13 ms·
Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
- toxicplanes1 10mo ago[dead]
- basisword 10mo agoFindings: In this cohort study including 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19 and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months. Findings In this cohort study including 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19 and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months
- kachapopopow 10mo agotl;dr: no, covid-19 vaccinated group had no increased risk of death, but did have decreased risk of death for covid (except in Corse region?) edit: tl;dr: covid-19 mRNA vaccine was effective and did not contribute to increased deaths.
- exceptthisthing 10mo agoif you were among persons "who were alive on November 1, 2021"
- tasty_freeze 10mo agocan you make explicit the point you are making?
- neogodless 10mo agoThe vaccine was not tested on people that were already dead.
- sa-code 10mo ago> no increased risk of all-cause mortality > study including 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals These are the important bits for the non medical folks
- lentil_soup 10mo agoAnd this bit: "vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19 and no increased risk of all-cause mortality"
- gwerbret 10mo ago> These are the important bits for the non medical folks Also significantly: "vaccinated individuals consistently had a lower risk of death, regardless of the cause."
- attila-lendvai 10mo agothat in itself could be healthy user bias (if a healthier subset was taking up the vaccine). did they control for that?
- biophysboy 10mo agoIts a cohort study, so you can only control for confounders. The 2nd paragraph of the discussion addresses the healthy-vaccinee effect you're referring to.
- blindriver 10mo agoThey define unvaccinated as anyone who wasn't vaccinated by Nov 2021. What if they got vaccinated afterwards?
- jmye 10mo agoWhat specific impact do you think that would have on this study? Do you think vaccines prior to Nov-2021 were safe and they were unsafe after? Do you think short term results, captured after Nov-2021 are more relevant than inclusive results prior?
- dalbaugh 10mo agoUnfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines
- add-sub-mul-div 10mo agoExactly. The "skepticism" was always the point, always the tail wagging the dog.
- exceptthisthing 10mo ago[flagged]
- infamouscow 10mo ago[flagged]
- technothrasher 10mo ago> would you behave any different than a skeptic? It is unclear what you mean by "skeptic"? Are you speaking of rational skepticism, or reactionary denial?
- SideburnsOfDoom 10mo agoWhat if only the second type exists, but they always claim to be the first?
- cogman10 10mo agoThe acid test is if when presented with new evidence, someone is willing to change their opinion or if they simply retreat and double down on their skepticism. It can be really hard to abandon a false belief. Especially if you take the time and effort to shore it up with bad data. It starts with recognizing that everyone, including yourself, is wrong about something.
- llmslave 10mo agoVaccines benefit the population, at the expense of the individual
- thrance 10mo agoHow? Not dying from preventable diseases seems like a pretty good deal for the individual.
- arnoooooo 10mo agoThis study demonstrates that it benefits the individual (and therefore the population).
- andy99 10mo agoNo it doesn’t. I’m not trying to make a point about vaccines, just that the study is a population study and so shows benefits on average to a population. If the vaccine killed 1/100 people (again I don’t believe this but it’s the internet) but made the other 99 immune to dying over the 4 years, it would look really good on average even if it was directly responsible for the deaths of 1%.
- hhh 10mo ago1% mortality would be setting off sirens during this kind of trial
- rob_c 10mo agoYes, a 1% mortality either way would. Yet for some reason we're focused on just one of the possibly results of the decision tree
- lesuorac 10mo agoWell, if say the vaccine gave 1/100 fatal lung cancer then a population study would show a decrease in covid deaths and an increase in lung cancer deaths though. It's only the case if the vaccine gave everybody slightly higher chances of dying from everything that it could hide in the weeds. So in this specific example we can see from Table 2 that deaths/1 million are just lower for everything in the vaccinated so it's not the case that it lowered one kind of death drastically at the expense of another.
