Re: messaging. This is kind of the core issue. The messaging was bad. But the bad messaging came from politicians. That doesn't impinge on whether the vaccine was in fact safe or was in fact effective. I agree that the messaging was bad. I don't agree that the vaccine didn't work. It does work - it does reduce infections, it does reduce symptomatic disease, it does reduce severe disease, it does reduce deaths. All to increasing degrees, and none perfect. But look… we're hundreds of words into a discussion that has been a little technical at times, and you still are leaning toward a binary works / doesn't work set that is just an inadequate way to look at it. It's kind of an impossible task.

Again, where did I say that about ignorance? I looked, I don't think I did. I mean I might have, but I don't think I did.

The political establishment never had credibility with me. I think that's the strange part. And honestly the medical establishment only has passing credibility. The FDA kind of sucks, they're way too conservative. We have a replication crisis in science in general. There's a lot of junk research out there. You shouldn't just trust anyone, ever, especially not simply because of their position. But you can read data, and do the work to come to some conclusions with varying degrees of confidence. I haven't made an appeal to medical authority once, I don't think.

Quote:

---

Ignoring, or actively preventing any studies of prophylactic treatments other than a vaccine.

Trying to prevent the release of data for 75 years

Constant moving of the goalposts regarding what it means for the vaccine to "work"

---

The problem is some of these simply aren't facts. There were literally thousands and thousands of studies done testing treatments and prophylactics.

The FDA did not try to prevent the release of data for 75 years: a shotgun FOIA request for any and all data was submitted. The FDA said we only have x resources to do the redaction, and the lawyer said at that rate it will take 75 years.

The medical definition for vaccine working is a fact, and it is in the clinical trials, and it did not change. There are lots of ways to see if something "works".

At this point you seem to be more interested in justifying your a priori opinion than discussion. You haven't engaged meaningfully with any of the info I've presented, just continued to reject or dismiss them, or give reasons why you believe what you do. And you keep bringing up things we agree on as if it pertains (like that the mandates were bad or that public messaging was bad). So - thanks for the reasonable discussion, but I don't think it's beneficial to continue further. Cheers.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

You don't seem to acknowledge any of this recent history that should call the credibility of the medical and political establishment into question.

Revising the definition of vaccine.

Ignoring, or actively preventing any studies of prophylactic treatments other than a vaccine.

Trying to prevent the release of data for 75 years

Constant moving of the goalposts regarding what it means for the vaccine to "work"

To say nothing of the attempts to force people who didn't want it to take the vaccine.

---

Thaddeus Beauregard said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The challenge for us is to be able to aggregate additional information beyond direct personal experience. That's the whole purpose of science - to be able to make predictions, good predictions, across large ranges of events. Larger than our personal range of experience would allow.

---

Ok cool. I'm pro-science. Go science!

But n this case, what's the upside to being vaxxed given current realities?

Of course all medications involve some risk. The question then becomes whether the risk:reward ratio is overwhelmingly favorable.

Removing my own anecdotal experience, albeit pretty grim… I think the first basic question one should ask is: does the vaccine even WORK in the first place? Maybe it does/has for some people, but overall, the available evidence clearly indicates it doesn't work very well, and that's being generous. It's the least effective vaccine I've ever seen. If it doesn't prevent transmission or infection, what's the point?

The second question one should ask is: is the disease it's attempting to prevent severe enough to offset the known risks of the vaccine? For most people without preexisting severe health problems and even among those who do, Covid isn't a huge deal. You're sick for a week and then you get over it. For some people with weakened immune systems, Covid is life-threatening, but that also applies to a host of other viruses. Ok, so that leads back to the original salient question: does the vaccine even work?

If the vaccine really worked as advertised, then I could at least understand your insistence that "additional information beyond direct personal experience" yields something compelling that we should look at.

At best, maybe the vaccine has been benign for most people…that we know of so far. A benign medication isn't a medication.

So again, what's the upside?

It seems to me the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

---

Yeah these are great questions. And you're right about risk reward.

