Anyone else listening to Joe Rogan podcast?

[jerryskids 5,206]

10 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

 

Just watched the clip, haven't listened to the pod.  Does he explain his reasoning outside of this clip?

[TimHauck 1,801]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Just watched the clip, haven't listened to the pod.  Does he explain his reasoning outside of this clip?

I don't have much interest in listening to his own pod.

But he was just on Rogan again yesterday (really tying this thread together here) and I just finished listening.   Based on that where the first 2 and a half hours were dedicated to talking about how the mRNA vaccines are horrible (Rogan used that exact word and Weinstein agreed, albeit moreso in relation to the vaccines causing myocarditis), I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't want to eat meat from a vaccinated cow because of how horrible he thinks the vaccines are. 

Many of his claims were not backed up by evidence, which was odd because they were also criticizing covidians for doing the same thing, so I'm not surprised he thinks there is a danger in eating vaccinated meat unless it's well done despite no evidence that is the case.   A few of the comments that stood out to me:

He seems convinced vaccines have done more harm than good.  Quotes what I believe is this study - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 - as proof - but that is just the study about "more all cause deaths in the vaccinated group during the clinical trials", and the study's author is on Youtube emphasizing that the numbers are so small and that the results are not statistically significant, despite this guy trying really hard to get her to say that she thinks they are dangerous:

 

Also claims it was "proven correct" that "the vaccines have fueled the variants," I believe based only on a (confounded) study claiming that people with more vax doses were more likely to test positive.

Claims people may have gotten vaccine "blanks"

Sure I'm forgetting some others

[jerryskids 5,206]

44 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don't have much interest in listening to his own pod.

But he was just on Rogan again yesterday (really tying this thread together here) and I just finished listening.   Based on that where the first 2 and a half hours were dedicated to talking about how the mRNA vaccines are horrible (Rogan used that exact word and Weinstein agreed, albeit moreso in relation to the vaccines causing myocarditis), I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't want to eat meat from a vaccinated cow because of how horrible he thinks the vaccines are. 

Many of his claims were not backed up by evidence, which was odd because they were also criticizing covidians for doing the same thing, so I'm not surprised he thinks there is a danger in eating vaccinated meat unless it's well done despite no evidence that is the case.   A few of the comments that stood out to me:

He seems convinced vaccines have done more harm than good.  Quotes what I believe is this study - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 - as proof - but that is just the study about "more all cause deaths in the vaccinated group during the clinical trials", and the study's author is on Youtube emphasizing that the numbers are so small and that the results are not statistically significant, despite this guy trying really hard to get her to say that she thinks they are dangerous:

 

Also claims it was "proven correct" that "the vaccines have fueled the variants," I believe based only on a (confounded) study claiming that people with more vax doses were more likely to test positive.

Claims people may have gotten vaccine "blanks"

Sure I'm forgetting some others

In the video, I heard him ask if she thinks there is enough concern to warrant further study, and she says yes.

Also while the mRNA seems about a push, there is clear improvement with the adeno virus based vaccines.

Interesting that you seem OK with confidence intervals for studies which support your premise.

I'll try to listen to their podcast in the next few days, because your snark about going out on a limb notwithstanding, he is a PhD biologist and you are a guy who reads tweets.

 

[TimHauck 1,801]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

In the video, I heard him ask if she thinks there is enough concern to warrant further study, and she says yes.

Also while the mRNA seems about a push, there is clear improvement with the adeno virus based vaccines.

Interesting that you seem OK with confidence intervals for studies which support your premise.

I'll try to listen to their podcast in the next few days, because your snark about going out on a limb notwithstanding, he is a PhD biologist and you are a guy who reads tweets.

 

Seems like a push, lol.

What non-statistically significant studies did I tout as supporting my premise?   There might’ve been one about masks like 2 years ago but only in response to people claiming masks increased cases, but that’s all I can recall.

[jerryskids 5,206]

29 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Seems like a push, lol.

