😛 

[Pam in CT]

re Pfizer vaccine sitting in a warehouse awaiting instructions on where to send it

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Administration officials claim the hold up in vaccine distribution is due to production issues on Pfizer's end.  Pfizer says this is not true, the vaccines are sitting in the warehouse ready to go but the administration hasn't told them where to send them. From their press release:

"Pfizer is not having any production issues with our COVID-19 vaccine, and no shipments containing the vaccine are on hold or delayed.

This week, we successfully shipped all 2.9 million doses that we were asked to ship by the U.S. Government to the locations specified by them.

We have millions more doses sitting in our warehouse but, as of now, we have not received any shipment instructions for additional doses."

 

Maddow did a segment on this *two nights ago* with on-the-record Pfizer corroboration.

[mathnerd]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

And I have zero reasons to believe administration officials about anything, so yeah, they probably screwed up. 

Is it possible some aspect of the distribution is being run by a group of Kushner's interns again and they forgot to write some e-mails? 😛 

Maybe they actually don't have people in this government that give out detailed instructions on where to ship and how many dosages to each state. If there are 21 year old interns manning powerful committees, chances are that they don't know or that they too got covid and are at home now.

[popmom]

There have been and will probably continue to be some supply chain issues. Not just for Pfizer--all of these drug companies are competing with each other over the raw materials needed.

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, popmom said:

There have been and will probably continue to be some supply chain issues. Not just for Pfizer--all of these drug companies are competing with each other over the raw materials needed.

.  this is what I was worried about - that they would all be using similar stuff.

[Ausmumof3]

Moderna got approved for EUA

 

[Ausmumof3]

Anyone know more about this ?  Is there any context we should know?  3 health workers with allergic reactions (two anaphylactic) in Alaska.  One was briefly hospitalised.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-allergy-idUSKBN28T014

[Carrie12345]

Dd doesn’t have dates yet, but one of the companies she works for has started a list of employees who want to get vaxed when they do get it. (EMS)

I’m really glad to know she will have some good protection, but I have to admit that I’m a little nervous about what that means for the rest of us. (Well, excluding dh for now, since he’s been infected.). If she’s able to carry it, we’ll be less likely to know if/when she’s bringing it home to us.  Other dd and I are at the bottom of the vax list, and the boys are too young.

[RootAnn]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

If she’s able to carry it, we’ll be less likely to know if/when she’s bringing it home to us.  Other dd and I are at the bottom of the vax list, and the boys are too young.

I haven't read it myself, but I heard Moderna's sounds like it will keep from transmitting the virus. Maybe by the time your dd's company has the vaccine, it'll be Moderna's?

I have to say that I have been somewhat relieved that so far, there has not been a fight over paying for vaccine doses. I don't know how it is being paid for, but I remain hopeful that low & no income individuals will be able to receive it in a timely manner along with those if us who are fortunate to have employers & insurance.

This seems to say that all sides purchased by the govt are free to recipients but later, it will cost something. I hope there will continue to be a way for those without insurance to receive it later on.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/vaccine-coverage-pricing-and-reimbursement-in-the-u-s/

Edited December 19, 2020 by RootAnn
Edited to add link

[Pam in CT]

Was this already posted?  If so I missed it.

Well done, VP.  More like this, please.

[Bootsie]

On 12/17/2020 at 1:29 PM, ktgrok said:

It help because if too many HCW get sick with Covid and can't work, more people will die for lack of care. So I want those HCW protected! Including you! Plus, you are more exposed, so deserve protection to protect yourself and your family. Plus if you are vaccinated (and it prevents actual transmission) it means those you see at the grocery store, etc are safer to be around you. 

Ugh. I'd be tempted to ask what part of the billing process she works in where she sees the payments for this covid bonus or whatever the heck people think it is. 

There is some truth to hospitals receiving a higher payment if there is a COVID diagnosis:

"The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients to account for both anticipated and unanticipated increases in the cost of care for these medically complex patients," explained Dr. Summer McGee, dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven.

As Badger highlighted, instead of getting paid the DRG rate, a hospital that admits a coronavirus patient will receive 20 percent more compensation than they would for providing that same care to a non-coronavirus patient.

"Imagine two Medicare patients, one with COVID-19 and another one not, with pneumonia in the same ICU. Medicare will pay, for example, $10,000 for the pneumonia patient who doesn't have COVID-19 and $12,000 for the patient who does," he surmised. "The rationale is that this provides a sort of rough justice method of making sure that hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government."

Hospitals are paid more for Medicare patients confirmed or presumed to have coronavirus | Fox News

 

 

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Anyone know more about this ?  Is there any context we should know?  3 health workers with allergic reactions (two anaphylactic) in Alaska.  One was briefly hospitalised.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-allergy-idUSKBN28T014

I saw there were a couple of health care workers in the UK that had allergic reactions

Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: ingredients, allergic reactions - Business Insider

The news says "Both of the healthcare workers who reacted to the shot in the UK had known, severe allergies, which required them to carry adrenaline (epinephrine) pens, "  It does not say what their known allergies were.  

