4 ms·

> Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this But is the science being

> Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this But is the science being done "good" considering that the political and social pressures around reporting of negative results/adverse effects still exists? How do you get good data on adverse events if vaccine recipients don't even think to correlate strange symptoms x weeks or months post vaccination with the vaccine? How would you detect an autoimmune disorder with vague and nonspecific symptoms, for example, when doctors also are unwilling or unable to collect relevant data out of a combination of bias and ignorance? It's a double whammy, because of the novelty we don't know exactly what we're looking for, and because of stigma/political pressure we are arguably not looking hard enough. Being labeled an anti-vaxxer is effectively career and social suicide, how many researchers are willing to stick out their necks, especially when rigorous proof would take years of research and funding to aggregate?

fabian2k 5y ago
There was a very rare side effect in the Astra Zeneca vaccine that was discovered quite quickly. Not in the original trials as they are simply not powerful enough to detect side effects that rare, but in later observations. We also pretty quickly figured out that the risk is age-related, and many regulating authorities reacted based on that and adjusted the recommendations. To me this is pretty good evidence that the existing mechanisms for detecting rare side effects work in general. One can argue about the details in this case on how exactly the authorities responded, and I think also reasonably disagree on how to weigh the risk/benefit in this particular case for specific age groups. But those are much more difficult questions based on inherently fuzzy data due to the low frequency of this serious side effect. But the detection itself worked well, and also produced very quick reactions.
hgomersall 5y ago
What? There was lots of work looking at side effects of the vaccines. The AZ vaccine was paused in several places whilst rare and unexplained blood clots were better understood. It was only because the huge numbers of recipients that such information was available. What point are you trying make? That somehow scientists are not willing to raise problems with the vaccines? That's demonstrably not true. What is also demonstrably true is that the death rate from COVID is now negligible for those vaccinated. Might there be some super rare interaction we don't know about? For sure, but there's also as likely to be super rare interactions with COVID itself, or whatever crank treatment of choice replaces a vaccine.
manwe150 5y ago
There are lots of papers from researchers looking for possible side effects and then looking at population data to see if there was any change in the baseline rate that corresponded to it. It seems a pretty good way to get a publication out there to me, since it is both novel and relevant.

fabian2k 5y ago

There was a very rare side effect in the Astra Zeneca vaccine that was discovered quite quickly. Not in the original trials as they are simply not powerful enough to detect side effects that rare, but in later observations. We also pretty quickly figured out that the risk is age-related, and many regulating authorities reacted based on that and adjusted the recommendations. To me this is pretty good evidence that the existing mechanisms for detecting rare side effects work in general. One can argue about the details in this case on how exactly the authorities responded, and I think also reasonably disagree on how to weigh the risk/benefit in this particular case for specific age groups. But those are much more difficult questions based on inherently fuzzy data due to the low frequency of this serious side effect. But the detection itself worked well, and also produced very quick reactions.

hgomersall 5y ago

What? There was lots of work looking at side effects of the vaccines. The AZ vaccine was paused in several places whilst rare and unexplained blood clots were better understood. It was only because the huge numbers of recipients that such information was available. What point are you trying make? That somehow scientists are not willing to raise problems with the vaccines? That's demonstrably not true. What is also demonstrably true is that the death rate from COVID is now negligible for those vaccinated. Might there be some super rare interaction we don't know about? For sure, but there's also as likely to be super rare interactions with COVID itself, or whatever crank treatment of choice replaces a vaccine.

manwe150 5y ago

There are lots of papers from researchers looking for possible side effects and then looking at population data to see if there was any change in the baseline rate that corresponded to it. It seems a pretty good way to get a publication out there to me, since it is both novel and relevant.