Where I think you are not right is in the measure of efficacy. People keep coming back to a moving definition of work. What does work mean to you? Preventing a PCR positive test? Because literally none of the clinical trials ever checked for that. It was not intended to do that, it wasn't a goal. This is a simple fact, you can go and read. The goals were to prevent symptomatic disease, and severe disease, and death. The vaccine does all of these AND it also prevents transmission and infection. But it doesn't do them all equally well, and variants and time reduced the efficacy of all, but not equally. For example it reduced risk of infection by ~90% in the first few weeks of original but now that's ?? 30% maybe? After months and variants, but death went from 99% reduction to 90% reduction. you ask what's the point? The point is to keep people out of hospitals and keep them from dying. Transmission reduction is a secondary benefit. Again, you can go read influenza / pandemic planning docs from well before COVID and this is the public health focus.

As for the cost / benefit, again the answer is yes. For most people COVID is not serious. But the burden of death is not negligible - even a bulk infection fatality rate of 0.5% is bad. If we can reduce that by 90%, why not? And the sad reality is most Americans are not healthy. Nearly half of adults are obese, most have one or more risk factor to COVID.

Whatever the risk of the vaccine is, the disease far exceeds it. To me it is not really in question. That's why the overwhelming majority of Americans are vaccinated. The vocal minority, especially on this board, skews the perception.

This is so dishonest it's not even funny.

Quote:

---

Whatever the risk of the vaccine is, the disease far exceeds it. To me it is not really in question. That's why the overwhelming majority of Americans are vaccinated. The vocal minority, especially on this board, skews the perception.

---

Quote:

---

Often the logical structure of an argument is replaced by preemptive rhetoric or, where an argument is made, its validity remains unchecked against any evidence, even when such evidence is abundant.

---

The great irony of this accusation is that there has been only one party in this discussion presenting evidence.

Again, provide the evidence. Otherwise it's just opinion masquerading as fact.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Often the logical structure of an argument is replaced by preemptive rhetoric or, where an argument is made, its validity remains unchecked against any evidence, even when such evidence is abundant.

---

The great irony of this accusation is that there has been only one party in this discussion presenting evidence.

---

You specifically cited the need for aggregated large sample data when dismissing anecdotal data points. Feel free to start with proposing a plausible causal factor for the year over year 40% excess mortality in the US that began in the second half of 2021 coincident with the mass vaccination of the population with the MRNA vaccines as well as the J&J vaccine that was pulled from the market because it was apparently "safe enough" but not really "safe". That's aggregated data of a large sample size with several standard deviations from historical level.

Quote:

---

Discordant evidence may be dismissed as isolated anomalies, or as something tendentiously selected by opponents, or it may be explained away ad hoc by a theory having no empirical support whateverexcept that this ad hoc theory is able to sustain itself and gain acceptance because it is consistent with the overall vision. Examples of such tactics will be numerous in the chapters that follow. What must first be considered are the reasons behind such tactics, why it is so necessary to believe in a particular vision that evidence of its incorrectness is ignored, suppressed, or discreditedultimately, why one's quest is not for reality but for a vision.

What does the vision offer that reality does not offer? What a vision may offer, and what the prevailing vision of our time emphatically does offer, is a special state of grace for those who believe in it. Those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plane. Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not merely in error, but in sin. For those who have this vision of the world, the anointed and the benighted do not argue on the same moral plane or play by the same cold rules of logic and evidence. The benighted are to be made "aware," to have their "consciousness raised," and the wistful hope is held out that they will "grow." Should the benighted prove recalcitrant, however, then their "mean-spiritedness" must be fought and the "real reasons" behind their arguments and actions exposed. While verbal fashions change, this basic picture of the differential rectitude of the anointed and the benighted has not changed fundamentally in at least two hundred years.3

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision Of The Annointed (pp. 2-3). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

---

Another irony, shifting the burden of proof.

Glad to read any study about excess mortality. Just don't send me another RFK video.

Zobel said:

---

Thaddeus Beauregard said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The challenge for us is to be able to aggregate additional information beyond direct personal experience. That's the whole purpose of science - to be able to make predictions, good predictions, across large ranges of events. Larger than our personal range of experience would allow.

---

Ok cool. I'm pro-science. Go science!