[RootAnn]

Is anyone else shaking their heads at the two different stories in the news about Pfizer vaccine dosages either being short vs what was promised or Pfizer having millions of doses waiting on instructions? It makes no sense to me that those doses Pfizer says they have not getting shipped out when the states are saying their 2nd shipments are going to be short.

[Frances]

I don’t know if other states are like this, but in general, my state is not allocating doses to hospitals proportional to size. So several hospitals in the state, some small and some large, all got the same number of doses. If this continues, it likely means the hospital in my city, the largest in the state, will be the last to be able to vaccinate all of its front line workers.

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, RootAnn said:

Is anyone else shaking their heads at the two different stories in the news about Pfizer vaccine dosages either being short vs what was promised or Pfizer having millions of doses waiting on instructions? It makes no sense to me that those doses Pfizer says they have not getting shipped out when the states are saying their 2nd shipments are going to be short.

What I have read is that there was a federal database going back to last summer that showed each state how many doses the gov't estimated they would be getting and when. Then Pfizer informed the administration in early October that they would not be providing as many doses by the end December as originally planned — but no one bothered to update the numbers that states were basing their distribution plans on. So after the first round of vaccines were shipped out with great fanfare and publicity, states suddenly discovered that subsequent shipments would be much smaller — by up to 40% — than what they had planned for, and they demanded to know why their allocations had been cut.

The administration responded by blaming Pfizer, saying they had production problems and weren't providing as many doses as originally planned, to which Pfizer responded by saying no, all of the doses they agreed to (in October) are sitting in warehouses waiting to go out. So while it's technically true that Pfizer had production issues several months ago, the administration has had accurate numbers since October — they just never bothered to inform the states, so the states spent the last few months designing their vaccine distribution plans on totally incorrect data. 

The level of disorganization and sheer incompetence in handling this pandemic is truly mind-boggling. ☹️

[TravelingChris]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:25 PM, JennyD said:

I recall that immunosuppressed folks have come up on this thread.  Very anecdotal, but a friend of mine recently had a kidney transplant at a major US medical center, and his doctors told him that they believe it is safe for him to take the vaccine three months post surgery.  (Presumably they were talking about the Pfizer vaccine but I don't know the details.)

The big question, however, is whether a vaccine will work for him.  He will need to take an antibody test afterwards to see if his body has made antibodies against the virus.

Obviously nobody knows anything for sure, but FWIW that's what's being recommended to him at the moment.

Yes, and there is immuno =suppressed, and immuno -suppressed..  Transplant patients are the second most immuno -suppressed people after full blown AIDS and people who were born with basically no immune system ( I know a woman like that).    THen there is the much, much bigger group of people who take steriods and other medications that suppress their autoimmune diseases but are much less suppressive than transplant suppression.  

And people like me, who are at much higher risk of pneumonia from COVID due to lack of moisture- and thereby having very thick mucus and take medications that suppress are immune system are at higher risk than those who just take the normal immune suppressing medications (though not necessarily transplant patients and not untreated AIDS patients.

But there is no list of high risk patients- how is that decided?

[wathe]

A very interesting NYT article on covid vaccine acceptance/hesitancy and game theory:  " The Pandemic is a Prisoner's Dilemma Game"

[Drama Llama]

11 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Yes, and there is immuno =suppressed, and immuno -suppressed..  Transplant patients are the second most immuno -suppressed people after full blown AIDS and people who were born with basically no immune system ( I know a woman like that).    THen there is the much, much bigger group of people who take steriods and other medications that suppress their autoimmune diseases but are much less suppressive than transplant suppression.  

And people like me, who are at much higher risk of pneumonia from COVID due to lack of moisture- and thereby having very thick mucus and take medications that suppress are immune system are at higher risk than those who just take the normal immune suppressing medications (though not necessarily transplant patients and not untreated AIDS patients.

But there is no list of high risk patients- how is that decided?

The CDC does have a list of what's high risk:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html

I have no idea whether this is what will be used for vaccines, but it's what's used by a number of school districts here to decide which teachers get ADA accommodations, for example.  

[ScoutTN]

All the docs and nurses I know who work in local hospitals get their first vax dose this week.  

[Pam in CT]

re vaccination as a prisoners' dilemma

1 hour ago, wathe said:

A very interesting NYT article on covid vaccine acceptance/hesitancy and game theory:  " The Pandemic is a Prisoner's Dilemma Game"

That is so.on.point

Let me count the ways, that basic high school education would do far better to require basic probability, statistics and risk assessment -- which are essential to EVERYONE's capacity to function in the ordinary world/make sense of current events; and leave calculus & physics to the subset of students aspiring to fields in which they are necessary.

