5 ms·

Paper's abstract: > ... For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit shoul

Paper's abstract: > ... For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy. Besides the flaws pointed out by the article, the paper also linearizes the effects of vaccines, i.e. they estimate "how many people need to be vaccinated in order to avoid one death on average". This estimate, multiplied with "how many people died after being vaccinated", is how they arrived at their main result cited above. But we also know that the effects of herd immunity and spread are not linear when a significant percentage of the population is immune. TFA: > [The paper] makes the (incorrect) assumption that all deaths occurring post vaccination are caused by vaccination > None of the paper’s authors is trained in vaccinology, virology, or epidemiology. They are: ... a clinical psychologist and science historian by training who describes himself as a health researcher ... ; a physicist who studies ketogenic diets ... ; ... an independent data scientist > The three peer reviewers on the paper, two of them anonymous, did not offer any substantial criticism of the authors’ methodology in these brief reviews. One of them ... wrote that the authors’ analysis “is performed responsibly … and without methodological flaws … and the results were interpreted with the necessary caveats.” > One of the anonymous reviewers wrote that the manuscript “is very important and should be published urgently,”

f6v 5y ago
> While the European average is 127 individual case safety reports (ICSRs), i.e., cases with side effect reports, per 100,000 vaccinations, the Dutch authorities have registered 701 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, while Poland has registered only 15 ISCRs per 100,000 vaccinations. Assuming that this difference is not due to differential national susceptibility to vaccination side effects, but due to different national reporting standards, we decided to use the data of the Dutch national register… So why not take 15 in Poland instead of 700 in the Netherlands? Any indication the Poles are less trustworthy than Dutch?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Or at least take the 127 from the largest sample size. Openly stating "we intentionally altered our sample to fit our desired results" and still getting published is nuts.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Heck, why not lump the data together? Further, get base death rates from fatal causes attributed to vaccine in unvaccinated population. It's rather crucial to do so, because unvaccinated people sitting at homes (not moving enough) can develop clots more often too. Or the opposite. If that data is insufficient, you can also employ base rates pre-pandemic.
cm2187 5y ago
Without going into the debate about this paper, worth noting that the same assumption is made about covid deaths, ie it covers everyone who was diagnosed or was assumed to had covid before their death, even if the person died of terminal cancer. And since hospitals were a major place to catch the virus, I don’t think we can assume that the misattribution of the cause of death is immaterial.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  That's why you need a control. How many people in an unrelated similar sample also died during the period. Though I have no readily available evidence for this, I suspect that people vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be more similar than people diagnosed with COVID vs people undiagnosed.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    Agree, if you segment your data by age (massive age difference between the two populations).
- bipson 5y ago
  This is a common statement and I don't think this is true. Foremost: If someone had cancer, that does not mean he would have died immediately. Heck, he could have "survived" it, or at least lived for several more years. Second: This does not explain the huge numbers of deaths. You can easily compare how many people died of/with lung cancer from 2019 to 2020 and then for 2020 to 2021 and clearly see that COVID made a difference here (called Übersterblichkeit in German, and visible in all COVID-affected countries). And AFAIK most countries do actually not report a death with COVID, e.g. a car accident, as being caused by COVID. In other words, this is a common myth from the skeptics department and only serves in undermining COVID-related efforts, even if well intended.
  - tastroder 5y ago
    There's also enough studies that debunk the myth at this point. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5 for example.
shoto_io 5y ago
> ... For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy. I have three problems with this statement: (a) I always thought COVID anti-measures including vaccinations are not about death rates but mainly about the "flattening the curve" and protecting our health systems from collapsing, which would result in many more deaths. (b) Deaths vs. "inflicted": How is this a good comparison? The consequence of death is clear, what does inflicted mean here? (c) Deaths vs. "inflicted": Are those who barely survived or who have long COVID not inflicted? What's the ratio then? Last but not least: It is always easy to say this is bad without giving an alternative solution. What's the alternative to vaccinations? Having COVID spread without controlling it? Or having masks and contact reductions forever?
- aj3 5y ago
  I think they mean "death prevented" vs "death inflicted".
- amluto 5y ago
  > (a) I always thought COVID anti-measures including vaccinations are not about death rates but mainly about the "flattening the curve" and protecting our health systems from collapsing, which would result in many more deaths. What do you mean? In the absence of vaccines or any reason to believe that a vastly more effective treatment would arrive, masks and lockdowns “flatten the curve” in the sense that they primarily defer disease, not prevent it. (Major exception: if lockdowns actually eradicated COVID, it would be all over. A few countries pulled this off, but this is only a long term solution if it worked everywhere.) Vaccines, however, assuming they work as well as the measles vaccine, prevent deaths outright. Vaccinate 5% of the population and you will reduce the eventual number of severe disease cases and deaths (and long COVID?) by something around 5%. (Maybe more like 2.5% if efficacy is on the low end.). Vaccinate 95% of the population and COVID will resemble measles: a few localized outbreaks will still occur, but most people will never be exposed, let alone get sick.
  - shoto_io 5y ago