- colingauvin 10mo ago>Vaccinated individuals were older than unvaccinated individuals (mean [SD] age, 38.0 [11.8] years vs 37.1 [11.4] years), more frequently women (11 688 603 [51.3%] vs 2 876 039 [48.5%]) and had more cardiometabolic comorbidities (2 126 250 [9.3%] vs 464 596 [7.8%]). This is interesting because of "supposed" cardiovascular effects of the vaccine that many folks were worried about. Even more confounding is the gender differences. You'd think skewing women would skew away from cardiovascular issues. An alternate interpretation is that the at risk cardio unvaccinated died of COVID for some reason.
- Scaevolus 10mo ago> First, individuals who choose vaccination may differ from those who do not, potentially introducing confounding bias. It's very hard to interpret this data given the massive confounder of "antivaxxers are suspicious of healthcare and take more risks".
- theptip 10mo agoThe increase in myocarditis from the vaccine is well-documented. (And very small.) COVID causes myocarditis too (even for young people unlikely to die from COVID itself), at much higher rates. So you only need a 20% chance of contracting COVID for the vaccine to be net positive in the least obviously positive age group.
- ertgbnm 10mo agonon-scientific but every young person I know has had covid at least twice.
- clashncruz 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- jddj 10mo ago200+? What was the quality of the data like for the Western Sahara?
- mathgeek 10mo agoLooking forward to reading your work, please do link it when it's available as there's no point in arguing for or against something that we don't yet have access to.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThey claim "Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., who had 0 deaths from COVID-19 during the "pandemic", and only had COVID-19 deaths ever recorded AFTER the experimental injections were administered." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande... says Thailand's health ministry publicly recorded their first death in March 1, 2020. So it's transparently bullshit.
- mathgeek 10mo agoYeah, admittedly while I like to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I assumed this wasn't coming from a place of good will.
- jandrese 10mo agoI have to admit I checked the author on this paper. No surprise it is from outside of the US. It's hard to imagine a US institution releasing a scientific study that directly contradicts the administration's viewpoints out of fear of reprisal via loss of funding or even shakedowns. I just hope this doesn't elicit some unhinged Truth Social post about evil Frenchmen trying to poison our bodies.
- Lionga 10mo agoIt goes the other way too. It's hard to imagine a {EU,German,whatever} institution releasing a scientific study that directly contradicts the administration's viewpoints out of fear of reprisal via loss of funding or even shakedowns.
- misiti3780 10mo agoDoes this mean Brett Weinstein was wrong when he said it caused 17M deaths ???
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThe guy who says HIV is caused by poppers?
- misiti3780 10mo agoi was referring to this https://youtu.be/P3nXJB5PoBM?t=39 https://youtu.be/P3nXJB5PoBM?t=39
- rsynnott 10mo agoI assume their point is that, ah, the opinion of someone who thinks AIDS is _caused by poppers_ on anything medical, or, indeed, probably on _anything_, may be safely discounted, on the basis that they are clearly insane.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoI understand that. I'm wondering why you'd find such a shitty source even the slightest bit compelling.
- misiti3780 10mo agoI didnt find it compelling at all - I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks Brett Weinstein is reputable at this point is an idiot.
- hannob 10mo agoI found the intro very confusing, tbh. Particularly the "no increased risk of all-cause mortality". I mean, if we assume the vaccines worked, we'd certainly expect a decreased risk of all-case mortality (because "all-case mortality" certainly includes "covid mortality"). Reading "no increase" seems to imply "it doesn't change anything". Yeah, technically, the sentence does not say that ("no increase" can mean "no decrease" or "no change"). You have to read further below to get what should be the real message on all-cause-mortality: "Vaccinated individuals had [...] a 25% lower risk of all-cause mortality". I think that should've been in the first 1-2 sentences.
- eddieroger 10mo agoFrame it as the safety of the vaccine, not the efficacy of it. If it was about efficacy, it would lead with the 25% lower risk because of COVID safety. But, these days, there are people who think vaccines are dangerous just because, so saying that taking the vaccine or not has equal mortality puts that to rest (or at least does for those who find science real).