Also, the economists' language of "the tragedy of the commons" is IMHO unfortunate marketing -- it connotes a quaintly local and faintly socialist artifact of a Shakespearean age. We're all atop the same d@mn marble hurtling through the eternal cold, whether we'd choose each other's company or not if we had any choice in the matter, is to my mind more on modern point.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pam in CT said:

Let me count the ways, that basic high school education would do far better to require basic probability, statistics and risk assessment -- which are essential to EVERYONE's capacity to function in the ordinary world/make sense of current events; and leave calculus & physics to the subset of students aspiring to fields in which they are necessary.

Good luck teaching statistics/probability in any kind of serious way to kids who don't get fractions or functions. Those aren't actually optional in those fields, if you want to get past the surface. 

I've heard this suggestion before, and although I'm a probabilist and overall think it's a good idea... I also think the level of statistics/probability I'd be able to communicate to the kids I couldn't teach calculus to would be incredibly low. 

Basically, we need to fix elementary math first. What to do after that can only be answered at that juncture, because it's almost impossible for me to imagine teaching kids who understand the elementary concepts. The kids I taught calculus couldn't reason about numbers, by and large.

[Pam in CT]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Good luck teaching statistics/probability in any kind of serious way to kids who don't get fractions or functions. Those aren't actually optional in those fields, if you want to get past the surface. 

I've heard this suggestion before, and although I'm a probabilist and overall think it's a good idea... I also think the level of statistics/probability I'd be able to communicate to the kids I couldn't teach calculus to would be incredibly low. 

Basically, we need to fix elementary math first. What to do after that can only be answered at that juncture, because it's almost impossible for me to imagine teaching kids who understand the elementary concepts. The kids I taught calculus couldn't reason about numbers, by and large.

Yes, starting with elementary math first; and also

1. Fractions and (the substance, if not the mathematical language) of functions are also necesssary to basic tasks of ordinary living, like figuring out sales discounts, halving or doubling a recipe, cutting out fabric for a sewing project; and
2. Back in the BeforeTimes, our family did lot of homestays with families with whom our language skills were rudimentary at best... and always carried around a bunch of card & dice games that can be played non-verbally. The ability of people to cotton on *very quickly* to basic probabilities and risk is one of those underlying street smarts that IMO our education system has actually made us stupider.  (Ditto: map skills and directional awareness, generally.)

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pam in CT said:

Yes, starting with elementary math first; and also

1. Fractions and (the substance, if not the mathematical language) of functions are also necesssary to basic tasks of ordinary living, like figuring out sales discounts, halving or doubling a recipe, cutting out fabric for a sewing project; and
2. Back in the BeforeTimes, our family did lot of homestays with families with whom our language skills were rudimentary at best... and always carried around a bunch of card & dice games that can be played non-verbally. The ability of people to cotton on *very quickly* to basic probabilities and risk is one of those underlying street smarts that IMO our education system has actually made us stupider.  (Ditto: map skills and directional awareness, generally.)

I've had some epiphanies about teaching mathematics, some of which almost sound contradictory but aren't. They are: 

1) Couching things in "imprecise" language that helps kids connect math to concepts they already understand (the real world, so to speak, although I never like that phrasing) is incredibly helpful

and

2) The best way to communicate an initial concept is the most direct, "get to the heart of the matter," way. For some concepts, that way is unambiguously visual and non-verbal, and the more words you add to it, the harder you make it. 

I tend to disagree with practically everyone on teaching math (mathematicians tend to be pedantic and to get hung up on rigor in an entirely unhelpful way; math education people can be far too rigid about what they think "developmental limits" are), but I do tend to agree with the cognitively-oriented people that mathematical teaching is about the individual students' "sense-making." 

Anyway, coming back to your point, I spent a LOT of time with the kids in my homeschool classes playing games. When used well, games are an excellent way to communicate all sorts of mathematical ideas, because practically all kids DO try to make sense of games, and that's the important skill being practiced. 

However, I would guess that letting our current crop of teachers play games with the kids wouldn't result in better outcomes, because they wouldn't be able to make the concepts cohere with the games. 

Sorry, this turned out rambly! I have too much to say about the teaching of mathematics, obviously 😉 . 

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've had some epiphanies about teaching mathematics, some of which almost sound contradictory but aren't. They are: 

1) Couching things in "imprecise" language that helps kids connect math to concepts they already understand (the real world, so to speak, although I never like that phrasing) is incredibly helpful

and

2) The best way to communicate an initial concept is the most direct, "get to the heart of the matter," way. For some concepts, that way is unambiguously visual and non-verbal, and the more words you add to it, the harder you make it. 

