3 ms·

> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals,

> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] > In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) understand statistics better than you do.

bovinyl 4y ago
> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way. > It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era. > understand statistics better than you do I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant. > I have a degree that required high level math Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.

bovinyl 4y ago

> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way. > It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era. > understand statistics better than you do I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant. > I have a degree that required high level math Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.