4 ms·

If you could get me the sources you're drawing these conclusions from. Your summary isn't exactly helpful.

beagle3 5y ago
See 2nd paragraph of pg. 23 of https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download for the 21:17 numbers. I can't find the death breakdown for this right now (perhaps it's in this doc, but a quick scan didn't see it), but you can see the previous revision on https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... - following the supplemental material link to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... , Table S4 on page 12 gives a cause-of-death breakdown.
- msrenee 5y ago
  Oh, good, it looks like the vaccine also prevents myocardial infarction, multiple organ disfunction syndrome, and overdose. Better be careful though, it appears to cause lung cancer and arteriosclerosis. Or there's not much here that's statistically significant and out of 44k people, some of them are going to die from unrelated factors over the course of 6 months. How can you look at a table that includes sepsis, septic shock, and Shigella infection out of 29 deaths and assume the difference of either 1 or 4 deaths is anything more than noise? It might be worth running the numbers and seeing if it might possibly maybe be statistically significant, but to decide that there being 1 or 4 more deaths in the vaccine group means the vaccine is dangerous in some unknown way is just a misunderstanding of statistics. I mean 2 myocardial infarctions in the placebo and none in the vaccine group? We all better get our vaccines before we have heart attacks.
  - beagle3 5y ago
    First, you can make of that what you want, but the bottom line is that acm is increased. Is that statistically significant? Depends on your priors, but the answer is likely “no”. The plague of the century requires vaccine mandates and firing people - when vaccination doesn’t actually reduce acm. Is this statement wrong? But, you know, we vaccinate to combat severe disease, right? That EUA was given for …. 4 cases in the placebo arm vs 1 in the vaccine arm for “fully vaccinated”. Yes, we jabbed the entire planet for 1:4 out of 22K:22k of severe covid in the RCT. (The famous 95% proclamation was for symptoms that amounted to the common cold). As someone who has been following the actual data, rather than the headlines, everything looks incredibly crazy. The world has killed its economy and mandated experimental jabs when the only real trial showed no statistically significant effect against severe disease, and the final report shows no effect on all cause mortality (perhaps a deterioration, certainly not an improvement). There will be no further reports, because the control group was eliminated the day after the end of the 6 months trial. I find this weird and crazy, with no explanation so far (I am ignoring conspiracies). Ymmv. P.s. you must look closely at acm, including things like septic shock. Humanity has no experience with mRNA technology that can just assume it has no problems other than those you predicted; the list of known adverse events is constantly being enlarged.
    - msrenee 5y ago
      Mortality isn't the only important measure here. A big argument that's been made for the vaccine is that it reduces the likelihood of hospitalization. This study doesn't specifically go into hospitalizations, but out of 31 severe cases of Covid-19, 30 of them were in the placebo group. It's important to note that there were only 31 severe cases of Covid-19. It's not surprising that the mortality rate between the placebo and vaccine groups is pretty even with those numbers. I'm glad that you're trying to follow the data and not just the headlines, but it's also important to have the base knowledge to understand what the data actually indicates.

See 2nd paragraph of pg. 23 of https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download for the 21:17 numbers. I can't find the death breakdown for this right now (perhaps it's in this doc, but a quick scan didn't see it), but you can see the previous revision on https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... - following the supplemental material link to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... , Table S4 on page 12 gives a cause-of-death breakdown.

msrenee 5y ago
Oh, good, it looks like the vaccine also prevents myocardial infarction, multiple organ disfunction syndrome, and overdose. Better be careful though, it appears to cause lung cancer and arteriosclerosis. Or there's not much here that's statistically significant and out of 44k people, some of them are going to die from unrelated factors over the course of 6 months. How can you look at a table that includes sepsis, septic shock, and Shigella infection out of 29 deaths and assume the difference of either 1 or 4 deaths is anything more than noise? It might be worth running the numbers and seeing if it might possibly maybe be statistically significant, but to decide that there being 1 or 4 more deaths in the vaccine group means the vaccine is dangerous in some unknown way is just a misunderstanding of statistics. I mean 2 myocardial infarctions in the placebo and none in the vaccine group? We all better get our vaccines before we have heart attacks.
- beagle3 5y ago
  First, you can make of that what you want, but the bottom line is that acm is increased. Is that statistically significant? Depends on your priors, but the answer is likely “no”. The plague of the century requires vaccine mandates and firing people - when vaccination doesn’t actually reduce acm. Is this statement wrong? But, you know, we vaccinate to combat severe disease, right? That EUA was given for …. 4 cases in the placebo arm vs 1 in the vaccine arm for “fully vaccinated”. Yes, we jabbed the entire planet for 1:4 out of 22K:22k of severe covid in the RCT. (The famous 95% proclamation was for symptoms that amounted to the common cold). As someone who has been following the actual data, rather than the headlines, everything looks incredibly crazy. The world has killed its economy and mandated experimental jabs when the only real trial showed no statistically significant effect against severe disease, and the final report shows no effect on all cause mortality (perhaps a deterioration, certainly not an improvement). There will be no further reports, because the control group was eliminated the day after the end of the 6 months trial. I find this weird and crazy, with no explanation so far (I am ignoring conspiracies). Ymmv. P.s. you must look closely at acm, including things like septic shock. Humanity has no experience with mRNA technology that can just assume it has no problems other than those you predicted; the list of known adverse events is constantly being enlarged.
  - msrenee 5y ago
    Mortality isn't the only important measure here. A big argument that's been made for the vaccine is that it reduces the likelihood of hospitalization. This study doesn't specifically go into hospitalizations, but out of 31 severe cases of Covid-19, 30 of them were in the placebo group. It's important to note that there were only 31 severe cases of Covid-19. It's not surprising that the mortality rate between the placebo and vaccine groups is pretty even with those numbers. I'm glad that you're trying to follow the data and not just the headlines, but it's also important to have the base knowledge to understand what the data actually indicates.