I tend to disagree with practically everyone on teaching math (mathematicians tend to be pedantic and to get hung up on rigor in an entirely unhelpful way; math education people can be far too rigid about what they think "developmental limits" are), but I do tend to agree with the cognitively-oriented people that mathematical teaching is about the individual students' "sense-making." 

Anyway, coming back to your point, I spent a LOT of time with the kids in my homeschool classes playing games. When used well, games are an excellent way to communicate all sorts of mathematical ideas, because practically all kids DO try to make sense of games, and that's the important skill being practiced. 

However, I would guess that letting our current crop of teachers play games with the kids wouldn't result in better outcomes, because they wouldn't be able to make the concepts cohere with the games. 

Sorry, this turned out rambly! I have too much to say about the teaching of mathematics, obviously 😉 . 

I so agree with both these points but especially point number two. It took me forever to learn to shut up more. Lol

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, frogger said:

I so agree with both these points but especially point number two. It took me forever to learn to shut up more. Lol

Isn't it HARD??? 😉 I'm also fond of the sound of my own voice!! 

[Drama Llama]

On 12/16/2020 at 7:29 PM, TCB said:

Just another thought on the protective effect of HCWs like me getting vaccinated - It may prove helpful in the future, but at the moment it would make little difference. In the last 2-3 months I have only looked after a non-Covid patient 1 day. Every other day I’ve worked, I have had all Covid patients, so not really been around those needing protection from me lol.

If it turns out that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, one thing I worry about is that we'll see a relaxation in standards for protecting HCW's and other essential employees, and increase the risk to their families.

For context, as a teacher, with lots of teacher friends, I can tell you that school systems across the country are allowing teachers to work remotely if they, the teachers, have a condition on the CDC list, because of ADA, but not if, for example, their child has a condition on the CDC list.  So, I worry about people being forced back to in person work, and then taking the virus home.  

 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Good luck teaching statistics/probability in any kind of serious way to kids who don't get fractions or functions. Those aren't actually optional in those fields, if you want to get past the surface. 

I've heard this suggestion before, and although I'm a probabilist and overall think it's a good idea... I also think the level of statistics/probability I'd be able to communicate to the kids I couldn't teach calculus to would be incredibly low. 

Basically, we need to fix elementary math first. What to do after that can only be answered at that juncture, because it's almost impossible for me to imagine teaching kids who understand the elementary concepts. The kids I taught calculus couldn't reason about numbers, by and large.

When DD was in first grade, part of the math curriculum was statistics and probability ?!?  No, they did not know fractions yet;  they hadn't even gotten to multiplication yet.  They were just learning addition and subtraction.  But, since they couldn't do statistics in college, the solution was to include that in the curriculum in first grade.  To me, that is like trying to teach a kid how to dive before teaching them how to swim.

[wathe]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

When DD was in first grade, part of the math curriculum was statistics and probability ?!?  No, they did not know fractions yet;  they hadn't even gotten to multiplication yet.  They were just learning addition and subtraction.  But, since they couldn't do statistics in college, the solution was to include that in the curriculum in first grade.  To me, that is like trying to teach a kid how to dive before teaching them how to swim.

My province includes probability and data management as a math curriculum strand starting in first grade.  It's pretty good, actually.  In the early years, much of the focus was on categorizing likelihoods into categories:  always, very likely, likely, not very likely, and never.  I think it's possible to teach statistics concepts well even for very young students.  I do agree, thought,  that actually calculating probabilities is not appropriate for first-graders.

[wathe]

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

 We're all atop the same d@mn marble hurtling through the eternal cold, whether we'd choose each other's company or not if we had any choice in the matter, is to my mind more on modern point.

That's really good.  I hadn't seen that article before.

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, wathe said:

I do agree, thought,  that actually calculating probabilities is not appropriate for first-graders.

Unpopular opinion: you should teach lots of combinatorics before probability. It's very appropriate for young kids, involves fun multiplication practice, and is fun. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Drama Llama]

45 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

When DD was in first grade, part of the math curriculum was statistics and probability ?!?  No, they did not know fractions yet;  they hadn't even gotten to multiplication yet.  They were just learning addition and subtraction.  But, since they couldn't do statistics in college, the solution was to include that in the curriculum in first grade. 

As someone who teaches a lot of first grade level math, I don't understand this objection.  Introducing a concept and then spiraling back to it is a pretty standard part of math curriculum, and age appropriate things like picture graphs and dice games are a great way for kids to build fluency with basic skills like using math vocabulary to describe what they see, comparing quantities, skip counting etc . . . .  No first grade math teacher thinks they've exhausted statistics and probability because they helped their 6 year olds make graphs of their favorite pets; and compare their weather graphs for February and March and concluded that snow is more likely in February than in March.  

Do homeschoolers not do these activities, or do they label them differently? 

45 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 

To me, that is like trying to teach a kid how to dive before teaching them how to swim.