What non-statistically significant studies did I tout as supporting my premise?   There might’ve been one about masks like 2 years ago but only in response to people claiming masks increased cases, but that’s all I can recall.

Well, if you want to be a stickler, which I know you do, mRNAs were slightly worse.

Quote

For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70).

And before you say it, I'm well aware that the mRNA can be within a wide range on either side of that mean.  I'll respond with:  the purpose of CIs and ranges is to provide statistical significance independent of data volume.  Also I included the adeno vaccines to show that there is very little overlap between its ranges and mRNA, so one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality.

I was also thinking of our discussion about Vitamin D; any observational study has confounding factors.  One of the few listed was that people taking supplements may be more cautious and do things like wear masks more often.  Do you think that accounts for 30%?  

 

[TimHauck 1,801]

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Well, if you want to be a stickler, which I know you do, mRNAs were slightly worse.

And before you say it, I'm well aware that the mRNA can be within a wide range on either side of that mean.  I'll respond with:  the purpose of CIs and ranges is to provide statistical significance independent of data volume.  Also I included the adeno vaccines to show that there is very little overlap between its ranges and mRNA, so one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality.

I was also thinking of our discussion about Vitamin D; any observational study has confounding factors.  One of the few listed was that people taking supplements may be more cautious and do things like wear masks more often.  Do you think that accounts for 30%?  

 

I’m not sure what your gotcha is here.  

My last post was pointing out how the study’s author clearly emphasized that the results (for the mRNA) were not statistically significant. 

You replied by claiming I am OK with confidence intervals that support my premise.

To which I replied asking for examples of when I touted studies that were not statistically significant.

You didn’t do that, and instead further touted non statistically significant results…

Professor Morris had a good article about this claim which I probably shared here earlier. I don’t think it addressed this study specifically, simply the question of why didn’t the clinical trials have all cause mortality as an endpoint. The TL;DR was basically that it would have been needed to be far longer. Essentially few people even caught Covid in the control group, so since Covid had a relatively low death rate to begin with, you can’t extrapolate that out to all cause deaths.  IMO, if that study proves anything, it’s that the vaccines were not killing a significant number of people (at least during the trial period)!   And yet your favorite “PhD biologist” seems to be using it as his primary evidence for the mRNA vaxxes doing “more harm than good.”

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/why-it-was-infeasible-for-the-phase-3-vaccine-trials-to-use-all-cause-deaths-as-the-endpoint

As far as the Vitamin D stuff, nice cherry picking of quotes.   You failed to leave out it also didn’t control for weight/obesity, among other things.  Based on 2 and a half years of posts by the GC it should be discarded for that alone.  But the money sentence is this, directly contradicting Makary’s claim of “conclusive evidence”:

“Finally, our results are associations. RCTs are ultimately needed to establish a causal link between vitamin D3 and D2supplementation and COVID-19 infection and death”

 

[TimHauck 1,801]

In other Rogan news, he had Portnoy on yesterday.  Should be good, planning to listen today 

[TimHauck 1,801]

On 1/6/2023 at 10:47 AM, TimHauck said:

I’m not sure what your gotcha is here.  

My last post was pointing out how the study’s author clearly emphasized that the results (for the mRNA) were not statistically significant. 

You replied by claiming I am OK with confidence intervals that support my premise.

To which I replied asking for examples of when I touted studies that were not statistically significant.

You didn’t do that, and instead further touted non statistically significant results…

Professor Morris had a good article about this claim which I probably shared here earlier. I don’t think it addressed this study specifically, simply the question of why didn’t the clinical trials have all cause mortality as an endpoint. The TL;DR was basically that it would have been needed to be far longer. Essentially few people even caught Covid in the control group, so since Covid had a relatively low death rate to begin with, you can’t extrapolate that out to all cause deaths.  IMO, if that study proves anything, it’s that the vaccines were not killing a significant number of people (at least during the trial period)!   And yet your favorite “PhD biologist” seems to be using it as his primary evidence for the mRNA vaxxes doing “more harm than good.”

