Live data from Hacker News

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

jamanetwork.com

331–340 of 360 posts

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

#331

> 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?

Not being an idiot who takes dumb risks like being unvaccinated certainly does seem confounding.

So 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?

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

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAERS cannot be used to establish causality; it cannot correctly be used in the way in which they are purporting to use it[1]. 1 = https://www.kff.org/quick-take/fda-memo-linking-covid-vaccin...

I respectfully disagree. VAERS can absolutely be used to establish causality when followed by proper expert investigation (which is exactly its purpose as a signal-detection system). The IOM has relied on VAERS data to confirm causal links in 158 vaccine-adverse event pairs, including rotavirus vaccine and intussusception. Here, FDA career scientists conducted that follow-up: they reviewed 96 child death reports and…

> The public database of reported post-vaccination health issues is often misused to sow misinformation.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt

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

#333
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frame 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).

The 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 mod…

Obviously there are confounding variables besides vaccination status, but I find it pretty compelling that the decrease in COVID mortality among the vaccinated group was significantly larger than the decrease in all-cause mortality of that group. This suggests whatever the difference was between the two groups, besides vaccination, either had a much larger impact on COVID than other causes of death or that the vaccine had some positive impact.

One example of the former explanation I could imagine is that people who got vaccinated against COVID were probably also more likely to take other preventative measures, like wearing a mask or avoiding larger crowds of people. Those precautions would be more likely to be effective against a contagious disease like COVID but less likely to protect them against some other causes of death like heart disease.

I'm not sure how likely I find that as an explanation compared to the alternative that the vaccines provide at least some level of protection. My observation was that widespread measures specifically meant to defend against COVID, like masking and social distancing, largely went away well before the end of the time period covered by this study, at least in the US.

Amusingly, I suspect the anti-vax contingent would likely be bothered by data suggesting anything the COVID vaccinated group was doing differently protected against COVID, since their position seems to largely be that not only is the COVID vaccine useless, but so are any other measures meant to reduce the spread.

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

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why FDA's OBPV did the follow-up review of those 96 child deaths and concluded >10 were causal from vaccine myocarditis. And we're back at the "Hitler provided free things to Jews" technical truth again. This is likely an accurate statement! But it'd deeply missing important context. > If the conclusion was fake or flimsy, this blows up in their face and RFK looks like a clown. This is likely meaningless to…

Your arguments in a nutshell: 1. Hitler gave Jews free stuff (technical truth used to mislead) 2. Dead bear guy doesn’t care about looking like a clown 3. Therefore the OBPV causality review must be deceptive sleight-of-hand That's literally a conspiracy theory. On Tylenol, FDA did add a "possible association" warning in Sept 2025 (RFK’s call), but even the new label says evidence is only _suggestive_, not proven. Po…

The sleight of hand is pretending ten kids dying of a rare vaccine side effect is at all surprising when we gave it to billions of people.

Eating pretzels has a more dangerous safety profile than that. People choke to death.

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

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but they incorrectly called it all-cause mortality under Findings. "Mortality" on it's own would be fine. "Mortality from other causes" would be better.

It's a term of art. The audience for this paper would understand, rather like many denizens of HN know what TDD is.

The paper doesn't even use it consistently. At first it uses "all-cause mortality" to mean "all causes except COVID", and then in the results section it uses the same phrase to mean "all causes including COVID". The whole purpose of terms of art is to increase the specificity of language, but they're not doing that here. Their usage of the term is confusing.

Edit: I'm wrong. I could have sworn it said that the groups had similar all-cause mortality, but it doesn't.

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

#336
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

“It brings up some interesting points for this article...”

Why are you acting like a LLM that had its own earlier statements run off the end of the context window and can’t remember you yourself said them?

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

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a term of art. The audience for this paper would understand, rather like many denizens of HN know what TDD is.

The paper doesn't even use it consistently. At first it uses "all-cause mortality" to mean "all causes except COVID", and then in the results section it uses the same phrase to mean "all causes including COVID". The whole purpose of terms of art is to increase the specificity of language, but they're not doing that here. Their usage of the term is confusing. Edit: I'm wrong. I could have sworn it said that the groups…

Where do you see them using "all-cause mortality" to mean "all causes except COVID" in the beginning? I skimmed over all uses of the term before the "Results" chapter, none of them seem to exclude COVID deaths?

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

#338

Earlier 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…

>>>> “you won’t get sick or spread the disease”

> 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 five years ago, everyone that has a minimal knowledge about vaccines understood it was an unrealistic claim, because many of the vaccines don't provide that level of immunity. If you have some free time to go down the rabit hole, you can try to count them in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_of_the_Unit...

So the questions are:

Is that quote real?

Who said that?

---

I was going to hit the "reply" button, but I decided to look in Goggle and found https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/21/politics/walensky-comment... Like 10 worse than what I expected.

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

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

Not at all, I want the study to be true.

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

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments in a nutshell: 1. Hitler gave Jews free stuff (technical truth used to mislead) 2. Dead bear guy doesn’t care about looking like a clown 3. Therefore the OBPV causality review must be deceptive sleight-of-hand That's literally a conspiracy theory. On Tylenol, FDA did add a "possible association" warning in Sept 2025 (RFK’s call), but even the new label says evidence is only _suggestive_, not proven. Po…

The sleight of hand is pretending ten kids dying of a rare vaccine side effect is at all surprising when we gave it to billions of people. Eating pretzels has a more dangerous safety profile than that. People choke to death.

Is there a strong evidence that kids need it in the first place? A stricter protocol does not dismiss the kids, right?
Post reply on HN