3 ms·

Why not link study directly? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00222-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/arti

by petodo 4y ago

Why not link study directly? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00222-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... I may be reading it wrong, but when I look at chart "Table Characteristics stratified by having ever received any influenza vaccination" the Never received influenza vaccine group has much less diseases - Atrial fibrillation 0.67% vs vaxxed 2.12%, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1.52% vs vaxxed 4.1% and so on and then we reach "Any stroke event" 0.52% vs vaxxed 1.25% while not that much hiugher average age 48.34 vs 38.98 (unvaxxed). So even if they suposedly lower the risks within the vaxxed group, by joining the vaxxed group your risk actually grows compared to staying in unvaxxed group and I don't really see odds for both comparable groups. > Due to the nature of this research using administrative data across a population, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not available. I would take any study coming from authoritarian Canada, which froze bank accounts of people opposing COVID lockdowns, with big grain of salt. Also even according CDC flu vaccine efficacy is only 40 to 60% and that's assuming it works at all, if they don't match the correct variant you are somewhere around 0% efficacy, might as well take placebo with same effect. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

padolsey 4y ago
Right under the chart you reference, the study states that these figures are confounded: > [...] this crude observation was confounded. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbid illness, and socioeconomic status, recent vaccination (within 182 days) was associated with a reduced hazard of stroke
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  It's scary how many people don't know the difference between raw data statistics (which are almost always worthless) and a multivariate regression with control variables (which can actually tell you something about the data). Everyone can read a paper and look at numbers, but to understand what is really happening you do need some formal education that most people simply seem to lack. Even people with this kind of education sometimes step into pitfalls, but normal people drawing conclusions from these things is like running through a minefield while blindfolded.
koheripbal 4y ago
> from authoritarian Canada, which froze bank accounts of people opposing COVID lockdowns This hyperbole discredits the rest of your comment.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - taleodor 4y ago
    Their bank accounts were frozen for torturing Ottawa downtown residents and lawlessness that ensued. Not for protesting lockdowns.
  - retrac 4y ago
    The problem is you go from "the Canadian federal government passed an emergency order using powers in existing legislation to disperse protesters by going after the bank accounts" to "a study funded by the U of Calgary is therefore untrustworthy because Canada is an authoritarian state". I am in Canada. I'm rather disturbed by the actions against the protesters, but short of inciting violent revolution or a race riot, I literally cannot think of many things I do not feel free to say. As a Canadian, I'm also aware that the University of Calgary is an independent organization established under legislation, and funded by an entirely different sovereign government, that of Alberta. I'm also aware that Alberta, and Albertans, and hell, several academics at the University of Calgary, have been somewhat critical of the federal government's response overall with COVID. The province is run by political conservatives. The very last thing they would tolerate is the federal government mucking around in provincially-run institutions like it seems you are implicitly alleging. There's a good number of steps between your A and B that you've hand-waved away as if they're obvious, but they're really not to me. How does the federal government's actions lead to this study being untrustworthy or false?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Roark66 4y ago
I have no idea how an they "adjust" for a fact people who had vaccines perhaps in general are more familiar with the heath are system, because they might have more dealings with it in the past. Other vaccines they took alongside this one, other illnesses. Or the opposite way, perhaps people who took those vaccines also take better care of what they eat, do more exercise etc. I wouldn't read too much from this one study. It really takes a lot more to have some level of certainty.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by petodo 4y ago

padolsey 4y ago

Right under the chart you reference, the study states that these figures are confounded: > [...] this crude observation was confounded. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbid illness, and socioeconomic status, recent vaccination (within 182 days) was associated with a reduced hazard of stroke

sigmoid10 4y ago
It's scary how many people don't know the difference between raw data statistics (which are almost always worthless) and a multivariate regression with control variables (which can actually tell you something about the data). Everyone can read a paper and look at numbers, but to understand what is really happening you do need some formal education that most people simply seem to lack. Even people with this kind of education sometimes step into pitfalls, but normal people drawing conclusions from these things is like running through a minefield while blindfolded.

koheripbal 4y ago

> from authoritarian Canada, which froze bank accounts of people opposing COVID lockdowns This hyperbole discredits the rest of your comment.

ekianjo 4y ago
[flagged]
- taleodor 4y ago
  Their bank accounts were frozen for torturing Ottawa downtown residents and lawlessness that ensued. Not for protesting lockdowns.
- retrac 4y ago
  The problem is you go from "the Canadian federal government passed an emergency order using powers in existing legislation to disperse protesters by going after the bank accounts" to "a study funded by the U of Calgary is therefore untrustworthy because Canada is an authoritarian state". I am in Canada. I'm rather disturbed by the actions against the protesters, but short of inciting violent revolution or a race riot, I literally cannot think of many things I do not feel free to say. As a Canadian, I'm also aware that the University of Calgary is an independent organization established under legislation, and funded by an entirely different sovereign government, that of Alberta. I'm also aware that Alberta, and Albertans, and hell, several academics at the University of Calgary, have been somewhat critical of the federal government's response overall with COVID. The province is run by political conservatives. The very last thing they would tolerate is the federal government mucking around in provincially-run institutions like it seems you are implicitly alleging. There's a good number of steps between your A and B that you've hand-waved away as if they're obvious, but they're really not to me. How does the federal government's actions lead to this study being untrustworthy or false?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Roark66 4y ago

I have no idea how an they "adjust" for a fact people who had vaccines perhaps in general are more familiar with the heath are system, because they might have more dealings with it in the past. Other vaccines they took alongside this one, other illnesses. Or the opposite way, perhaps people who took those vaccines also take better care of what they eat, do more exercise etc. I wouldn't read too much from this one study. It really takes a lot more to have some level of certainty.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]