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/why-it-was-infeasible-for-the-phase-3-vaccine-trials-to-use-all-cause-deaths-as-the-endpoint

As far as the Vitamin D stuff, nice cherry picking of quotes.   You failed to leave out it also didn’t control for weight/obesity, among other things.  Based on 2 and a half years of posts by the GC it should be discarded for that alone.  But the money sentence is this, directly contradicting Makary’s claim of “conclusive evidence”:

“Finally, our results are associations. RCTs are ultimately needed to establish a causal link between vitamin D3 and D2supplementation and COVID-19 infection and death”

 

@jerryskids you seem to be in the covid debating mood today, curious if you had those examples of me touting non statistically significant studies?

[jerryskids 5,206]

39 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids you seem to be in the covid debating mood today, curious if you had those examples of me touting non statistically significant studies?

My point was that the author published a study with CIs, and those CIs were wider because of less data, and that that is the purpose of CIs, but you didn't seem to like the CIs in this case.  But you do in others which support your stance.  

You invented me saying you tout non statistically significant studies.

Quote

Interesting that you seem OK with confidence intervals for studies which support your premise.

That's all the research I'll do on this autistic windmill.   

[TimHauck 1,801]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

My point was that the author published a study with CIs, and those CIs were wider because of less data, and that that is the purpose of CIs, but you didn't seem to like the CIs in this case.  But you do in others which support your stance.  

You invented me saying you tout non statistically significant studies.

That's all the research I'll do on this autistic windmill.   

Aren't wide confidence intervals indicative of something not being statistically significant?  But if you insist on quibbling over words, do you have examples of me "liking wide CI's that support my premise"?

[jerryskids 5,206]

19 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Aren't wide confidence intervals indicative of something not being statistically significant?  But if you insist on quibbling over words, do you have examples of me "liking wide CI's that support my premise"?

No.  Take two studies, both of which have a mean of 10.  The first study has a 95% CI between 9.9 and 10.1, the second has a 95% CI between 5 and 15.  The second study likely has less data or other factors which make it have a wider CI, but in each case the result is 95% likely to be within the range calculated by the CI.  That is the purpose of the CI.

Statistical significance comes into play when you are comparing the study results to some other parameter.  If in the above scenario you were comparing to a baseline or hypothesis of 9, then the first study is statistically significant and the second isn't (within 95% confidence of course).  If you were comparing to a baseline of 3, then both are statistically significant. 

So it is not quibbling over words.  HTH

[TimHauck 1,801]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

No.  Take two studies, both of which have a mean of 10.  The first study has a 95% CI between 9.9 and 10.1, the second has a 95% CI between 5 and 15.  The second study likely has less data or other factors which make it have a wider CI, but in each case the result is 95% likely to be within the range calculated by the CI.  That is the purpose of the CI.

Statistical significance comes into play when you are comparing the study results to some other parameter.  If in the above scenario you were comparing to a baseline or hypothesis of 9, then the first study is statistically significant and the second isn't (within 95% confidence of course).  If you were comparing to a baseline of 3, then both are statistically significant. 

So it is not quibbling over words.  HTH

So no examples of me "liking wide CI's that support my premise" then?

[jerryskids 5,206]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So no examples of me "liking wide CI's that support my premise" then?

No, because I didn't say that, and it is clear that you don't understand the distinction I am pointing out.  My initial comment presumed you did.  I tried to explain it but apparently failed.  Carry on.

[TimHauck 1,801]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

My point was that the author published a study with CIs, and those CIs were wider because of less data, and that that is the purpose of CIs, but you didn't seem to like the CIs in this case.  But you do in others which support your stance.  

You invented me saying you tout non statistically significant studies.

That's all the research I'll do on this autistic windmill.   

I"m sorry jerry, let's back up a little, can you clarify why ANYONE would "like" the CI's for the mRNA vaxxes from this study?  As you quoted:

95% CI=0.63-1.71

Where less than 1 is a reduction in mortality and greater than 1 is an increase in mortality.  It's essentially just as likely to be on either side.