I guess in my mind it's more like having your toddler jump to you from the edge of the pool as a different way of practicing what they learned in swim lessons.  It's a step towards diving, it's not the finished product. 

[Pam in CT]

40 minutes ago, wathe said:

That's really good.  I hadn't seen that article before.

He wrote it just as that iconic first photograph of the earth from space was taken, hanging there suspended in eternal vastness, neither central nor inconsequential but as we really are, riders bound together in that endless space. I return to it over and over; it is such a profound insight into the history of how humans have viewed ourselves.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, BaseballandHockey said:

As someone who teaches a lot of first grade level math, I don't understand this objection.  Introducing a concept and then spiraling back to it is a pretty standard part of math curriculum, and age appropriate things like picture graphs and dice games are a great way for kids to build fluency with basic skills like using math vocabulary to describe what they see, comparing quantities, skip counting etc . . . .  No first grade math teacher thinks they've exhausted statistics and probability because they helped their 6 year olds make graphs of their favorite pets; and compare their weather graphs for February and March and concluded that snow is more likely in February than in March.  

Do homeschoolers not do these activities, or do they label them differently? 

I guess in my mind it's more like having your toddler jump to you from the edge of the pool as a different way of practicing what they learned in swim lessons.  It's a step towards diving, it's not the finished product. 

I would have no objection to that type of data usage.  And, I think things like playing games using dice is a great way for students to gain a sense of numbers and probability. 

But, that is not what was happening--there was not time in the curriculum for something like playing a game using dice.  Students were supposed to read a word problem, do a calculation, and then choose the correct multiple choice answer for a standardized test in first grade--I think that is developmentally inappropriate for most first graders. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Bootsie

[RootAnn]

6 hours ago, wathe said:

A very interesting NYT article on covid vaccine acceptance/hesitancy and game theory:  " The Pandemic is a Prisoner's Dilemma Game"

Thanks for this. I thought it was interesting how their model showed why cases came down so slowly due to behavior.

[Drama Llama]

27 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would have no objection to that type of data usage.  And, I think things like playing games using dice is a great way for students to gain a sense of numbers and probability. 

But, that is not what was happening--there was not time in the curriculum for something like playing a game using dice.  Students were supposed to read a word problem, do a calculation, and then choose the correct multiple choice answer for a standardized test in first grade--I think that is developmentally inappropriate for most first graders. 

That seems like an issue with a developmentally inappropriate model of instruction, and an over reliance on standardized testing.  I don't see how it relates to statistics though, or the question of whether or not statistics can be introduced to first graders.  

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

That seems like an issue with a developmentally inappropriate model of instruction, and an over reliance on standardized testing.  I don't see how it relates to statistics though, or the question of whether or not statistics can be introduced to first graders.  

I guess it depends upon how one defines introducing statistics.  Children playing on a seesaw are being introduced to physics but I wouldn't consider that being "physics curriculum"  Likewise, children playing a dice game are being introduced to statistics.  What I saw was first grade teachers trying to teach weighted average calculations and conditional probabilities  (when often they did not even understand the concept themselves).  Students really can't figure out the probability of rolling a "7" with two dice when they can't add 4 and 3 together yet.  

[wathe]

Playing with a seesaw with a little guidance really can be a really good physics lesson - I set my two the task of them using their weight to lift me on a seesaw (in our case, a 10 foot 2x8 board balanced on a large piece of fire wood).  They figured out very quickly that if they put me near the fulcrum, and put themselves far from the fulcrum, then they could do it.  That's a real physics lesson without the math.

I think exploration of probabilities with dice could be done similarly with guidance:  How many ways are there to roll 7 dots with 2 dice (use different coloured dice).  Physically count the ways: 1,6; 6,1; 2,5; 5,2; 3,4; 4,3.  That's a lot of ways!  How many ways to roll 2 dots with 2 dice? 1,1 and that's it.  Which outcome is more likely? The only math skill required is counting.   (And at my house, you then play a game of Catan to reinforce, and the kid suddenly gets what the dots under numbers on the number disks are all about.....)

Edited December 21, 2020 by wathe

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Serious statistics without fractions is difficult, but it can definitely be done without functions - there are no functions on the GCSE Statistics qualification, which is taken by Year 10s in the UK. (Granted, most of them would previously have done GCSE Maths, which does require functions, but I suspect a student who had learned the four operations and had a year or two of broader maths (of whatever sort made sense in context) could indeed learn basic statistics, even if they were not ready to start algebra.

 

Of course, the more algebra one knows, the more statistics one can do, but "life skills" level maths is plenty enough for "life skills" level statistics.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to work out how my part of the UK escaped going into lockdown again due to the new variant.