- zosima 10mo agoThe reduction in all-cause mortality was independent of covid deaths. Which seems to suggest that there was big differences between the groups other than the vaccination. This of course does not change that the vaccine seems mostly safe, but it definitely calls in to question whether the protection against covid death was vaccine-mediated or due to some other difference between the groups. Therefore this paper is moderately strong evidence for the vaccine being safe, but quite weak evidence for the vaccine being efficacious.
- lesuorac 10mo agoCovid hospitalizations where half in the vaccinated group (as % of pop) than unvaccinated. That's extremely desirable when you're in a situation where you have do dedicate whole wings (and then some) of hospitals to a singular disease. Sure, it's not a silver bullet but it's at least stainless steel.
- blindriver 10mo agoThey define unvaccinated as anyone in the study who didn't get their first dose by Nov 2021. That feels like a pretty tight window to me. I don't think they checked to see if those "unvaccinated" people got vaccinated during the 4 year followup, especially given the mandates that forced people to get them.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThat's a year into its availability in France. Anyone who didn't have their first dose by then probably wasn't getting a dose. You can see that in this chart (click the 5Y range): https://ycharts.com/indicators/france_coronavirus_full_vaccination_rate https://ycharts.com/indicators/france_coronavirus_full_vacci... It's the full vaccination rate; as of Dec 1 2021 it was 69.89%. A month later (i.e. those Nov folks are getting their second dose) it's 74%; latest number on the chart is 78.44%.
- rob_c 10mo ago> That's a year into its availability in France. Anyone who didn't have their first dose by then probably wasn't getting a dose. You are aware of the "incentives" offered by the French govt? Such wonderful options as the ability to go the shops without being arrested that came with, "take the mandated medicine".
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThat's entirely irrelevant to "what date do we pick as the cutoff for this research?" From the chart, they picked a very reasonable spot to draw said line.
- sixQuarks 10mo ago[flagged]
- anticorporate 10mo ago> I knew there would be BS like this in the study If you "know" that a study whose title you are predisposed to disagree with has "BS" in it, something tells me no amount of scientific evidence is going to persuade you.
- lesuorac 10mo agoHonestly, the thing I find more interesting is the "Social Deprivation Index" where vaccinated individuals were 21% "most social" and 19% "least social" while unvaccinated individuals were 15% "most social" and 27% "least social". There are obvious negative and positive ways to interpret this but I don't actually know the correct one.
- CrossVR 10mo agoIf you're social you're more likely to care about those around you. Vaccines are also important for protecting vulnerable people in the community, so they were doubly motivated that way.
- lesuorac 10mo agoThat would be an uncharitable explanation. Surely, you aren't going to also argue that the vulnerable people don't care about others? A charitable argument is that people who cannot get the vaccine for a medical reason probably also shouldn't be around a lot of other people during a pandemic. But with the current absence of evidence we don't actually know why the social answer is different.
- rob_c 10mo agoNB: most people choosing not to take it in France tend to fall into the medically at risk, stubborn, or, "so far down the rabbit hole that you probably can't trust these people to make sensible life choices" groups. (This alone being a good reason why this 'control' group had a slightly higher all cause mortality at 6months) Remember, France was one of the wonderful countries where you couldn't legally shop or work if you were deemed to be 'not at risk' && 'unvaccinated' and achieved a very high rate as a result biasing the control group. (This is a purely statistical statement) And for reference, I do think the vax is dangerous in terms of massive populations and we don't have mass graves due to mRNA problems (although several large cancer blips). In the same way in countries with low vaccination rates we don't have mass graves at 10% population or higher. Cv19 was always going to kill and an untested treatment is likely to kill those who were at risk. (I'm willing to bet in the case of cv19 the ones who were hit hardest would have been hit badly by either vector, virus or mRNA. But we'll pretty much never be able to prove or disprove that...) I'm sure both extremes will jump to the rallying cry of "2 more weeks..." So yes of course I'm wrong, I only worked on analysing early 'data' and pulling apart the models so what do I know.
- CrossVR 10mo ago> But we'll pretty much never be able to prove or disprove that... How convenient for you...