Earlier you also claimed that "one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality."  Yet that conclusion is literally based on 16 total deaths, spread out between 5 different trials.  Seems silly for yourself, let alone a "PhD Biologist" like Weinstein to be jumping to conclusions based on such small numbers.

[jerryskids 5,206]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I"m sorry jerry, let's back up a little, can you clarify why ANYONE would "like" the CI's for the mRNA vaxxes from this study?  As you quoted:

95% CI=0.63-1.71

Where less than 1 is a reduction in mortality and greater than 1 is an increase in mortality.  It's essentially just as likely to be on either side.

Earlier you also claimed that "one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality."  Yet that conclusion is literally based on 16 total deaths, spread out between 5 different trials.  Seems silly for yourself, let alone a "PhD Biologist" like Weinstein to be jumping to conclusions based on such small numbers.

Why do you put "PhD Biologist" in quotes, do you doubt his credentials?  And perhaps the solution to your conundrum is that Bret and I understand CIs, and you show with every post that you don't.  HTH

[TimHauck 1,801]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Why do you put "PhD Biologist" in quotes, do you doubt his credentials?  And perhaps the solution to your conundrum is that Bret and I understand CIs, and you show with every post that you don't.  HTH

So you think those CI’s for the mRNA vaxxes tell us something?

[jerryskids 5,206]

9 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So you think those CI’s for the mRNA vaxxes tell us something?

I think what I said earlier.

Go back to my example of the two studies, study it, copy and paste it here, and explain to me either that you understand it or how I am incorrect.  Otherwise this is a continued waste of time.

[TimHauck 1,801]

17 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I think what I said earlier.

Go back to my example of the two studies, study it, copy and paste it here, and explain to me either that you understand it or how I am incorrect.  Otherwise this is a continued waste of time.

Are you referring to this?

 

On 1/5/2023 at 4:41 PM, jerryskids said:

Well, if you want to be a stickler, which I know you do, mRNAs were slightly worse.

And before you say it, I'm well aware that the mRNA can be within a wide range on either side of that mean.  I'll respond with:  the purpose of CIs and ranges is to provide statistical significance independent of data volume.  Also I included the adeno vaccines to show that there is very little overlap between its ranges and mRNA, so one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality.

 

[jerryskids 5,206]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Are you referring to this?

 

 

No, the one with the two example studies with different CIs.

[TimHauck 1,801]

 

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

No, the one with the two example studies with different CIs.

this?

20 hours ago, jerryskids said:

No.  Take two studies, both of which have a mean of 10.  The first study has a 95% CI between 9.9 and 10.1, the second has a 95% CI between 5 and 15.  The second study likely has less data or other factors which make it have a wider CI, but in each case the result is 95% likely to be within the range calculated by the CI.  That is the purpose of the CI.

Statistical significance comes into play when you are comparing the study results to some other parameter.  If in the above scenario you were comparing to a baseline or hypothesis of 9, then the first study is statistically significant and the second isn't (within 95% confidence of course).  If you were comparing to a baseline of 3, then both are statistically significant. 

So it is not quibbling over words.  HTH

Yes, I'm not a statistician but I do have a general understanding of how CI's work and your point here.   Is the below statement wrong?

18 hours ago, TimHauck said:

95% CI=0.63-1.71

Where less than 1 is a reduction in mortality and greater than 1 is an increase in mortality.  It's essentially just as likely to be on either side.

Your example was just using hypothetical numbers, but in this case there's a very specific reason for comparing to 1.  So I'd repeat that I don't see how anyone could "like" that CI.   

[jerryskids 5,206]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

 

this?

Yes, I'm not a statistician but I do have a general understanding of how CI's work and your point here.   Is the below statement wrong?

Your example was just using hypothetical numbers, but in this case there's a very specific reason for comparing to 1.  So I'd repeat that I don't see how anyone could "like" that CI.   

Can you show me where I said something about "liking" a CI?