Edited December 21, 2020 by ieta_cassiopeia

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

Serious statistics without fractions is difficult, but it can definitely be done without functions - there are no functions on the GCSE Statistics qualification, which is taken by Year 10s in the UK. (Granted, most of them would previously have done GCSE Maths, which does require functions, but I suspect a student who had learned the four operations and had a year or two of broader maths (of whatever sort made sense in context) could indeed learn basic statistics, even if they were not ready to start algebra.

How do you do stats without any distributions? I mean, to do distributions properly you need to be able to integrate, but even without integration... how do you talk about probability distributions without functions? 

[Pam in CT]

"doing" vs "making sense of" statistics

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

How do you do stats without any distributions? I mean, to do distributions properly you need to be able to integrate, but even without integration... how do you talk about probability distributions without functions? 

You can't. You can't "do" statistics without distributions.  You cannot become an econometrician, or an epidemiologist, or even a decent sociologist ( #PetPeeve) without the mathematical language of functions and sufficiently advanced calculus.

But you can understand the basics of statistical distribution graphically, just as you can understand the basics of microeconomics, by  plopping the data onto graphs and looking at the pictorial shape of the thing... if you know what it means, logically, that a bunch of data has a tight or wide distribution, a more-or-less symetric distribution or a lopsided one, fat tails or not, etc. (Much as you have yourself referenced the shape of COVID metric curves as you've been looking at positivity rates.)

Not everyone needs to *do* the drug data research, or epidemiology studies, or the econometric work, or sociology #PetPeeve research. But all reasonably educated people should be able to to really understand what an article in a magazine means; and that includes the difference between a self-referring sample of 40 vs a randomized sample of 1,000 vs a controlled blind trial of 20K.

I'm not a cartographer. I have not mastered the language and tools and mathematics -- neither the old nor the new ones -- of cartography. That said: I don't need to know how to survey and triangulate contours and draw maps to scale or produce that information digitally... but I really should know how to read a map.

Same for basic probability, risk assessment and statistics. 

[Not_a_Number]

44 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

But you can understand the basics of statistical distribution graphically, just as you can understand the basics of microeconomics, by  plopping the data onto graphs and looking at the pictorial shape of the thing... if you know what it means, logically, that a bunch of data has a tight or wide distribution, a more-or-less symetric distribution or a lopsided one, fat tails or not, etc. (Much as you have yourself referenced the shape of COVID metric curves as you've been looking at positivity rates.)

Can you? I haven’t had a good experience with people who don’t know the basics of functions being able to understand what a fat tail means. Or, frankly, that there is extraneous data in the shape of the curve, and that how wide/thin the curve is isn’t meaningful unless you look at the markings on the axis. 

Functions aren’t HARD. Everyone should know the basics of functions, and then distributions aren’t hard, either. The problem is that we spend a year in school teaching kids to graph lines. We overtrain splinter skills instead of teaching the global picture. That’s the problem. Not the specific splinter skills we choose to overtrain.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

"doing" vs "making sense of" statistics

You can't. You can't "do" statistics without distributions.  You cannot become an econometrician, or an epidemiologist, or even a decent sociologist ( #PetPeeve) without the mathematical language of functions and sufficiently advanced calculus.

But you can understand the basics of statistical distribution graphically, just as you can understand the basics of microeconomics, by  plopping the data onto graphs and looking at the pictorial shape of the thing... if you know what it means, logically, that a bunch of data has a tight or wide distribution, a more-or-less symetric distribution or a lopsided one, fat tails or not, etc. (Much as you have yourself referenced the shape of COVID metric curves as you've been looking at positivity rates.)

Not everyone needs to *do* the drug data research, or epidemiology studies, or the econometric work, or sociology #PetPeeve research. But all reasonably educated people should be able to to really understand what an article in a magazine means; and that includes the difference between a self-referring sample of 40 vs a randomized sample of 1,000 vs a controlled blind trial of 20K.

I'm not a cartographer. I have not mastered the language and tools and mathematics -- neither the old nor the new ones -- of cartography. That said: I don't need to know how to survey and triangulate contours and draw maps to scale or produce that information digitally... but I really should know how to read a map.

Same for basic probability, risk assessment and statistics. 

What can you understand of the basic of mciroeconomics from plopping the data onto graphs and looking at the shape of things?  I see how a picture can be used to DESCRIBE a particular set of data.  There is a big jump from describing a particular set of data to understanding the relationships between the variables being described, the cause and effects, analyzing the data, drawing conclusions, etc.  

There is also much in the way that data is presented visually that can impact how one responds to it.  One of the important things of being educated in statistics, economics, or data analysis is to recognize those types of details and issues.  Many articles display data in a way to make their point, but the same data could correctly be presented in another way, leaving the reader with a different reaction to the data.  Sometimes this is done intentionally and sometimes it is poor writing (and understanding) on the part of the author.  