- websiteapi 10mo agois it not possible that the kind of person who would've had negative side effects from an mrna vaccination already died from covid itself prior to wide rollout? presumably anyone who had any sort of minor illness during covid would be predisposed to get the vaccine, whereas anyone both lucky enough to be spared of that and ignorant of the vaccine would have their own illness due to the way this was designed. in addition anyone who for whatever reason didn't want to get the vaccine who didn't at this point would actually be uniquely at risk due to the combination of likelihood of getting covid plus disposition for an anti-health attitude. I feel like you could have the same conclusion if you had groups that were people who go to the doctor vs people who do not in the same time period they go into this themselves: > It seems reasonable to assume that by early November 2021, 3 months after the introduction of the mandatory health pass39 (delivered when fulfilling one of these conditions: a negative COVID-19 test result, proof of COVID-19 vaccination, or a certificate of recovery from a COVID-19 infection) to enter and exit France as well as to access restaurants, theaters, and nonurgent hospital consultations, the majority of unvaccinated individuals were reluctant to get vaccinated. > A study aimed at characterizing patient hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination showed that categorical refusal of vaccination was associated with prior noncompliance with vaccination recommendations, a lower educational level, and a less severe perception of COVID-19.41 in any case i've yet to see a slam dunk study showing any negative effect of vaccination.
- biophysboy 10mo agoThese are fair questions. I guess I'd first say that there were studies on reactogenic/immunogenic effects coincident w/ the original rollout. But perhaps more importantly, this study conditions on the time frame, meaning that it applies to all participants, and should thus not affect the risk ratio. I think knowing the current hazard risk ratio is more scientifically/medically valuable than the previous one (even if I'm skeptical that it has changed significantly for reasons other than noise)
- zosima 10mo agoThis is rather weird. Mortality in immediate connection with the vaccine (index time) would not have been captured here. I would hesitate to draw any conclusion from this paper. > For all individuals, vaccinated or not, follow-up time zero began 6 months after the index date.
- bmau5 10mo agoAs others have mentioned that data is captured in other studies and isn't the point of this paper
- gaborcselle 10mo agoOne thing I don’t get: the study excludes the first 6 months after vaccination to avoid immortal-time bias. But if people died right away due to the vaccine (hypothetically), wouldn’t this design exclude those deaths?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago> But if people died right away due to the vaccine (hypothetically), wouldn’t this design exclude those deaths? Yes. That's what we have plenty of other studies for, including the clinical trials that led to the vaccines being approved in the first place.
- stefantalpalaru 10mo ago[dead]
- biophysboy 10mo ago>As unvaccinated individuals were alive between their random index date and November 1, 2021, corresponding to a maximum duration of 6 months, starting follow-up from the index date would have introduced immortal time bias. Therefore, we initiated the study of long-term mortality 6 months after the index date, while mortality within 6 months after vaccination was analyzed separately using SCCS models. While the SCCS models are well-suited for short-term vaccine safety studies, they are less appropriate for long-term mortality, particularly due to limited control periods among vaccinated individuals, and age differences within the same individual across risk or control periods, as age is by far a major risk factor for death. For both analyses, we introduced the calendar period as an adjusting factor to account for the infection dynamics, baseline mortality trends, and the varying propension to get vaccinated.
- greaterGoods 10mo ago[dead]
- ucoclddau 10mo ago> Sensitivity analysis revealed that vaccinated individuals consistently had a lower risk of death, regardless of the cause This sounds like a red flag to me if you're trying to isolate the COVID vaccine as something safe. Table 2 data showed less drownings, less car crashes, less falls, less deaths related to chromosomal abnormalities... How can there not be a confounding variable or two here?
- tripletao 10mo agoIt's obviously almost all confounders, since COVID mortality is low now and choosing to obtain the vaccine correlates strongly with other medical and non-medical factors affecting all-cause mortality. The point is that no adverse effect from the vaccine offsets that confounding beneficial effect. More covariates would shrink the confounding effect, but they did the best they could with their dataset. That confounding effect turned out to be massive, which is bad news for anyone hoping to tightly bound the vaccine risk. It's good personal news for anyone in the vaccinated group, just more as to their general life choices than as to COVID.
