3 ms·

GP is doing cases of blood clots rather than deaths. (209/22e6) Regardless, you're both doing it wrong (as mentioned in sibling). To find the correct denomina

GP is doing cases of blood clots rather than deaths. (209/22e6) Regardless, you're both doing it wrong (as mentioned in sibling). To find the correct denominator of persons-fully-vaccinated (second doses), visit the regulators YellowCard report for the vaccine adverse reactions. It's a sobering read. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid...

Jabbles 5y ago
No, the denominator should not be fully-vaccinated people - how could that possibly account for cases of blood clots after the first dose? It's not sobering, it's scientific or clinical. It's what doctors do on a daily basis even without a pandemic.
- argvargc 5y ago
  Nope. If the shots happened to take 8 doses to be completely delivered, by tracking shots instead of complete treatments as your denominator, you've just artificially deflated any concern level by 8 times. 100 deaths / 8,000,000 doses = 0.0000125 (in 80,000 people, one is killed - not too worrying, or so it would seem) 100 reactions / 1,000,000 treatments = 0.0001 (in 10,000 people, one is killed - uh oh) The issue you are tracking is how many humans are impacted by the treatment. In the case of COVID-19 treatments (which are two-dose in the UK) - if you choose to track shots versus reports, you lose accuracy by a factor of 2, and this accuracy is skewed against safety. By tracking treatments, you get slower feedback, but it is accurate and supports the correct interpretation of safety levels. Tracking shots may be partially useful as an early warning signal. Other than that though, it's not just not useful, it's completely wrong. The "sobering" references the massive disconnect between what is typically reported by media, and what is reported in the system by doctors and nurses on behalf of, or in limited cases directly by, harmed people. If you read the entire report, and bear in mind these are under-reporting figures, you may - if you're lucky, perhaps - experience a moment of sobriety when it comes to the actual experienced level of safety of what's being assured as "safe".

Jabbles 5y ago

No, the denominator should not be fully-vaccinated people - how could that possibly account for cases of blood clots after the first dose? It's not sobering, it's scientific or clinical. It's what doctors do on a daily basis even without a pandemic.

argvargc 5y ago
Nope. If the shots happened to take 8 doses to be completely delivered, by tracking shots instead of complete treatments as your denominator, you've just artificially deflated any concern level by 8 times. 100 deaths / 8,000,000 doses = 0.0000125 (in 80,000 people, one is killed - not too worrying, or so it would seem) 100 reactions / 1,000,000 treatments = 0.0001 (in 10,000 people, one is killed - uh oh) The issue you are tracking is how many humans are impacted by the treatment. In the case of COVID-19 treatments (which are two-dose in the UK) - if you choose to track shots versus reports, you lose accuracy by a factor of 2, and this accuracy is skewed against safety. By tracking treatments, you get slower feedback, but it is accurate and supports the correct interpretation of safety levels. Tracking shots may be partially useful as an early warning signal. Other than that though, it's not just not useful, it's completely wrong. The "sobering" references the massive disconnect between what is typically reported by media, and what is reported in the system by doctors and nurses on behalf of, or in limited cases directly by, harmed people. If you read the entire report, and bear in mind these are under-reporting figures, you may - if you're lucky, perhaps - experience a moment of sobriety when it comes to the actual experienced level of safety of what's being assured as "safe".