Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

jamanetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 360 posts

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#211

Post by rcv »

bigrightmiss wrote: post #177

so 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 phar…

> 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...

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.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#212

Post by biophysboy »

blindriver wrote: post #206
biophysboy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is specified as an exclusion criteria in the Supplementary.

No they didn't. They excluded those that got the vaccine pre-May 2021 or those that got another vaccine besides Pfizer or Moderna.

The target trial emulation specifies "individuals deceased or vaccinated during the 6 month grace period between the index date and the effective start of follow-up" as an exclusion criteria

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#213

Post by raddan »

dionian wrote: post #180
majormajor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not lethal for all age groups, we already knew it well before the vaccine was introduced. People may have short memories, the vaccine came almost a year after the disease was out, and we knew very well by then that it did not kill everyone, broadly. And the vaccine wasn't trialed or rolled out initially for all age groups. One major reason was because double-blind trials were done first. For instance, here is the e…

we could let people choose whether to participate, with informed consent. instead of getting them fired for not participating in the experiment.

Did you even follow the link provided? It leads directly to an informed consent page for the study, which was voluntary. You're probably thinking about what happened _after_ these studies found the vaccine to be safe and effective. If you're a doctor or a nurse, you work in a special environment, and if you are turning down a safe and effective vaccine, you are putting your patients at risk. It means that you are unqualified for your job, so yes, you should be fired.

In the US at least, most people are employed "at will" [1], which means that you can be fired for reasons far less egregious than actually putting your patients at risk. Most of the libertarian types here cheer firings for lots of reasons, but for some reason being fired for actually being a health risk is not one of those things. That just makes no sense.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#214

Post by stocksinsmocks »

vineyardmike wrote: post #207
stocksinsmocks wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s possible to know anything conclusive about the safety for a few decades and a generation or two of affected kids can be observed. Given that finding harm would embarrass important aristocrats, I don’t think that evidence would ever be found in the foreseeable future. That mRNA and lipid nano particles were never found to be safe until the exact moment of crisis is awfully convenient for its investo…

Where do you get decades? That study says 200 days.

You really aren’t going to know how this MRNA in egg and sperm cells are going to affect offspring until you have offspring to observe. Effects like wolbachia could take multiple generations to observe.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#215

Post by ubercow13 »

Am 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?

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#216

Post by mberning »

runako wrote: post #155
gus_massa wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not obvious at all. Many vaccine candidates about previous covirus were rejected because they didn't pass the safetly trial. The "secret" part is that before aproving the vaccine, it has to pass a few trials to prove it's effective and safe. This is discussed too few times.

> before aproving the vaccine, it has to pass a few trials to prove it's effective and safe In case this comment has you temporarily hallucinate like it did me, I just looked and was able to confirm what I remembered: the vaccines did undergo trials for efficacy and safety before being approved.

I think the part that people doubt is the highly compressed timeline for approval. Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time. Also during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine”. It is actually crazy to think about in retrospect.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#217

Post by hannob »

simonster wrote: post #172
hannob wrote: post #31

I 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 dec…

The problem is that 25% lower risk of all-cause mortality is too big to be explained solely by the vaccine. The reduction is similar when excluding deaths due to COVID-19, and is probably driven by people who got the vaccine being different in some ways that the observational study isn’t controlling for.

Yeah, but there's a plausible explanation for this: Likely, people who get vaccinated also are more likely to do other things to improve their health.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#218

Post by vkou »

Palomides wrote: post #52
laichzeit0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, this is an observational study and when you get to the confounding part, they kind of shrug their shoulders and say “well, we included a bunch of covariates that should reduce make the bias go away”, but there’s no causal diagram so we have no idea how they reasoned about this. If you’ve read even something layman friendly like Pearl’s Book of Why you should be feeling nervous about this.

doing a double blind study of a vaccine that seems to work very well for a potentially lethal disease seems morally questionable

And when you do, the critics will just shift the goal posts, again.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#219

Post by vkou »

mberning wrote: post #216
runako wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before aproving the vaccine, it has to pass a few trials to prove it's effective and safe In case this comment has you temporarily hallucinate like it did me, I just looked and was able to confirm what I remembered: the vaccines did undergo trials for efficacy and safety before being approved.

I think the part that people doubt is the highly compressed timeline for approval. Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time. Also during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine”. It is actually crazy to think about in retrospect.

The timelines were compressed because instead of doing all the safety trials one after the other, they were all done concurrently.

The only people that puts at risk are the trial participants.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#220

Post by _DeadFred_ »

zosima wrote: post #76
lesuorac wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid 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.

I am speaking about what the paper shows. There are other sources of evidence for efficacy. This paper is not a very strong source of evidence for efficacy due to some obvious uncontrolled difference between groups.

OP's point was more 'How would you measure unvaccinated people that lived because vaccinated people weren't filling the ER, so there were beds/staff to spare'?

That unvaxed outcome would need to go in the 'vaxed lives saved' column somehow, or else it looks like 'outcomes were the same either way' because the lives saved from vaccination spill over into the non-vaxed group because the vaccine prevented the healthcare system from melting down.

Post reply on HN