But n this case, what's the upside to being vaxxed given current realities?

Of course all medications involve some risk. The question then becomes whether the risk:reward ratio is overwhelmingly favorable.

Removing my own anecdotal experience, albeit pretty grim… I think the first basic question one should ask is: does the vaccine even WORK in the first place? Maybe it does/has for some people, but overall, the available evidence clearly indicates it doesn't work very well, and that's being generous. It's the least effective vaccine I've ever seen. If it doesn't prevent transmission or infection, what's the point?

The second question one should ask is: is the disease it's attempting to prevent severe enough to offset the known risks of the vaccine? For most people without preexisting severe health problems and even among those who do, Covid isn't a huge deal. You're sick for a week and then you get over it. For some people with weakened immune systems, Covid is life-threatening, but that also applies to a host of other viruses. Ok, so that leads back to the original salient question: does the vaccine even work?

If the vaccine really worked as advertised, then I could at least understand your insistence that "additional information beyond direct personal experience" yields something compelling that we should look at.

At best, maybe the vaccine has been benign for most people…that we know of so far. A benign medication isn't a medication.

So again, what's the upside?

It seems to me the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

---

Yeah these are great questions. And you're right about risk reward.

Where I think you are not right is in the measure of efficacy. People keep coming back to a moving definition of work. What does work mean to you? Preventing a PCR positive test? Because literally none of the clinical trials ever checked for that. It was not intended to do that, it wasn't a goal. This is a simple fact, you can go and read. The goals were to prevent symptomatic disease, and severe disease, and death. The vaccine does all of these AND it also prevents transmission and infection. But it doesn't do them all equally well, and variants and time reduced the efficacy of all, but not equally. For example it reduced risk of infection by ~90% in the first few weeks of original but now that's ?? 30% maybe? After months and variants, but death went from 99% reduction to 90% reduction. you ask what's the point? The point is to keep people out of hospitals and keep them from dying. Transmission reduction is a secondary benefit. Again, you can go read influenza / pandemic planning docs from well before COVID and this is the public health focus.

As for the cost / benefit, again the answer is yes. For most people COVID is not serious. But the burden of death is not negligible - even a bulk infection fatality rate of 0.5% is bad. If we can reduce that by 90%, why not? And the sad reality is most Americans are not healthy. Nearly half of adults are obese, most have one or more risk factor to COVID.

Whatever the risk of the vaccine is, the disease far exceeds it. To me it is not really in question. That's why the overwhelming majority of Americans are vaccinated. The vocal minority, especially on this board, skews the perception.

---

In reading your response, I recognize that your goals are the same as mine - to protect people. We may differ in our level of risk aversion and there is no objectively correct level of risk aversion. Where we disagree is the objective means of accomplishing specified goals. We can respectfully disagree and hopefully keep our common objective in mind.

That said, the problem I and many other people have is with the exaggerated sale of the vaccine and the willingness to frame the benefits in a light most favorable to the pharmaceutical companies.

Pfizer, Moderna, the CDC, and others used relative risk reduction in order to claim "95% effective" instead of using absolute risk reduction where they'd only be able to claim "0.7%" and "0.6%" effectiveness. Such statistical tricks are textbook examples of "How to Lie With Statistics."

As a healthy young male, if I get covid without the vaccine I have a 99.9888% of survival. If I get the vaccine and if it is 95% of effective, my odds of survival increase to 99.99944% or .01%

Or said another way, I reduced chance of dying from .0112% to .00056% - or .01%.

Had people been told that "based on your condition, you can take the vaccine and whatever attendant risks you believe comes with it and in return your risk of surviving Covid improves by .01%, I think many people would have made a different decision regarding the vaccination.

Vaccines … and as far as I know all medicines .. always use relative risk reduction as the efficacy measurement. Absolute risk varies dramatically from person to person. Odds ratio vs placebo is much more generally applicable. I don't think it's nefarious.

Here's a good article I found that talks about all of them and the "passionate debate" going on in the scientific community about it. .
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2022.2067531

Zobel: "Whatever the risk of the vaccine is, the disease far exceeds it. To me it is not really in question. That's why the overwhelming majority of Americans are vaccinated. The vocal minority, especially on this board, skews the perception."

