> new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine
The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 people.
The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people.
I'll take the vaccine odds.
> with fairly marginal protection benefits
Your source says nothing about protection benefits being marginal.
In fact, one of the author's of this research said:
"What the results don’t do, she stressed, is change the fact that the data strongly support getting vaccinated against COVID-19. “Clearly, developing postvaccine myocarditis is much more rare than developing any of the complications of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” she noted." https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...
As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male.
We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that.
edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)
If an interpretation of self reported raw monitoring data seems obvious to you and your favourite criminal justice lecturer on substack, but not to epidemiologists working in the field, well yeah probably just cognitive dissonance on their part.
> The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
Wait, the self report monitoring system that went from virtually unknown to a household name at a time the number of adult vax administrations skyrocketed.. detected an uptick in absolute number of adverse events? Stop traffic! This article is off to a great start.
For good reasons, which is why it is a peculiar choice of highlight for the criminal justice lecturer's substack article. You haven't supported your prior claim by linking it.
Shoutout to the British NHS Data that lists for risk of hospitalization/overnight hospitalization /dying per agegroup(decade each) per month.
I find it worth mentioning that the conscious choice not to do this and argue with overall numbers is clearly showing a lack of integrity in the source aimed at pushing a predetermined narrative.
You can not in good concise pretend or even imply that this an evenly distributed risk. Be it among agegroups, comorbidities or among the time axis since the start of the pandemic.
And to give some food for thought, people will reliably overcorrect to adapt for that distortion in their sense making process. Its how a justified loss in credibility looks like and influences peoples behavior.
I can’t believe we are still arguing about IFR at this at this point in the pandemic. It’s now well studied and we know the shape as a function of age is a huge hockey stick and the population average is not 1.1%. I suspect you understand well that your information is misleading and disinformation.
I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked.
It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"?
> now admit it is at least 5-10x lower
Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously.
You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
>I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
I have been thinking about this a bit, i believe the pandemic (and this conversation) has been a great example for the general limits of distributed sensemaking and how it breaks down at communicating (and capsuling) all the relevant aspects and perspectives to a topic or statement.
I think in the end everyone has their map of the problem and we are failing (due to the limited bandwith of speech and text among others) at comparing why they differ where. Be it incomplete data, overlooking important perspectives or simply cognitive biases/ ego induced (not wanting to be wrong, tribalism...) errors.
In general people have very poor intuition around risks and orders of magnitude. With Covid this is truly extreme differences in risk, under 18 with IFR of 20 per 1M but over 65 with 90,000 per 1M. 4,500x different risk.
The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 people.
The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people.
I'll take the vaccine odds.
> with fairly marginal protection benefits
Your source says nothing about protection benefits being marginal.
In fact, one of the author's of this research said: "What the results don’t do, she stressed, is change the fact that the data strongly support getting vaccinated against COVID-19. “Clearly, developing postvaccine myocarditis is much more rare than developing any of the complications of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” she noted." https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...