[jerryskids 5,206]

Also, you did not show me that you understand the post.  You just said that you did, but nothing in this discussion indicates that you do.  Deconstruct my example and tell it back to me.

[TimHauck 1,801]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Can you show me where I said something about "liking" a CI?

You're joking, right?  Clearly the implication from the below 2 quotes is that I was somehow cherry-picking by not "liking" (or being "OK with," if you insist on quibbling) this particular CI.  But feel free to deny that I guess.

On 1/5/2023 at 3:51 PM, jerryskids said:

Interesting that you seem OK with confidence intervals for studies which support your premise.

 

22 hours ago, jerryskids said:

My point was that the author published a study with CIs, and those CIs were wider because of less data, and that that is the purpose of CIs, but you didn't seem to like the CIs in this case.  But you do in others which support your stance.  

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also, you did not show me that you understand the post.  You just said that you did, but nothing in this discussion indicates that you do.  Deconstruct my example and tell it back to me.

I'm not sure what you want from me here.  You explained it.  You want me to repeat what you said or something?   I guess I can copy wikipedia's definition:

In frequentist statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a range of estimates for an unknown parameter. A confidence interval is computed at a designated confidence level; the 95% confidence level is most common, but other levels, such as 90% or 99%, are sometimes used.^[1][2] The confidence level represents the long-run proportion of corresponding CIs that contain the true value of the parameter. For example, out of all intervals computed at the 95% level, 95% of them should contain the parameter's true value.^[3]

However I'll remind you of a couple things.  First, you were the one that brought up CI's in the first place.  I was pointing out that the study's author said the results (for the mRNA vaxxes) were not statistically significant, which were the words she used.   Technically the adeno vaxxes were but she also pointed out that the numbers were very small.   You took that and started talking about CI's. And then it seems your thought that I don't know anything about CI's came from me asking "Aren't wide confidence intervals indicative of something not being statistically significant?"  Yes, I know we'd need to define "wide," but I didn't say that a wide confidence interval automatically means something is not statistically significant, but it is more likely to be.

[jerryskids 5,206]

26 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You're joking, right?  Clearly the implication from the below 2 quotes is that I was somehow cherry-picking by not "liking" (or being "OK with," if you insist on quibbling) this particular CI.  But feel free to deny that I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you want from me here.  You explained it.  You want me to repeat what you said or something?   I guess I can copy wikipedia's definition:

In frequentist statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a range of estimates for an unknown parameter. A confidence interval is computed at a designated confidence level; the 95% confidence level is most common, but other levels, such as 90% or 99%, are sometimes used.^[1][2] The confidence level represents the long-run proportion of corresponding CIs that contain the true value of the parameter. For example, out of all intervals computed at the 95% level, 95% of them should contain the parameter's true value.^[3]

However I'll remind you of a couple things.  First, you were the one that brought up CI's in the first place.  I was pointing out that the study's author said the results (for the mRNA vaxxes) were not statistically significant, which were the words she used.   Technically the adeno vaxxes were but she also pointed out that the numbers were very small.   You took that and started talking about CI's. And then it seems your thought that I don't know anything about CI's came from me asking "Aren't wide confidence intervals indicative of something not being statistically significant?"  Yes, I know we'd need to define "wide," but I didn't say that a wide confidence interval automatically means something is not statistically significant, but it is more likely to be.

You're joking, right?  You provided your own quote that says "not" then immediately follow it up by saying you said "it is more likely to be"?  To use a common phrase of yours, LOL.

And my point which you referenced earlier:

Quote

And before you say it, I'm well aware that the mRNA can be within a wide range on either side of that mean.  I'll respond with:  the purpose of CIs and ranges is to provide statistical significance independent of data volume.  Also I included the adeno vaccines to show that there is very little overlap between its ranges and mRNA, so one can be PRETTY sure the adeno ones had a better mortality.

still stands.  This is where you got all defensive and butt hurt, but it's true, I don't care any more if you understand CIs or not.  I have come to the belief that it is very important to you to never be wrong on Covid issues, and anything which contradicts this throws you into a cognitive dissonance which you lack the fundamental ability to process.  So whereas in the past I would give you the W just to make you feel better (and because I got bored), it's time for tough love:  you get the L, and you need to learn to live with that.

