3 ms·

And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study,

by effie 5y ago

And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study, new data is being generated, and as new information comes out, our ideas on the risks and benefits may keep changing. Thank you for the links but please keep the arrogant tone down.

manwe150 5y ago
After vaccinating half the population, with the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise, the data is unlikely to substantially change for the other half of the population. PCPs already are aware of some subgroups that warrant additional caution and study, and additional study is ongoing to refine our knowledge. I would not classify that as expecting our understanding to change. He linked to a meta analysis that links to many other studies to carefully support each statement. That is not the same as making claims that are not based in current data or statistics.
- effie 5y ago
  > the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gathering from all vaccinated persons. Reports of issues are voluntary in most cases and in some cases institutions are not even notified by the vaccinated persons. According to one study of VAERS frmo 2020, a passive reporting system, the real amount of issues is underreported; depending on the effect, the reporting efficacy is somewhere between 12-76% [1]. This is not a great system and because of that data gathering is not as fast as could be. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/
  - manwe150 5y ago
    That is what I meant to say also. So not to beat a dead horse, but there is no meticulous data gathering from unvaccinated people either, and we know that also suffers from vast underreporting. The one data set (being unvaccinated) simply also has a very strong signal of known serious health issues, while the other data set (getting almost any current vaccination) has a very weak signal of very rare, usually minor issues.

by effie 5y ago

manwe150 5y ago

After vaccinating half the population, with the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise, the data is unlikely to substantially change for the other half of the population. PCPs already are aware of some subgroups that warrant additional caution and study, and additional study is ongoing to refine our knowledge. I would not classify that as expecting our understanding to change. He linked to a meta analysis that links to many other studies to carefully support each statement. That is not the same as making claims that are not based in current data or statistics.

effie 5y ago
> the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gathering from all vaccinated persons. Reports of issues are voluntary in most cases and in some cases institutions are not even notified by the vaccinated persons. According to one study of VAERS frmo 2020, a passive reporting system, the real amount of issues is underreported; depending on the effect, the reporting efficacy is somewhere between 12-76% [1]. This is not a great system and because of that data gathering is not as fast as could be. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/
- manwe150 5y ago
  That is what I meant to say also. So not to beat a dead horse, but there is no meticulous data gathering from unvaccinated people either, and we know that also suffers from vast underreporting. The one data set (being unvaccinated) simply also has a very strong signal of known serious health issues, while the other data set (getting almost any current vaccination) has a very weak signal of very rare, usually minor issues.