3 ms·

Most of that 1% being people with pre-existing conditions.

• roywiggins 6y ago
  If you restrict your interest into people with pre-existing conditions, the death rate of COVID is even higher and any danger posed by the vaccine is even less relevant to them. Maybe all ten children killed in the Cutter incident had pre-existing conditions. Most people have a pre-existing condition of some sort or another. It was an effort to inoculate generally, so that's why I used the death rate of COVID in the general population as a comparison.
  • newen 6y ago
    It has to do with your argument being a bad argument. > Only 10 in 200,000 died from a vaccine This doesn't negate the fact that vaccines can be dangerous. This just happens to be the number for that particular vaccine. > 10 in 200,000 deaths is better than 1 in 100 The 10 could have been fine without the vaccine. Who knows, it's just speculation; maybe they had pre-existing conditions, maybe they did not. But comparing numbers like this knowing that the 10 in 200,000 are drawn from a different population from the 1 in 100 is being disingenuous.
    • roywiggins 6y ago
      I never said vaccines can't be dangerous. I was talking about the relative danger of a vaccine. A plausible upper bound on the absolute risk is the Cutter incident. Covid is way above that. Even a shitty vaccine that occasionally kills people at a rate of 10 in 200,000, it would still be a better bet than COVID. The people getting the Polio vaccine (children) were the general population of people at highest risk of death by polio. The same is true for the Covid vaccine, at least for the next few months. Both are mass vaccination campaigns.
• cultus 6y ago
  Most people who become seriously ill from vaccines have previously existing conditions as well. That's totally irrelevant here.