Have a nice day.   

[TimHauck 1,801]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You're joking, right?  You provided your own quote that says "not" then immediately follow it up by saying you said "it is more likely to be"?  To use a common phrase of yours, LOL.

And my point which you referenced earlier:

still stands.  This is where you got all defensive and butt hurt, but it's true, I don't care any more if you understand CIs or not.  I have come to the belief that it is very important to you to never be wrong on Covid issues, and anything which contradicts this throws you into a cognitive dissonance which you lack the fundamental ability to process.  So whereas in the past I would give you the W just to make you feel better (and because I got bored), it's time for tough love:  you get the L, and you need to learn to live with that.

Have a nice day.   

I said "INDICATIVE" of not being statistically significant.  Indicate means "to be a sign of," it doesn't mean that's always the case.

I have no issue being wrong.  I have an issue when people lie or jump to conclusions.  Which was what started my criticism of Weinstein here because he appears to be using this non-statistically significant study to claim the mRNA vaxxes "do more harm than good."  Similarly, in regards to this thread, where I "got defensive" was when you said the mRNA "seems about a push."   And yet the author was very clear that for the mRNA vaxxes, and I quote, "the numbers are so small, we cannot prove anything at all."

If you'd like to retract your statement that "the mRNA vaccines seem about a push," then I think we're making progress.

Now, there can probably be some debate based on these results that the adeno vaccines are "better," but that's mutually exclusive from saying "the mRNA vaccines seem about a push."  And even in regards to those results, the author also makes this statement: "so it looks like there are two strikingly different effects of these two vaccines on mortality.   This comes with a big caveat.  And that is that there is no direct comparison of mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines, they are not possible...The two types of vaccines were tested in different populations.  So we cannot -- there are a lot of assumptions underlying the testing of the differences."

So again, I'm merely pointing out that Weinstein (and you, apparently) appear to be jumping to conclusions based on a difference of about 15 deaths among a population of over 60 thousand people.   As the author is clear on, we need further study, and I do certainly hope there are more studies done on all-cause mortality by vaccination status.

[TimHauck 1,801]

8 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So again, I'm merely pointing out that Weinstein (and you, apparently) appear to be jumping to conclusions based on a difference of about 15 deaths among a population of over 60 thousand people.   As the author is clear on, we need further study, and I do certainly hope there are more studies done on all-cause mortality by vaccination status.

On this note, here is a tweet from a popular twitter anticovidvaxxer, whining about Pfizer’s EUA being based on “only” 170 Covid cases.   Yet why do I have a feeling she probably also claims the trial data proves it doesn’t decrease all cause mortality (and I’m not saying it does) based on far less data points

 

 

 

[GobbleDog 816]

Never heard of this guy, but after a little snippet, I listened to the entire podcast on Spotify. Dude seems to know his stuff. 

Interestingly, his comment "Russia will soon conscript another 500K troops" from a week or so ago... there's been absolutely no talk of that in the news. But if you Google "second Russian mobilization", apparently there's some scuttle among Ukraine that's it's on the brink of happening.

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:10 PM, GobbleDog said:

Never heard of this guy, but after a little snippet, I listened to the entire podcast on Spotify. Dude seems to know his stuff. 

Interestingly, his comment "Russia will soon conscript another 500K troops" from a week or so ago... there's been absolutely no talk of that in the news. But if you Google "second Russian mobilization", apparently there's some scuttle among Ukraine that's it's on the brink of happening.

Russian conscription involves men aged 18-27.  It might get raised to 30.  About .5% of the Russian population has fled Russia.

Ukraine has been conscripting men aged 18-60 for about a year.  Plus, about 20% of the Ukranian population have fled the country.

The Western MSM loved to show lot of Rusians crowding airports fleeing Russia because of conscription, but its been a vastly worse problem for Ukraine.