[dead]
Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
301–310 of 360 posts
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#302One 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?
> 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.
[dead]
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.
I think this reads to me as a way for you to couch your ignorance as criticism while learning nothing from reading a study like this. Why not do this for your own biases? What metrics do you focus on while reading an article that result in you confirming your own preconceived ideas? If you have to come at an article like this in a hostile way, then you're not learning anythign about it, you're just confirming your ow…
i'm not even talking about the article. are you a bot?
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.
That 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 stret…
you're reading to much into it. i make no assumptions.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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” This line of thinking is so odd to me. Would you have preferred communications to use inaccurate, outdated points for the sake of consistency? When honest interlocutors learn more about something, they communicate details more accurately. What woul…
I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. >> “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” I read that many times. It was a totally unrealistic promise, because not even all the other vaccines do that, even after years of research and improvements. (In particular, here is a big trade off in the inyectable vs oral vaccine for polio.) Who is the highest ranking person that said it? I guess it was not one of the…
> I'd like accurate communication from the beginning.
So you want magic. Got it.
In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available.
Even more, perfect understanding of how good our information is at any given point in time is not always going to be available.
There were definitely some failures to communicate well with the public during that time, but demanding that only definite information be communicated, and then never be contradicted, is asking the impossible.
It also really doesn't help that there are so many people who were (and are) just so scared of everything during that time that any information coming out that wasn't 100% unquestionably positive about any new measure to try to improve things would cause them to shun it forever as too dangerous to try.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is people 'on the other side' think exactly the same, but come to different conclusions. For instance what do you think the chances of a healthy 20 year old male with 0 comorbidities of dying from COVID are? And what do you think his chances of suffering a significant case of myocarditis or pericarditis from the vaccine is? By "significant" I mean a case that's significant enough to result in active diagnos…
Let's start with this question: > For instance what do you think the chances of a healthy 20 year old male with 0 comorbidities of dying from COVID are? Much more likely than dying from the vaccine. Also, and this is very important, at the time the vaccine was developed and released to the general public it was even more unknown what the fatality truly would be. We weren't totally sure as a species how the virus migh…
But don't you see that you're immediately resorting to the somewhat misleading arguments that I already preempted? You're engaging in the typical fallacy of vaccine OR covid. When in reality it was clear rather early on that the vaccines were not particularly effective at preventing people from getting COVID, meaning you need to look at getting the vaccine and covid, or covid alone.
And yes the risks are very real. Vaccine induced myocarditis and pericarditis rates in young males are very high, and they can result in heart failure, life long damage, early mortality, and more. And for young males you're looking at multiple significant cases per 10,000. [1] For all cases of myocarditis/pericarditis the rates would be substantially higher yet still since most cases will go undiagnosed. For some contrast, the normal rate of significant side effects in vaccines ranges in the 1:100k to 1000k range.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's Biden in 2021: > You’re not going to — you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-... Perhaps any statement in that context should be assumed to be oversimplified; but I don't think I can fault someone for taking words to mean what they literally say. The COVID vaccines look great so far on balance, but they absolutely were oversold…
Could you give the whole paragraph, and not just the last sentence in it? Ah, heck, I'll do the work of pasting it in. > But again, one last thing. I — we don’t talk enough to you about this, I don’t think. One last thing that’s really important is: We’re not in a position where we think that any virus — including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non — unvaccinated people…
I'm not sure what the rest of the paragraph adds here? Nothing in that qualifies or contradicts the absolute that I quoted. Are you just saying that the statement was so generally inarticulate that any reasonable person should have ignored it completely? That was true here, but that's not great for public confidence either.
I'm aware that the scientific literature told a more nuanced and accurate story, but only a tiny fraction of the population have the skills and time to study that. I don't think you can fault people for trusting their elected leaders; and if you do, then who are you expecting them to trust next time?
> a CDC spokesperson seemingly walked back the director’s comments
So after widespread criticism by actual scientists, she didn't even correct herself in her own voice, instead sending an unnamed spokesperson to smooth it over without explicitly acknowledging error. I can't believe you don't see how the damage is done.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. >> “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” I read that many times. It was a totally unrealistic promise, because not even all the other vaccines do that, even after years of research and improvements. (In particular, here is a big trade off in the inyectable vs oral vaccine for polio.) Who is the highest ranking person that said it? I guess it was not one of the…
> I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. So you want magic. Got it. In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available. Even more, perfect understanding of how good our information is at any given point in time is not always going to be available. There were definitely some failures to communicate we…
I think instead of „magic“ what we should have more of is honesty about uncertainty. The public discourse would be much less toxic if people honestly said that they’re not sure about something and that the policy they advocate might fail to deliver. However such rhetoric is immediately exploited weakness and strongly selected against.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#309Honestly, 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.
If 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.
That 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.
Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I interpret this as the comment saying "we won't know how this affected things until decades from now." Which can likely be attributed to existing vaccine skepticism and is unlikely to result in them changing their opinion in the next ever. What I think a lot of people who are anti-vax miss is the risk of the vaccine compared to the risk of COVID. They feel like they're being asked something risky in a vacuum, when i…
> What I think a lot of people who are anti-vax miss is the risk of the vaccine compared to the risk of COVID Why do people still frame this as either/or? How many people out there didn't get covid after they got some number of shots? The only real scenario is covid with n shots, where n >= 0. In other words, when you got covid, how many shots had you gotten. (Not anti vax myself, though generally avoid whatever drug…
[deleted]