- relaxing 10mo agoNot being an idiot who takes dumb risks like being unvaccinated certainly does seem confounding.
- oldgradstudent 10mo agoSo what you're saying is that they are comparing two distinct self-selected populations that differ in many other aspects than just taking the vaccine. Why would you ascribe any difference to the vaccine rather to any other difference between the groups?
- raw_anon_1111 10mo agoIt’s sad that these days anytime health studies or recommendations come out I half to make sure it’s not from an official US government source. But to be honest even before the current shit show I was taking recommendations from foreign health departments when it came to COVID. I got a booster shot after getting the J and J vaccine before it was officially recommended by the CDC because I saw other countries’ health departments publishing data about it. I can’t remember whether it was Isreal, the UK or the EU.
- xracy 10mo agoI think it's pretty safe to assume given the conclusion that the US gov't had nothing to do with it. It wouldn't be a headline if they did.
- albeebe1 10mo agoI've been using this prompt on articles that generate debate. Like microservices, or jwt's. It brings up some interesting points for this article... Look at this article and point out any wording that seems meant to push a certain viewpoint. Note anything important the author leaves out, downplays, or overstates, including numbers that seem cherry-picked or lack context. Clearly separate basic facts from opinions or emotional language. Explain how people with different viewpoints might read the article differently. Also call out any common persuasion tactics like loaded wording, selective quotes, or appeals to authority.
- purpleKiwi 10mo agoThank you!
- CrossVR 10mo agoNote that LLMs can easily deduce what your biases are based on your prompt and give you only information that confirms your biases.
- pjc50 10mo agoWho would win, the combined efforts of the best scientists in the field, or innuendo from a fancy markov model? You could at least paste the points here.
- albeebe1 10mo agoFor me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.
- tavavex 10mo agoThat only works if: 1. You assume that your LLM of choice is perfect and impartial on every given topic, ever. 2. You assume that your prompt doesn't interfere with said impartiality. What you have written may seem neutral at first glance, but from my perspective, a wording like yours would probably prime the model to try to pick apart absolutely anything, finding flaws that aren't really there (or make massive stretches) because you already presuppose that whatever you give it was written with intent to lie and misrepresent. The wording heavily implies that what you gave it already definitely uses "persuasion tactics", "emotional language" or that it downplays/overstates something - you just need it to find all that. So it will try to return anything that supports that implication.
- bigrightmiss 10mo agoso anyone who didn't get vaccinated before Nov. 2021 is considered unvaccinated? if they got the same dose the "vaccinated" group got on Dec 1st 2021 they're still... unvaccinated? and this is the control for this study? am i missing something? im sure there are a ton of valuable findings in this study, but that seems like a flaw. also, this is only tangentially related, but why is everyone so keen to defend big pharma? i thought we were supposed to hate them? they made billions off vaccines. remember martin shrkeli? he claimed he raised the price of a drug for a rare disease to make it commercially viable and he was crucified for it. less than 5 years later, a virus breaks out of a town with a lab dedicated to experimenting with (i.e. weaponizing) viruses and big pharma decided to convert to altruism when we needed them most? shrkeli's company made $65M in total off that (which a court ruled all of which had to be returned)... thats not even rounding error for pfizer, who sold $35B+ worth of mrna vaccines in 2021 alone. if the guy who invented Daraprim came out and told us shkreli was a scumbag, we'd have believed him. but the mRNA guy comes out and he gets eviscerated. i get it, it's not 1:1, but still. i'm not saying its all a hoax or a conspiracy, but "there doesn't need to be a formal conspiracy when interests converge". in the U.S., federal funding was given to anyone "treating" COVID. had COVID and got hit by a bus? that was a COVID death. and a check to the hospital from uncle sam. earlier this year (MIT got duped)[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/M2GzdAGbxwinERSEt/a-widely-shared-ai-productivity-paper-was-retracted-is https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/M2GzdAGbxwinERSEt/a-widely-s...] by a second year student when no one critiqued his fraudulent AI research. its a reminder that skepticism is an important part of the feedback loop. i don't think the vaccine killed 17M people, and i think there are definitely grifters on the skeptic side, but that doesn't discount skepticism as a whole. and i dont think this study vindicates anything completely either.
