6 ms·

Two problems: 1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs. 2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a comm

Two problems: 1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs. 2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a common error. For overall mortality the picture is far less clear. For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. Also, we now have excess deaths above the expected baseline for long periods in 2022, which is unprecedented. Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. So the data from the "experiment" is not obviously positive.

ttpphd 4y ago
[flagged]
- logic_beats_pro 4y ago
  As you see in the article, this is a mathematical model which indicates vaccines saved 20,000,000 lives. It is completely unprovable and only serves as a nice sounding talking point. I also could claim 20,000,000 lives were saved by natural immunity. Or vitamin D from sunshine. Or the placebo effect. All of those mentioned are also not provable.
  - blackbear_ 4y ago
    Do you have specific reasons not to believe the model and/or data in that article, beyond "all models are wrong by definition"?
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      A model is a prediction, nothing more. It can be a correct prediction but only after being verified by comparison with reality.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Show where this model disagrees with reality.
        logic_beats_pro 4y ago
        The problem is there is no way to accurately tell if the vaccine saved a single life, let alone 20 million
  - ttpphd 4y ago
    "It is completely unprovable" You have no idea what you are talking about or how empiricism works. It's laughable. The best data in the world tells us that 20 million lives were saved. Saying "No it didn't" is not an impressive or persuasive response.
    - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
      Prove it then... not even the 20 million but just a single death saved because of the vaccine. You cannot. It's not a rip on you, nobody can. Hence it's not provable. If anyone could, they would have already and wouldn't have to resort to nonsense theoretical computer models. VERY interested in your attempt though gets out popcorn
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. > Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. [citation needed]
- stoneglyph 4y ago
  There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?
  - importantbrian 4y ago
    There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
    - stoneglyph 4y ago
      Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
      - 4y ago
zionic 4y ago
>You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. There's also the problem of governments playing funny games around deaths and "vaccinated". Someone who died from an adverse reaction immediately following their shot would not count as a vaccinated death, because the _definition_ of "vaccinated" meant you completed the vaccine schedule which was multiple shots over time.
- peter422 4y ago
  Please show any evidence of this claim. In trials the vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people where adverse reactions were meticulously recorded and there just isn’t any evidence that the vaccines caused immediate death in anybody. Then beyond that there isn’t any evidence that there also is a government conspiracy following the first dubious claim.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Not just after the last shot, you're not counted as fully vaccinated until two weeks after the last shot: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html (look under "Am I still considered fully vaccinated if I don't get a booster?")

ttpphd 4y ago

[flagged]

logic_beats_pro 4y ago
As you see in the article, this is a mathematical model which indicates vaccines saved 20,000,000 lives. It is completely unprovable and only serves as a nice sounding talking point. I also could claim 20,000,000 lives were saved by natural immunity. Or vitamin D from sunshine. Or the placebo effect. All of those mentioned are also not provable.
- blackbear_ 4y ago
  Do you have specific reasons not to believe the model and/or data in that article, beyond "all models are wrong by definition"?
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    A model is a prediction, nothing more. It can be a correct prediction but only after being verified by comparison with reality.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Show where this model disagrees with reality.
      - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
        The problem is there is no way to accurately tell if the vaccine saved a single life, let alone 20 million
- ttpphd 4y ago
  "It is completely unprovable" You have no idea what you are talking about or how empiricism works. It's laughable. The best data in the world tells us that 20 million lives were saved. Saying "No it didn't" is not an impressive or persuasive response.
  - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
    Prove it then... not even the 20 million but just a single death saved because of the vaccine. You cannot. It's not a rip on you, nobody can. Hence it's not provable. If anyone could, they would have already and wouldn't have to resort to nonsense theoretical computer models. VERY interested in your attempt though gets out popcorn

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. > Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. [citation needed]

stoneglyph 4y ago
There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?
- importantbrian 4y ago
  There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
  - stoneglyph 4y ago
    Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
    - 4y ago

zionic 4y ago

>You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. There's also the problem of governments playing funny games around deaths and "vaccinated". Someone who died from an adverse reaction immediately following their shot would not count as a vaccinated death, because the _definition_ of "vaccinated" meant you completed the vaccine schedule which was multiple shots over time.

peter422 4y ago
Please show any evidence of this claim. In trials the vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people where adverse reactions were meticulously recorded and there just isn’t any evidence that the vaccines caused immediate death in anybody. Then beyond that there isn’t any evidence that there also is a government conspiracy following the first dubious claim.
Izkata 4y ago
Not just after the last shot, you're not counted as fully vaccinated until two weeks after the last shot: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html (look under "Am I still considered fully vaccinated if I don't get a booster?")