4 ms·

The true hospitalization risk from COVID could be 1/4th to 1/10th that given that cases are widely estimated to be 4-10X what was reported. The serious adverse

The true hospitalization risk from COVID could be 1/4th to 1/10th that given that cases are widely estimated to be 4-10X what was reported. The serious adverse event definition and rates are defined here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/utd.html https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/ut... 1 in 9000 doses reportedly results in a SAE, so if you are mandated to take 4 doses, your risk becomes ~0.04% or ~1/2500. This also does not factor in the risk of "adverse events of special interest", which can be serious or non-serious (though neither seems great for the end user). And looking at how this page has been updated since the last time I saw it, another red flag is how they separate those out - with a dead link to boot. In my opinion a continuation of efforts that seem intent on obfuscating the ability to make individual risk calculations through this pandemic.

librish 4y ago
I'm looking at your link but I can't find anything about serious events controlled for age group (to make it a fair comparison to your covid hostpitalisation number). Is the data in there somewhere?
- adamiscool8 4y ago
  Would be nice, but all they volunteer is that the adverse event rate is highest in the 30-50 year olds. Given that, I don’t think it makes a material difference
  - librish 4y ago
    What makes you think that? Serious events for regular covid was heavily skewed towards the elderly.
    - adamiscool8 4y ago
      Inference based on overall adverse events post-vaccination being lowest in elderly recipients, plus the early SAE warnings (myocarditis, etc.) being exclusively towards young adults. Also more conspiratorially, because I think they would have provided the age-stratified data if it supported their objectives of improving lagging uptake among younger cohorts.
mint2 4y ago
> 1 in 9000 doses reportedly results in a SAE, so if you are mandated to take 4 doses, your risk becomes ~0.04% or ~1/2500. That sounds like motivated bad assumptions. Seems highly plausible that those who would get the reaction in the 1/9000 would select out the sensitive individuals so the rate would be less for subsequent shots on the other 8999. It seems very unlikely it will be a constant rate. Anecdotally, I had the same reaction to all four shots. Mild symptoms the lasting 24 hours. With your comment’s assumption that’s pretty statistically unlikely, statistically it would have been likely that one would have been less or more, since by your comments logic it’s completely random.

librish 4y ago

I'm looking at your link but I can't find anything about serious events controlled for age group (to make it a fair comparison to your covid hostpitalisation number). Is the data in there somewhere?

adamiscool8 4y ago
Would be nice, but all they volunteer is that the adverse event rate is highest in the 30-50 year olds. Given that, I don’t think it makes a material difference
- librish 4y ago
  What makes you think that? Serious events for regular covid was heavily skewed towards the elderly.
  - adamiscool8 4y ago
    Inference based on overall adverse events post-vaccination being lowest in elderly recipients, plus the early SAE warnings (myocarditis, etc.) being exclusively towards young adults. Also more conspiratorially, because I think they would have provided the age-stratified data if it supported their objectives of improving lagging uptake among younger cohorts.

mint2 4y ago

> 1 in 9000 doses reportedly results in a SAE, so if you are mandated to take 4 doses, your risk becomes ~0.04% or ~1/2500. That sounds like motivated bad assumptions. Seems highly plausible that those who would get the reaction in the 1/9000 would select out the sensitive individuals so the rate would be less for subsequent shots on the other 8999. It seems very unlikely it will be a constant rate. Anecdotally, I had the same reaction to all four shots. Mild symptoms the lasting 24 hours. With your comment’s assumption that’s pretty statistically unlikely, statistically it would have been likely that one would have been less or more, since by your comments logic it’s completely random.