(End quote)

The overwhelming majority are vaccinated not because of demonstrated effectiveness, but instead because early on, a lot of people trusted that what they were being told was accurate. For many others, their continued employment hinged on it. I truly do not believe given what is known today that most would still get vaccinated… or at least a huge % of the population wouldn't be. And a lot of previously vaxxed have since joined the ranks of this "vocal minority" that is becoming ever-increasingly less minor.

The reason a lot of people have died from Covid is because it's extremely contagious and tenacious, at least in the beginning, and yes, even a tiny % of case fatality can equate to a lot of people when the damn thing spreads easily and hangs around for a long time.

All of that is a non-sequitur to the effectiveness of the vaccine. I simply don't see how you can say it's been effective by any measure when we're going on year 3 of Covid and it's still lingering and mutating into new varisnts despite the vast majority being vaccinated AND it doesn't discriminate between vaxxed and un-vaxxed.

Despite your claim, it has not been an effective barrier to either infection or transmission. If you disagree, fine. But you cannot convince me something that my own eyes have demonstrated false. This before you factor in the very real risks the vaccine presents, as my own family very aptly drives home.

I certainly do not believe the vaccine is superior to natural immunity.

Every day involves taking calculated risks.

Until you settle on a definition of "works" it's hard to align.

I've posted three major studies that show it does reduce transmission and infection.

The downside to natural immunity is that you have to get sick first.

Zobel said:

---

Until you settle on a definition of "works" it's hard to align.

.I've posted three major studies that show it does reduce transmission and infection.

The downside to natural immunity is that you have to get sick first.

---

And you know what? I can post multiple major studies that conclude otherwise, some of which has been posted on this board before. So, we are then left with trying to determine who is more credible. And the sources that conclude the opposite of yours is mirrored in what I've seen with my own eyes. Again…risk:reward.

My definition of "works" is you don't get or transmit Covid post-vax, as was the initial hype. And it's virtually impossible to postulate whether or not it reduces severity of symptoms if a vaxxed person still gets it (which is frequent); pure conjecture.

We have recently learned government entities have taken an active role in censoring speech it doesn't like, so that has to be factored in to "considering the source."

So where does that leave us?

Quote:

---

I can post multiple major studies that conclude otherwise

---

post them, please. i think it would be interesting to compare.

Quote:

---

My definition of "works" is you don't get or transmit Covid post-vax, as was the initial hype.

---

ok. by that definition vaccines didn't work, were never intended to work, and never would have worked. that was never the goal or outcome of the trials. transmission is incredibly difficult to test in a clinical setting.

i would suggest that is a poor definition of work.

Quote:

---

And it's virtually impossible to postulate whether or not it reduces severity of symptoms if a vaxxed person still gets it (which is frequent); pure conjecture.

---

this is demonstrably false. it's been shown multiple times in this thread. it was clearly shown in the clinical trials, but those are always limited. so that's the whole idea of observational studies. here's an article describing how they do this, what some of the strengths and weakness of these kinds of studies are. it is not "virtually impossible."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2113151

Quote:

---

We have recently learned government entities have taken an active role in censoring speech it doesn't like, so that has to be factored in to "considering the source."

---

this is a non sequitur. nearly every scientific journal was open during covid. there were something like 30,000 papers published, almost all of them were available as pre-prints. the sheer volume of open research is exactly why you have the poor studies available alongside the good ones - on both sides of the argument.

the evidence that has been published in many, many papers from multiple countries and multiple groups should give us more confidence, not less.

Quote:

---

So where does that leave us?