[Bootsie]

So, the CDC says that severe allergies to food is not an issue, but the NHS says that those with a severe allergy to food should not get the vaccine.   The CDC seems to limit its advice to people who have a history of severe allergic reaction to vaccines, and the NHS lists a broader range of severe allergies.  (I am watching this closely because DD has had a severe non-vaccine allergic reaction.)

As far as allergic reactions to the vaccine I see the CDC's advice is 

Individuals with histories of severe allergic reaction to vaccines should consult their doctors about the COVID-19 shot. The CDC said people with severe allergies to food, pets, latex or environmental conditions as well as people with allergies to oral medication or a family history of severe allergic reactions could still get vaccinated.  CDC issues guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination after allergic reactions | Reuters

But then I see that the NHS (UK)  has the following advice:

Allergic reactions

Tell staff before you are vaccinated if you have ever had a serious allergic reaction (anaphylaxis).

You should not have the vaccine if you've ever had a serious allergic reaction to medicines, vaccines or food.

If you do have a reaction to the vaccine, it usually happens in minutes. Staff giving the vaccine are trained to deal with allergic reactions and treat them immediately.  

Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

On 12/21/2020 at 3:44 PM, Not_a_Number said:

How do you do stats without any distributions? I mean, to do distributions properly you need to be able to integrate, but even without integration... how do you talk about probability distributions without functions? 

Two distributions are in GCSE Statistics (normal and binomial distribution), but integration typically isn't even attempted until the first year of A-Level Statistics. Rather, the algorithms and their purposes are taught. If a student knows what every part of an equation does, then they don't need to know the general concept behind it is a function (and most if not all of the GCSE students in my class did not). Then, when they get to A-Level, students learn that they are examples of functions.

I will admit, the course teaches a little algebra. However, I managed an A in GCSE Statistics despite having to remediate basic algebra the following year due to the school making a total mess of teaching it to me (both during the time it was meant to teach me algebra and during the statistics course).

"Fat tail", or "short/long tail" as I was taught it, is not even taught in GCSE Maths, after 2-3 years of algebra. This is because an understanding of algebra is not considered helpful to learning it - only understanding of statistics. (The fact that most GCSE Statistics candidates have learned algebra before starting on that course is a complicating factor).

A-Level Maths requires the use of integration in statistics, but does not assume GCSE Statistics was completed (technically, GCSE Statistics doesn't require GCSE Maths like A-Level Maths does, but does assume the same degree of general maturity and skill in statistical aspects like basic graph reading). Therefore, a student who was really having trouble learning the GCSE Statistics distributions without knowing they're using functions and integration could be handed an A-Level Statistics 1 book, where it will be explained with functions and integration made explicit. (They'd probably only need one or two chapters). But nobody in my class needed that to pass the GCSE. None of us would have known what integration was, but we knew how to apply a method to a set of data, and what the results meant.

There are different levels to which statistics can be learned. It's possible to learn enough to interpret a basic graph or statistic, which can be taught to anyone who knows the four operations - although "life skills"-level, where bias and awkward numbers get involved, requires fractions, decimals and a certain amount of awareness of how the outside world works. The last part can be the delaying factor for some people. Think of it as being able to cook using a beginner's cookbook that has lots of pictures and assumes the chef need everything breaking down into tiny pieces, perhaps using some ingredients that have been pre-prepared by the supermarket. What I describe here is survival-level statistics, and is covered in GCSE Maths. (I'm not sure when other countries teach/test this sort of thing, other that in the USA, it varies).

It's possible to learn how to set up a simple mathematical experiment involving statistics, using hypotheses, reasonable mathematical tools to answer the hypothesis, bias-reducing/unbiased data collection methods, simple analysis and a reasonable conclusioon. This also teaches how to interpret more complex statistics (notably what would need to be done/known in order to have a more useful statistic than the one presented, and some sort of idea how that could be acquired). This is enough for a particularly informed citizen who hopes to understand things like political graphs and academic uses of statistics without an analyst acting as an interpreter - or someone who wants to use statistics for simple work or volunteering purposes (typically for people who spend most of their time doing some other occupation). It's a bit like cooking using a standard cookbook, from scratch. That's GCSE Statistics.

Finally, statistics can be learned in a way that involves being able to use all the major tools a statistician would have at their disposal, when to use each, the effects of making certain specific changes and the costs that might happen elsewhere. That's for more advanced semi-professional (and beginning professional) purposes. This is like knowing how to create one's own recipes and adapt them to what one has in the fridge. A-Level Maths and AP Statistics aim to cover this level. That's the level at which integration and knowing what every property of an equation is called (not just what it does in the context of specific tasks one seeks to do), because this is the level at which experimenting with the maths starts to happen, not just using it in a routine way on relatively predictable tasks.

 

20 hours ago, Choirfarm3 said:

 I got a high fever as a small kid after the pertussis shot and the injection spot on my but swelled up so much I have a scar.  

