3 ms·

No, that’s not what people are doing or saying. If the side effect rate/safety curve for the vaccines is not age specific then it’s entirely plausible there’s a

• bena 5y ago
  All disease risk is wildly slanted towards older ages. Old people die. It's what we expect. And the vaccine side effect rate/safety curve you claim to be worried about for the very first time in your life is so astonishingly low, there's never going to be an "age crossover point".
  • jtc331 5y ago
    Re: all diseases that’s not true either. For example the 1918 flu caused significant damage precisely because it affected young people quite significantly.
    • bena 5y ago
      But it affected older people worse, right? You're trying to deny a basic fact, old people are more at risk, as a group, just in general.
      • jtc331 5y ago
        > But it affected older people worse, right? No, incorrect again. Mortality for the 1918 flu peaked at age 28 and was lower in older age groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/#!po=0.806452 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/#!po=0.... I’m not denying a basic fact. I’m showing that your knowledge of the facts is not as complete as you seem to think.
        • bena 5y ago
          Then it's truly an aberration and not nearly the slam dunk you think it is. Because it was so odd, they specifically looked into it.
          • jtc331 5y ago
            It doesn’t need to be a “slam dunk”. It accomplished what I intended, which is show that you were making claims that were verifiably false.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • jtc331 5y ago
    Also, no, it’s not necessarily low relative to the vaccine adverse event risk. Here’s research showing it’s multiple times the risk of hospitalization due to COVID itself for young people (males in particular): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
    • bena 5y ago
      "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
      • jtc331 5y ago
        That is how all research starts. If you have reason to believe the data is incorrect please give your reasons. Until then it’s a good leading indicator.
        • bena 5y ago
          I'll leave that to the professionals. You want to draw conclusions based on it when the publisher explicitly said to not do that.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]