---

if you're going to stick to a personal definition of effectiveness that isn't shared by the manufacturers, the FDA, the CDC, or the people publishing papers we are at an impasse.

the only way i can try to address this is with high quality sources, and not one but many. the Cochrane Library publishes systematic reviews and meta analyses of medical literature. The founder started doing this back in 1972 to improve the understanding of care during pregnancy and childbirth. they have a consistent standard of how the compile evidence, and they publish reviews every month to answer specific research questions. they even offer an annual prize to a paper that offers constructive criticism of one of their reviews or of their organization in general. they're considered the gold standard of medical evidence. or, really, the gold standard of the gold standard... meta analyses or systematic reviews are the best kind of evidence, because they compile multiple studies to reduce the bias of any particular study, and Cochrane reviews are arguably the best of those.

here is the Cochrane review on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. it was just published on dec 7 2022. they break it down by efficacy against confirmed symptomatic covid, severe or critical covid, and serious adverse events, for 12 different vaccines.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015477/full

there is a LOT of good research out there, and plenty of bad. at some point you have to pick something to believe. hopefully you can make that based on high quality evidence, not twitter posts and movies.

Thaddeus Beauregard said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Until you settle on a definition of "works" it's hard to align.

.I've posted three major studies that show it does reduce transmission and infection.

The downside to natural immunity is that you have to get sick first.

---

And you know what? I can post multiple major studies that conclude otherwise, some of which has been posted on this board before. So, we are then left with trying to determine who is more credible. And the sources that conclude the opposite of yours is mirrored in what I've seen with my own eyes. Again…risk:reward.

My definition of "works" is you don't get or transmit Covid post-vax, as was the initial hype. And it's virtually impossible to postulate whether or not it reduces severity of symptoms if a vaxxed person still gets it (which is frequent); pure conjecture.

We have recently learned government entities have taken an active role in censoring speech it doesn't like, so that has to be factored in to "considering the source."

So where does that leave us?

---

Zobel it seems you have a significant amount of data and articles at your immediate disposal.

Does the death rate for Covid include comorbidities?

If yes, do you have a list of what many of them are?
What would be the actual death rate where there are no comorbidities?

Of this list, how much value do you think some of the more serious comorbidities contributed to actual cause of death? Otherwise worded how many could have been listed as cause of death heart attack with comorbidity of Covid? The other stats to look into on this might be was there a decrease in deaths on some of the comorbidities during covid.

Of the treatments lets use Ivermectin do you have any data on number died while being treated with Ivermectin?
How about Remdemisvir? or even combo of something plus ventilator?

So much wasted time and energy being spent on this thread trying to convince others that have no desire to be convinced.

I truly don't get what anyone gets out of it.

usually when people talk about death rate they're saying infection fatality rate, and that's "all-in" - all the deaths over all the cases (even undiagnosed ones). so, yes.

here's a paper that list them. the way they did it was an odds ratio. so whatever risk there was to a 40-49 year old with no comorbidities, the figure in table 2 multiplies times that.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-20176-w

the risk of death if diagnosed (this is not IFR) for 40-49 with no comorbidities is around 0.3%. age is by far the most significant comorbidity. other than age, obesity is next. so if you're obese in this study they found about 5x risk of death than a healthy 40-49 year old.

there's a cool website that the economist made that you can play with various comorbidities.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

Quote:

---

Of this list, how much value do you think some of the more serious comorbidities contributed to actual cause of death? Otherwise worded how many could have been listed as cause of death heart attack with comorbidity of Covid? The other stats to look into on this might be was there a decrease in deaths on some of the comorbidities during covid.

---

if theyre a comorbidity by definition they contributed to morbidity. it gets particularly complicated to separate age from comorbidity because the prevalence of comorbidities rises with age. it almost ends up being the same thing.

what you've asked is a huge question that i honestly don't have the skill to do justice to. the best i can do is try to find a decent paper to give a directional answer.

i looked through a couple and didn't find any that were super large or robust. the best i could find is a meta analysis that gives prevalence numbers for the most common comorbidities on a global basis using 120 studies. however it is from april 2021 and a majority of the studies were from asia, so maybe not the most reliable / up to date.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-88130-w

i think the noteworthy bit is that IFR is going to be population specific. the US population is unhealthy... almost half of americans are obese, almost half have hypertension, 10% have diabetes. since the US population had the highest portion of comorbidities it also had the highest number of comorbidities in covid cases. on the other hand, people in the US did better than those around the world within comorbidity groups, probably because our medical system doesn't suck.

Quote:

---

Of the treatments lets use Ivermectin do you have any data on number died while being treated with Ivermectin?

