3 ms·

> new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 peopl

> new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 people. The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. I'll take the vaccine odds. > with fairly marginal protection benefits Your source says nothing about protection benefits being marginal. In fact, one of the author's of this research said: "What the results don’t do, she stressed, is change the fact that the data strongly support getting vaccinated against COVID-19. “Clearly, developing postvaccine myocarditis is much more rare than developing any of the complications of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” she noted." https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-implicated-myocarditis https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...

alchemist1e9 4y ago
[flagged]
- kuhewa 4y ago
  > Repeated vaccination is likely not going to be a scientifically justified strategy. It is kinda of amazing to me sometimes just how selectively people can parse an evidencebase
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v... It’s more amazing how due to cognitive dissonance people deny something obvious.
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      If an interpretation of self reported raw monitoring data seems obvious to you and your favourite criminal justice lecturer on substack, but not to epidemiologists working in the field, well yeah probably just cognitive dissonance on their part. > The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000). Wait, the self report monitoring system that went from virtually unknown to a household name at a time the number of adult vax administrations skyrocketed.. detected an uptick in absolute number of adverse events? Stop traffic! This article is off to a great start.
      - jbritton 4y ago
        There is a section in there “RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS” to VAERS data. The CDC is not looking at absolute numbers.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        For good reasons, which is why it is a peculiar choice of highlight for the criminal justice lecturer's substack article. You haven't supported your prior claim by linking it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - moistly 4y ago
      [flagged]
- rybosworld 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    I can’t believe we are still arguing about IFR at this at this point in the pandemic. It’s now well studied and we know the shape as a function of age is a huge hockey stick and the population average is not 1.1%. I suspect you understand well that your information is misleading and disinformation.
    - rybosworld 4y ago
      I didn't say the population average was 1.1%. I said 1.1% of covid cases. I even provided a link to my source. The only one arguing with the well studied is you.
      - alchemist1e9 4y ago
        > The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. That’s you. You imply IFR and now admit it is at least 5-10x lower. You are not arguing in good faith.
        rybosworld 4y ago
        I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked. It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"? > now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously. You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
cf141q5325 4y ago
As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male. We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that. edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)

alchemist1e9 4y ago

[flagged]

kuhewa 4y ago
> Repeated vaccination is likely not going to be a scientifically justified strategy. It is kinda of amazing to me sometimes just how selectively people can parse an evidencebase
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v... It’s more amazing how due to cognitive dissonance people deny something obvious.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    If an interpretation of self reported raw monitoring data seems obvious to you and your favourite criminal justice lecturer on substack, but not to epidemiologists working in the field, well yeah probably just cognitive dissonance on their part. > The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000). Wait, the self report monitoring system that went from virtually unknown to a household name at a time the number of adult vax administrations skyrocketed.. detected an uptick in absolute number of adverse events? Stop traffic! This article is off to a great start.
    - jbritton 4y ago
      There is a section in there “RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS” to VAERS data. The CDC is not looking at absolute numbers.
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        For good reasons, which is why it is a peculiar choice of highlight for the criminal justice lecturer's substack article. You haven't supported your prior claim by linking it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - moistly 4y ago
    [flagged]
rybosworld 4y ago
[flagged]
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  I can’t believe we are still arguing about IFR at this at this point in the pandemic. It’s now well studied and we know the shape as a function of age is a huge hockey stick and the population average is not 1.1%. I suspect you understand well that your information is misleading and disinformation.
  - rybosworld 4y ago
    I didn't say the population average was 1.1%. I said 1.1% of covid cases. I even provided a link to my source. The only one arguing with the well studied is you.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      > The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. That’s you. You imply IFR and now admit it is at least 5-10x lower. You are not arguing in good faith.
      - rybosworld 4y ago
        I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked. It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"? > now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously. You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.

cf141q5325 4y ago

As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male. We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that. edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)