What does this mean for me?

If you weren't hospitalised and a doctor didn't tell your parents to avoid giving you other vaccines, I wouldn't worry too much. You might get another small scar if your body has reacted like that before, but it doesn't sound like the sort of reaction doctors are worried about because it's single-symptom and not life-threatening. Nonetheless, discussing the situation with your doctor before proceeding would be wise.

In the UK, anaphylaxis is a specific reaction to an aggravating substance, often involving breathing problems but can also be any two or more of: vomiting, swelling, light-headedness, low blood pressure and an itchy rash. I'm not sure how CDC defines "severe". However, the fact CDC has said people with non-vaccine allergies can have the vaccine gives me hope, because that allows the majority of people that the previous advice excluded to get the vaccine. (The NHS can be quite slow to amend advice once given).

[Not_a_Number]

24 minutes ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

Two distributions are in GCSE Statistics (normal and binomial distribution), but integration typically isn't even attempted until the first year of A-Level Statistics. Rather, the algorithms and their purposes are taught. If a student knows what every part of an equation does, then they don't need to know the general concept behind it is a function (and most if not all of the GCSE students in my class did not). Then, when they get to A-Level, students learn that they are examples of functions.

I’m sorry, but that seems extremely ineffective and totally backwards to me. I’d much rather people understood mathematical reasoning and what a function is than to do this kind of cargo cult statistics.

One of my relatives is a physicist who currently works in geology, and he constantly complains about how people abuse statistics. Personally, I constantly see people abusing regressions and running them when there is clearly no linear relationship.

What we need is a population actually conversant with mathematical ideas. Then they can learn the requisite statistics. Learning things by rote like this is something I’m not in any way a fan of.

[Not_a_Number]

23 minutes ago, kand said:

It seems most useful and important for people to understand what kinds of statistical analyses there are and how to interpret them, rather than for everyone to be able to calculate them themselves. That would be nice, but doesn’t seem a practical goal for the entire population nor one that people would be likely to engage in once they were out of school. I took statistics in college, but haven’t done any of those calculations since and honestly don’t at all remember how. I understand the point behind them though and what they mean. 

I don't remember most statistic analyses, to be honest. Like, I remember the normal distribution, I vaguely remember how regressions work (I know what you're minimizing and what you're looking for but I can't remember what the formula is), and I remember binomial distributions. 

In my experience, when I talk to people, people can't do really BASIC statistical reasoning, nothing fancy. Like, what does it mean for two events to be independent? How does that affect the probabilities? What does it mean for things to be random but not uniform? Like this xkcd: 

https://xkcd.com/2370/

This is why I don't tend to worry about people learning statistics, per se. What I want, really, is for people to understand basic probability and basic functions, and then you can teach people enough statistics to operate with in a few days/weeks. What you CAN'T do is teach statistics to someone who doesn't understand that if you apply to more universities, you increase your chance of getting into one (a conversation I've had on this forum.) There's a lot of cognitively sophisticated background there, and that's what I would want to focus on. 

[Drama Llama]

I feel really confused by this discussion of statistics.  Maybe I am just brain fogged and not reading well. 

I agree that it's important that we have brilliant minds with sophisticated understanding of statistics guiding and interpreting the research, and leading the policy decisions on this issue. If @Not_a_Number says that that requires advanced calculus, I will 100% believe her. 

But it seems like an argument is also being made that statistics based on advanced math is the only knowledge that counts, and that statistics education shouldn't start until after people have an understanding of advanced math, and that rather than improving statistics education for students in K-12, we should be eliminating it?   If I'm reading that correctly, then I have to disagree.  

 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I feel really confused by this discussion of statistics.  Maybe I am just brain fogged and not reading well. 

I agree that it's important that we have brilliant minds with sophisticated understanding of statistics guiding and interpreting the research, and leading the policy decisions on this issue. If @Not_a_Number says that that requires advanced calculus, I will 100% believe her. 

But it seems like an argument is also being made that statistics based on advanced math is the only knowledge that counts, and that statistics education shouldn't start until after people have an understanding of advanced math, and that rather than improving statistics education for students in K-12, we should be eliminating it?   If I'm reading that correctly, then I have to disagree.  

Nah, I'm probably not being clear 🙂 . 

What I'm really saying is that the focus on statistics per se seems half-baked. I'd much rather people got very solid combinatorics and probability and a smattering of statistics. But a lot of the time, what I see is an attempt to teach the more sophisticated algorithms of statistics (normal distributions! regressions! Chi-squared tests!) without making sure kids actually understand probability, and I don't think that's effort well spent. 

Basically, I'd rather kids play lots of games and understand counting and randomness 🙂 . Then statistics would come much easier. 

(I'm all for teaching "sampling" and stuff like that. But only after kids have grappled with probability and understand what "random" even means.) 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Not_a_Number