Even if all of the VAERS reports were both causal (they’re not) and fatal (not even remotely) the vaccine would still be seven times better than the illness.
As the reports are overwhelming not about surprise deaths and not causal, the vaccines are somewhere between 170 times better and infinitely better than the disease.
> Not a day goes by where I don't hear about somebody dying shortly after getting the vaccine, often in novel ways like described here
And how many do you expect by coincidence in an ideal case where there are exactly zero side effects? Because it isn’t going to be zero coincidental deaths when there are 3.79 billion vaccination events. Not even zero per day.
That is a dramatic misrepresentation of that preprint. The number of deaths is small enough that it is hard to draw inferences from it, and that was not the endpoint of the study. Rather, the key finding is a vaccine effectiveness of 97% against severe disease.
A preprint that did address deaths[1] found a vaccine effectiveness of 98.7% against death. This is not consistent with your claim of "no evidence."
There was a substack where someone took the deaths during Pfizer's trial (the same one where 95% effective came from) and compared it to the CDC's estimate of number of injections to prevent a death, they came up with something insane like 5 vaccine-caused deaths to prevent 1 virus-caused death. Major caveats were included because all the numbers were small (IIRC it was 16 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the control group, for example), but it otherwise checked out.
That said, also keep in mind the much-touted 95% effective came from 8 and 170 cases out of around 40000 participants.
The vaccine has stayed just as effective for serious disease as it always was said. I am undeniably safer with the vaccine than without as I have actual family members who like you bought into the “vaccine bad” propaganda and died an early death from…COVID.
There really should be real life DARWIN awards.
The great thing, it’s mostly right wing voters dying. :)
Of course. I've seen that headline in plenty of places. But as soon as you scroll past the headline you see:
"However, the two-dose vaccine still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness, according to the Israeli data published Thursday."
The post is conflating vaccine efficacy and effectiveness which are two different epidemiological measures.
It also fails to consider the false positive and false negative rates inherent in these studies. In particular, lots of asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated arm are not caught by efficacy studies (false negatives). So claiming that low death rates are solely a result of reduced infection(as opposed to fighting off infections better) is also a conclusion made hastily.
Death rates and symptomatic cases are much measured much more accurately, and claiming that effectiveness studies have little point once there's vaccine efficacy is available underestimates the challenges of epidemiology.
But the overall point that statistics are hard to understand, easily misused in online arguments is a valid point.
You would be some special kind of fool to think that what I call “death rate” isn’t the most obvious and only relevant statistic when it comes to describing vaccine effectiveness
You are making numerous claims throughout this thread without a single citation.
Where can I find a study that supports this:
"There was a three or four month window, right when the vaccines were first released, when a 95+% implementation of the initial vaccine shot could have produced a reasonably close facsimile of herd immunity, such that it would have made it several orders more difficult for the virus to effectively mutate. It could have conceivably cut the subsequent death toll in half, if not more.
Unfortunately, politics and antivaxx disinformation got in the way of that. And people continued to die in droves due to selfishness and lies."
In general, what you claim would seem both surprising and impractical to me. There are many studies on very seriously ill groups, where the death of a large portion of participants is expected.
The article isn't poorly communicated. It says that vaccines are "extremely effective", backs that up with citations and numbers, and lauds the scientific revolution.
Citation required.
reply