3 ms·

To point 3, they’re not. According to this UK government data which lists the number needed to prevent one serious case — which are higher than the number at w

To point 3, they’re not. According to this UK government data which lists the number needed to prevent one serious case — which are higher than the number at which we’d expect one serious side effect. Literally a QALY negative treatment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
You're comparing two different things: prevented cases and side-effects. The rate of those very same serious side-effects is far higher from CoVID itself than from the vaccine. You're literally increasing their frequency by refusing to vaccinate.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I’m not: If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused, your treatment is a negative contribution. That’s what QALY negative means — that you’re doing more harm than good. This government information clearly says that the number of immunizations needed for young people to prevent one hospitalization is far above the number at which we’d expect a serious side-effect, eg myocarditis. Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused Severe cases and serious side-effects are not the same thing. In the document you linked, a "severe case" is classified as one in which you end up on ventilation in the ICU. You don't even state where you're supposedly getting your information about serious side-effects, or how "serious side-effect" is defined (I think the technical term is actually "severe adverse event"). You just assert that "severe cases" and "serious side effects" can be compared 1-to-1, and then pull a statistic on "serious side effects" out of nowhere. > Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation. The government report you cited doesn't make the claim you attribute to it. It says nothing about vaccine side-effects. You're stringing together various bits of information that you don't fully understand to make major claims, and then accusing others who don't buy it of misinformation.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Vaccine side effect rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ I’m also the only one posting data — while you keep asserting they’re beneficial with no evidence.
      - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        What you're doing is worse than providing no data. You're posting links that you claim support your argument, but which on inspection do not actually support your claim, partly because you don't understand what the statistics mean (e.g., you think that a "serious side-effect" and a "serious case" are 1-to-1 comparable, even though they're very different things; partly because you don't pay close attention to what you're posting, such as your latest study, which is about vaccine side-effects "in adults"). And then you're making broad claims (childhood vaccination reduces QALYs) based on your uninformed interpretations of the data. This is a study specifically about safety of the mRNA vaccines in children.[0] It looked for 23 likely severe side-effects. The children covered by the study collectively received 250k doses of Biotech/Pfizer or Moderna. The side-effect rate is small enough that the study was unable to detect any increase at all in side-effects in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. 0. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/152/1/e2023061894/191478/Safety-of-COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccination-Among-Young https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/152/1/e20230...

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

You're comparing two different things: prevented cases and side-effects. The rate of those very same serious side-effects is far higher from CoVID itself than from the vaccine. You're literally increasing their frequency by refusing to vaccinate.

zmgsabst 3y ago
I’m not: If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused, your treatment is a negative contribution. That’s what QALY negative means — that you’re doing more harm than good. This government information clearly says that the number of immunizations needed for young people to prevent one hospitalization is far above the number at which we’d expect a serious side-effect, eg myocarditis. Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused Severe cases and serious side-effects are not the same thing. In the document you linked, a "severe case" is classified as one in which you end up on ventilation in the ICU. You don't even state where you're supposedly getting your information about serious side-effects, or how "serious side-effect" is defined (I think the technical term is actually "severe adverse event"). You just assert that "severe cases" and "serious side effects" can be compared 1-to-1, and then pull a statistic on "serious side effects" out of nowhere. > Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation. The government report you cited doesn't make the claim you attribute to it. It says nothing about vaccine side-effects. You're stringing together various bits of information that you don't fully understand to make major claims, and then accusing others who don't buy it of misinformation.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Vaccine side effect rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ I’m also the only one posting data — while you keep asserting they’re beneficial with no evidence.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      What you're doing is worse than providing no data. You're posting links that you claim support your argument, but which on inspection do not actually support your claim, partly because you don't understand what the statistics mean (e.g., you think that a "serious side-effect" and a "serious case" are 1-to-1 comparable, even though they're very different things; partly because you don't pay close attention to what you're posting, such as your latest study, which is about vaccine side-effects "in adults"). And then you're making broad claims (childhood vaccination reduces QALYs) based on your uninformed interpretations of the data. This is a study specifically about safety of the mRNA vaccines in children.[0] It looked for 23 likely severe side-effects. The children covered by the study collectively received 250k doses of Biotech/Pfizer or Moderna. The side-effect rate is small enough that the study was unable to detect any increase at all in side-effects in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. 0. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/152/1/e2023061894/191478/Safety-of-COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccination-Among-Young https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/152/1/e20230...