- rcv 10mo ago> so anyone who didn't get vaccinated before Nov. 2021 is considered unvaccinated? The answer is in the first paragraph of the "Design, Study Populations, and Outcomes" section: Exposure to COVID-19 vaccination was defined as the administration of a first dose of an mRNA vaccine between May 1 and October 31, 2021 (inclusion period), which was the mass vaccination period for adults in France, who primarily received mRNA vaccines. Multiple vaccinations in exposed individuals were not considered. The unvaccinated group was defined as individuals who remained unvaccinated as of November 1, 2021. Individuals vaccinated before May 1, 2021 (12.0%), or who received a first dose of another (ie, non-mRNA–based) COVID-19 vaccine during the inclusion period (1.4%) were excluded. > why is everyone so keen to defend big pharma? i thought we were supposed to hate them? Are we? Says who? Certainly there are bad actors who profit off of the misfortune of others. There are also brilliant people who work hard to bring about access to lifesaving treatments. There have certainly been examples of fraud in the past, and there have also been examples of truly amazing public health benefits. Do I personally think the US health system could be better structured to disincentivize the former and promote the latter? Definitely! Is that evidence of a global conspiracy? Nope. > had COVID and got hit by a bus? that was a COVID death There's a good analysis of that here: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-evidence-that-a-million-americans https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-evidence-that-a-million... TLDR is that all-cause death increased in line with the reported covid deaths which strongly refutes the "had covid got hit with a bus" theory.
- jansan 10mo agoWe should not forget, that in most countries people who were unvaccinated came under severe social pressure. They often lost their jobs or got banned from social circles. You were basically rendered an outcast by not being vaccinated. So taking the vaccine did not only affect your immune system, but also gave you a higher social status. And there are plenty of studies that show that a lower social status significantly impacts mortality, with lower status linked to higher death rates. This may explain the lower all cause mortality among vaccinated people.
- biophysboy 10mo agoIf this were true, we would expect to see higher mortality among unvaccinated individuals in high-vaccination rate areas.
- jibal 10mo agoOn the other hand, what would an intellectually honest comment look like?
- emtel 10mo agoFrom the paper: > The main causes of death were cancer (769 and 853 cases per million in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively), external causes of mortality (493 and 597 cases per million, including, among others, unintentional injuries, such as transportation crashes, falls, and drownings, as well as suicides or self-inflicted injuries) and diseases of the circulatory system (282 and 367 cases per million) (Table 2). Vaccinated individuals had a lower risk of death compared with unvaccinated individuals regardless of the cause of death. I don't think mRNA vaccination is likely to cause an increase in all-cause mortality. But this study is clearly comparing two radically different populations, and could not show a mortality increase from mRNA vaccination even if one existed.
- deepspace 10mo agoI do not see any 'radical difference' in the numbers. Individuals who choose not to get vaccinated are likely to be less informed and more reckless in other aspects of managing their health and their lives in general, so the relatively small difference between the populations is perfectly understandable.
- oldgradstudent 10mo agoYou're basically saying that the study compares two distinct populations that differ in many other aspects rather than just by vaccine. Why then do you ascribe the difference in mortality to the vaccine?
- ubercow13 10mo agoAm I right in reading "Figure. Estimation of All-Cause Mortality at 4 Years in Vaccinated Compared With Unvaccinated Individuals Using Weighted Cox Models: Main and Stratified Analyses" to show that vaccines were more beneficial to the 18-29 age group than any older group? Isn't that unexpected?