f6v 5y ago

> While the European average is 127 individual case safety reports (ICSRs), i.e., cases with side effect reports, per 100,000 vaccinations, the Dutch authorities have registered 701 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, while Poland has registered only 15 ISCRs per 100,000 vaccinations. Assuming that this difference is not due to differential national susceptibility to vaccination side effects, but due to different national reporting standards, we decided to use the data of the Dutch national register… So why not take 15 in Poland instead of 700 in the Netherlands? Any indication the Poles are less trustworthy than Dutch?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Or at least take the 127 from the largest sample size. Openly stating "we intentionally altered our sample to fit our desired results" and still getting published is nuts.
AstralStorm 5y ago
Heck, why not lump the data together? Further, get base death rates from fatal causes attributed to vaccine in unvaccinated population. It's rather crucial to do so, because unvaccinated people sitting at homes (not moving enough) can develop clots more often too. Or the opposite. If that data is insufficient, you can also employ base rates pre-pandemic.

cm2187 5y ago

Without going into the debate about this paper, worth noting that the same assumption is made about covid deaths, ie it covers everyone who was diagnosed or was assumed to had covid before their death, even if the person died of terminal cancer. And since hospitals were a major place to catch the virus, I don’t think we can assume that the misattribution of the cause of death is immaterial.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
That's why you need a control. How many people in an unrelated similar sample also died during the period. Though I have no readily available evidence for this, I suspect that people vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be more similar than people diagnosed with COVID vs people undiagnosed.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Agree, if you segment your data by age (massive age difference between the two populations).
bipson 5y ago
This is a common statement and I don't think this is true. Foremost: If someone had cancer, that does not mean he would have died immediately. Heck, he could have "survived" it, or at least lived for several more years. Second: This does not explain the huge numbers of deaths. You can easily compare how many people died of/with lung cancer from 2019 to 2020 and then for 2020 to 2021 and clearly see that COVID made a difference here (called Übersterblichkeit in German, and visible in all COVID-affected countries). And AFAIK most countries do actually not report a death with COVID, e.g. a car accident, as being caused by COVID. In other words, this is a common myth from the skeptics department and only serves in undermining COVID-related efforts, even if well intended.
- tastroder 5y ago
  There's also enough studies that debunk the myth at this point. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5 for example.

shoto_io 5y ago

> ... For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy. I have three problems with this statement: (a) I always thought COVID anti-measures including vaccinations are not about death rates but mainly about the "flattening the curve" and protecting our health systems from collapsing, which would result in many more deaths. (b) Deaths vs. "inflicted": How is this a good comparison? The consequence of death is clear, what does inflicted mean here? (c) Deaths vs. "inflicted": Are those who barely survived or who have long COVID not inflicted? What's the ratio then? Last but not least: It is always easy to say this is bad without giving an alternative solution. What's the alternative to vaccinations? Having COVID spread without controlling it? Or having masks and contact reductions forever?

aj3 5y ago
I think they mean "death prevented" vs "death inflicted".
amluto 5y ago
> (a) I always thought COVID anti-measures including vaccinations are not about death rates but mainly about the "flattening the curve" and protecting our health systems from collapsing, which would result in many more deaths. What do you mean? In the absence of vaccines or any reason to believe that a vastly more effective treatment would arrive, masks and lockdowns “flatten the curve” in the sense that they primarily defer disease, not prevent it. (Major exception: if lockdowns actually eradicated COVID, it would be all over. A few countries pulled this off, but this is only a long term solution if it worked everywhere.) Vaccines, however, assuming they work as well as the measles vaccine, prevent deaths outright. Vaccinate 5% of the population and you will reduce the eventual number of severe disease cases and deaths (and long COVID?) by something around 5%. (Maybe more like 2.5% if efficacy is on the low end.). Vaccinate 95% of the population and COVID will resemble measles: a few localized outbreaks will still occur, but most people will never be exposed, let alone get sick.
- shoto_io 5y ago