3 ms·
> 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 ti
by 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 agoThat 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.