- tripletao 10mo agoThis isn't an RCT and COVID mortality is no longer high, so the effect on all-cause mortality is almost entirely confounders. So that result just means people 18-29 who chose to get the COVID vaccine have other characteristics that result in the much lower mortality from non-COVID causes. I'm not sure why. The top causes for that age group are usually non-medical, accident, suicide, or homicide. We might speculate those would anticorrelate more strongly with the prudence that leads people to get the vaccine than unavoidable medical causes, but looking at the V, W, X, and Y causes from Table 2 that doesn't seem to be true. I guess it could be true but only for the 18-29 group (and if it's not then what causes are responsible?), since they don't break that down by age. The "problem" is that vaccine recipients are so much healthier overall than non-recipients that the vaccine would have to be spectacularly unsafe to offset that. So this analysis doesn't actually tell us much, but it's consistent with all other evidence that the vaccine is safe.
- sdo72 10mo agoI don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But I do have doubt in vaccines especially mRNA vaccines nowadays, and I wish these studies do more than just this. I have 4 kids, and 3 of them got vaccinated for the covid (1 is a baby 2 years old) for the very first time with Delta. They struggle for weeks to recover, they get tired, they seem to have heart related symptoms. Eventually, those went away after months. The baby has never had covid (no vaccine). I then have never covid vaccinated them, and they have never been sick with covid even though my wife and I caught covid after our 3rd vaccine shots. We didn't do any isolation, we share things and direct contacts with them. They might have had Covid but very mild, the quick tests never showed positive. My wife got blood clot issue that I saw blood coming out from her skin. I struggled many months with the vaccines with weird fatigues (I'm normally very healthy in my late 30s). My gut biome seemed to change and I became quite sensitive to some food (milk proteins mostly, not just lactose intolerance) My mom who lived in a different country got 3 shots and she struggled with heart condition for more than a year, Drs couldn't find the reason why. It was difficult for her to do anything with strength. She finally recovered after 1+ year. There're many real and true stories like mine, I really have no idea what these studies saying anymore.
- jibal 10mo ago> I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But you write anti-vax comments filled with the usual anti-vax post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
- HaZeust 10mo ago>"post hoc ergo propter hoc" Appealing to an informal fallacy, and not even using it right. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy hinges on the fact that one's argument assumes that just because one event happened chronologically first, it must have caused the one(s) that chronologically came after. GP did more than that and didn't simply say "X happened first, so I think it's responsible for Y." He gave correlative observations and suspected a possibility of causation OUTSIDE of chronological timeline. Regardless of whether I agree with him, it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.
- HaZeust 10mo ago>"Exposure Exposure was defined as receiving a first mRNA dose between May 1 and October 31, 2021. Individuals who were unvaccinated by November 1, 2021, were assigned a random index date based on vaccinated individuals’ vaccination dates." What?? So any first mRNA dose before May 1st and after Nov 1st 2021 was not considered an adequate exposure? Why are they only defining exposure as the initial dose being administered within a six-month period for a vaccine that was released (A) before that; and (B) still continually offered - though in much lower capacities? I'm all pro-vax but what? Lol.
- oxag3n 10mo agoI'm a bit uneasy about so many people being pro-science and still falling into all the fallacies scientific method tried to address. Disclaimer: I'm pro vaccine, I do think Covid vaccines saved a lot of lives. I still think the risk is relatively low even after getting an onset of auto-immune disease 3 days after the shot (diagnosis confirmed 2 years after it started after mRNA booster) and sister in law getting another auto-immune months after the vaccine (also confirmed diagnosis by now). I did read the article and while deaths from Covid were clearly lower in vaccinated group, the sample selection has signs of various problems, starting from representation (why significantly more disadvantaged groups in unvaccinated group), to results like external causes of mortality 25% lower in the vaccinated group. 32% lower deaths from transport crashes - clearly healthy/selection bias. Such studies bring nothing to pro-science crowd and give anti-vaccine propaganda another advantage.
- blackqueeriroh 10mo agoDo you have a PhD or an MD?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 10mo ago[dead]