---

no idea how to get a total number of treated. here is the Cochrane review on ivermectin for treating covid.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

Quote:

---

How about Remdemisvir? or even combo of something plus ventilator?

---

no idea how to get that either. here's the Cochrane review for Remdesivir for covid
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014962/full

What else are we going to do? Argue about whether Petrino is a good hire or not?

sources provided here: link

Here's an analysis of the paper.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/

Zobel said:

---

What else are we going to do? Argue about whether Petrino is a good hire or not?

---

Hopefully Jimbo is paying him out of his own pocket.

Zobel said:

---

Here's an analysis of the paper.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/

---

Its simple enough to poke holes in studies - all studies have flaws and limitations.

completely agree! studies vary in quality and this one is particularly bad. that's why you should not go off of just one, and better yet use meta analyses.

Should also say. There are different kinds of studies. This isn't an experiment or observation. It's just going back and recalculating numbers. The logic they use to do that is what is in question.

Hey Zobel, what are your credentials? Just curious.

None. I'm an engineer. I like reading research papers.

Ok cool. I actually appreciate your perspective. I'm in medical device/regenerative medicine but I'm a businessman, so no scientific credentials either. I work with a lot of PhDs, tissue engineers, and PharmDs and they are all vehemently anti-Vax.

The article simply attempts to promote the benefits of the vaccine.
the serious events, (which is the topic here) not so much.
1 casual claim that 2 symptoms were counted on 1 patient and hence raised the totals.
(but no data to support the claim)

again, the 1 in 800 number is from Pfizer & Moderna clinical trials.

Strangely Attractive said:

---

Ok cool. I actually appreciate your perspective. I'm in medical device/regenerative medicine but I'm a businessman, so no scientific credentials either. I work with a lot of PhDs, tissue engineers, and PharmDs and they are all vehemently anti-Vax.

---

That's odd. 96% of doctors are vaccinated.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19

Whistle Pig said:

---

Strangely Attractive said:

---

Ok cool. I actually appreciate your perspective. I'm in medical device/regenerative medicine but I'm a businessman, so no scientific credentials either. I work with a lot of PhDs, tissue engineers, and PharmDs and they are all vehemently anti-Vax.

---

That's odd. 96% of doctors are vaccinated.

---

And are dying and have died.

Yeah, that's MDs. I work with a lot of MDs too and they're mostly vaccinated. They are also knee deep in seeing patients, etc. The PhDs and PharmDs I know are the opposite. Just my personal experience though.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Strangely Attractive said:

---

Ok cool. I actually appreciate your perspective. I'm in medical device/regenerative medicine but I'm a businessman, so no scientific credentials either. I work with a lot of PhDs, tissue engineers, and PharmDs and they are all vehemently anti-Vax.

---

That's odd. 96% of doctors are vaccinated.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19

---

Just like 98% of scientists believe in global warming, huh?

To be fair, most hospitals forced doctors to vaccinate. So it doesn't necessarily represent their personal convictions or even professional opinions on the subject. Fascism at its best.

Quote:

---

1 casual claim that 2 symptoms were counted on 1 patient and hence raised the totals.
(but no data to support the claim)

---

did you read the paper? here it is:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239

page 7 of the pdf under the section "Comparison with FDA reviews and post-authorization studies" it says:

Quote:

---

Instead, the difference in findings may in part be explained by the fact that the FDA analyzed the total number of participants experiencing any SAE, whereas our analysis was based on the total number of SAE events.

---

the direct (and erroneous) comparison between apples -- events -- and oranges -- hospitalized patients -- is also on page 7.

Quote:

---

In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants). In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).

---

the way they're counting, anyone in the vaccine arm could have unlimited serious events, but someone in the control arm can only be counted once if hospitalizaed for covid regardless of the number of events that entails.

what makes this an even worse comparison is that the definition of serious adverse events doesn't always include hospitalization.

Quote:

---

again, the 1 in 800 number is from Pfizer & Moderna clinical trials.

---

except it isn't. here's the supplementary data from the trials. feel free to read it yourself.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf

How many shots you up to now? Just curious.

only the first two, both pfizer. you?