4 ms·

I would be very wary for correlation without actual cause. Can you disregard stress for instance? You think there is cause but that does not mean there is any.

by consp 4y ago

HPsquared 4y ago
It's like if someone gets cancer after Chernobyl. Generally impossible to pin down the cause for an individual, but a trend can be seen from looking at the whole population. However any statistical analysis will have confounding variables (in this case, negative health effects of the virus itself, and the lockdowns etc.). Similarly with Chernobyl (the effects of the evacuations, and the general collapse of the Soviet Union around that time both had severe negative health effects). So basically any population level analysis of death rates etc. is always a bit dubious - how to tell one cause from another? In the case of Chernobyl we already knew radioactive contamination is harmful (from previous experience). We know the AZ vaccine has certain potential complications (statistically). But it's impossible to pin down the cause for any given medical case.
- nkozyra 4y ago
  > It's like if someone gets cancer after Chernobyl. I don't think this metaphor will hold up because both Covid infections and vaccines present an increased chance of myocarditis, the former at a higher rate. Cause and effect for any disease is pretty hard to pin down because of the astronomical amount of variables.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    There are many possible causes of cancer, just as there are many possible causes of heart inflammation. It's easier in this case as there are fewer variables than for cancer, and more data on exposure to the various potential factors. Still a total minefield though, in terms of confounding variables. We know for sure which people got the vaccine, but we don't know exactly who got the virus (and, possibly importantly, when they got it and which variant). This also confuses things. Basically it's impossible to estimate.

I would be very wary for correlation without actual cause. Can you disregard stress for instance? You think there is cause but that does not mean there is any.

by consp 4y ago

I would be very wary for correlation without actual cause. Can you disregard stress for instance? You think there is cause but that does not mean there is any.

HPsquared 4y ago

It's like if someone gets cancer after Chernobyl. Generally impossible to pin down the cause for an individual, but a trend can be seen from looking at the whole population. However any statistical analysis will have confounding variables (in this case, negative health effects of the virus itself, and the lockdowns etc.). Similarly with Chernobyl (the effects of the evacuations, and the general collapse of the Soviet Union around that time both had severe negative health effects). So basically any population level analysis of death rates etc. is always a bit dubious - how to tell one cause from another? In the case of Chernobyl we already knew radioactive contamination is harmful (from previous experience). We know the AZ vaccine has certain potential complications (statistically). But it's impossible to pin down the cause for any given medical case.

nkozyra 4y ago
> It's like if someone gets cancer after Chernobyl. I don't think this metaphor will hold up because both Covid infections and vaccines present an increased chance of myocarditis, the former at a higher rate. Cause and effect for any disease is pretty hard to pin down because of the astronomical amount of variables.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  There are many possible causes of cancer, just as there are many possible causes of heart inflammation. It's easier in this case as there are fewer variables than for cancer, and more data on exposure to the various potential factors. Still a total minefield though, in terms of confounding variables. We know for sure which people got the vaccine, but we don't know exactly who got the virus (and, possibly importantly, when they got it and which variant). This also confuses things. Basically it's impossible to estimate.