4 ms·

You have to compare it to the background rate to tease out signal from noise. That said any intervention (including a vaccine) carries non-zero risk. Taking asp

by mapme 5y ago

You have to compare it to the background rate to tease out signal from noise. That said any intervention (including a vaccine) carries non-zero risk. Taking aspirin, Zantac, laxatives, NyQuil etc., all can destroy you, but it’s rare. The safety monitoring is actually pretty good as well. We caught a 1 in ~100k issue with AZ/JnJ vaccine very early on in the rollout. We caught mild myocarditis (though COVID risk > vaccine for myocarditis). There was even a massive preprint today from Israel around vaccine side effects. Few were concerning. Link to study + summary https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=21 https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=2... > “ Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway”

hunterb123 5y ago
> We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Exactly, that's why I said when you scale up you will get more absolute deaths and critical conditions. There's no point for those very few deaths or reactions to occur if those people had better natural immunity through previous infection.
- mapme 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood the quote. It is saying that if you take 10 million people the background rate of death, disease, stroke etc., (unrelated to vaccine) will be high and a confounding issue, even if you didn’t give them the vaccine. Edit: I think you have a point about whether those who have previous infection truly need the vaccine, but the way you are using VAERS data diminishes your point

by mapme 5y ago

hunterb123 5y ago

> We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Exactly, that's why I said when you scale up you will get more absolute deaths and critical conditions. There's no point for those very few deaths or reactions to occur if those people had better natural immunity through previous infection.

mapme 5y ago
I think you misunderstood the quote. It is saying that if you take 10 million people the background rate of death, disease, stroke etc., (unrelated to vaccine) will be high and a confounding issue, even if you didn’t give them the vaccine. Edit: I think you have a point about whether those who have previous infection truly need the vaccine, but the way you are using VAERS data diminishes your point