Then we find out he died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm.
Then people still refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit their narrative they're pushing. And anyone who dies suddenly must have died because of the vaccine.
https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1603103342481342465
This killed John Ritter, George C. Scott, Lucille Ball and Albert Einstein. But somehow the vaccine is to blame for anyone who dies of it now...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/07/why-wont-a-de...
One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to save his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage his tragedy for their narrative.
One out of how many?
" The cluster of deaths back in the summer helped kindle what is now a fire — a conspiracy theory that today peddles a list of dozens of doctors online, including the three who died in July, as well as — according to its own descriptions — several who drowned, one who was in the middle of biking 105 kilometres and a doctor who died coming down K2, a mountain deadlier than Everest. "
It started out as "three" doctors, now it is "dozens".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/13/ron-desantis...
Which is all fun and games until you have to, you know, _live_ with them in the real world because they're your family and / or loved ones ?
Furthermore, we know hypertension is also associated with dissections, and there are several documented cases of acute and non-acute hypertension after MRNA covid vaccination [2]
I'm saying that to say there are some possibilities there, but I am also going to say the opposite too.
I don't know that we know enough about the adverse events associated with these vaccinations, and whether or not a vaccine is implicated, or if there was a previous medical condition.
Retrospectively speaking, I don't know that an autopsy would give us any novel answers either, because of the gaps we have around passive medical surveillance vs active medical surveillance.
I am sorry that Mr. Wahl died at such a relatively young age
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35646499/
[2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA...
1) Smoking (behavioral)
2) High blood pressure (dietary or genetic)
3) High cholesterol (dietary of genetic)
4) Marfan's syndrome (genetic)
Last I checked, doctors (who know these things) were seriously considering it was #4.
Genetic/History
Ehlers–Danlos syndrome
Loeys–Dietz syndrome
Marfan syndrome
Turner syndrome
Familial thoracic aortic aneurysms
Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which is an abnormal aortic valve
Diabetes, particularly uncontrolled diabetes
Lifestyle Habits
Aneurysms of blood vessels in other parts of your body
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Cardiovascular conditions, such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, and peripheral artery disease
Unhealthy blood cholesterol level
High blood pressure, which is the leading risk factor for thoracic aortic aneurysms but also a risk factor for abdominal aortic aneurysm
Bacterial infections, which are a risk factor for thoracic aortic aneurysms.
Kidney conditions, such as renal failure, chronic kidney disease, and polycystic kidney disease
Obesity
Pheochromocytoma external link , a rare tumors of the adrenal gland that can lead to high blood pressure
Vasculitis
[2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.110.0...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198737/
[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26901
I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I absolutely feel like I have to.
Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already.
There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how small the risk is over the vaccine that is all that matters.
In the case of COVID-19: you have to actively get the vaccine, meaning that people overweight its risks relative to the risks latent in not getting it.
It's good to point that out, but the first term needs to be multiplied by the chance of getting the virus.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
I don’t find this compelling at all. At the very least, the mRNA vaccines have the lipid nanoparticles themselves, and LNPs are quite clearly biologically active.
And the mRNA gets delivered to cells that would not be infected by the actual virus. One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to at some some extent by CD8+ T cells that learn to recognize spike protein. As far as I can tell, there is nothing published examining what actually happens, but you certainly don’t end up with massive death of muscle cells when vaccinated. See, for example, the comments here:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mrna-vaccines-what...
> One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to at some some extent by CD8+ T cells that learn to recognize spike protein.
This is exactly what we want to see happen, and you're going to get CD8+ T-cells from the virus as well (and if you don't, then you're going to get very extremely ill).
The tissue distribution is a reasonably good point, but that should be considered in light of the evidence that the virus itself likes to hide out in places like the gut and that liver and gut activation after vaccination may be protective. And if that argument is wrong, that would be an argument to try to produce nasal mRNA vaccines.
And at this point we do have a really massive amount of data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines and we're having to sift the data very closely to find effects lower than one in million. Other vaccines perform worse. I think it probably is because we're getting closer and closer to minimalism.
The LNPs are most certainly active in the quantities used:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221109/Empty-lipid-nanop...
(Also, you don’t have cell walls.)
> This is exactly what we want to see happen, and you're going to get CD8+ T-cells from the virus as well (and if you don't, then you're going to get very extremely ill).
No. What you want to see is protection from the virus, hopefully prevention of infection entirely, hopefully long lasting, hopefully in a form that the virus can’t easily evolve its way out of. And you want this with as little in the way of side effects as practical.
You might think this would happen with an appropriate antibody response or an appropriate CD8+ response or some combination or something else. That’s a hypothesis that may or may not be correct.
But saying that you want your T cells attacking your muscle cells after a vaccine seems absurd. Maybe you can tolerate that (as people apparently can), but I can’t imagine it’s desirable. As far as I can tell, the actual desired means to get CD8+ T cells is for antigen-presenting cells to present pieces of the protein in question attached to MHC1 on their surface, along with the appropriate signals to nearby T cells to encourage them to develop into the right kind of T cell. Your muscle cells are not those antigen presenting cells!
> And at this point we do have a really massive amount of data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines … Other vaccines perform worse.
I’m a fan of Covid vaccines too, but this feels like drinking the Kool-Aid. The chickenpox vaccine is effective. The measles vaccine is effective. The tetanus vaccine is pretty effective.
The current crop of monovalent Covid mRNA were highly effective from a week or so after the second dose out to quite a few months against variants closely enough related to the original. [0] Otherwise they are, frankly, far from highly effective. The bivalent vaccines, as far as I can tell, look decent in terms of immunogenicity, but haven’t really been studied well for efficacy against actual infection.
So maybe these mRNA vaccines achieve a form of minimalism, and maybe they’re better than other Covid vaccines, but on the scale of vaccines overall, they’re not great.
[0] Compare to the chickenpox vaccine. In actual randomized trials, they were nearly completely effective even in patients exposed to chickenpox a few days before vaccination. The two-dose series appears to protect recipients for life, or at least decades, strongly enough that epidemic chickenpox is gone in the US. And that continues to work despite chickenpox surely being reintroduced by visitors from abroad on a regular basis and from older infectious shingles patients. That is an effective vaccine.
There's several studies that have shown myocarditis from the virus is indistinguishable from previously-measured myocarditis in the population in general - that the virus isn't actually causing any. At least one of them included vaccine-caused myocarditis and showed it's several times higher.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
> Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
But also your source is kind of bad. It doesn't have an unvaccinated control group, so from that research there's no way to know if what they found was virus or vaccine related. But they did find an age and sex based correlation which lines up with other sources saying the vaccines are bad for young men:
> The risk of COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis was higher in men younger than age 40 after a first dose of an mRNA vaccine or after a second dose of any of the 3 vaccines.
There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article.
AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31]
COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micromorts
COVID-19 infection at age 25 – 100 micromorts
COVID-19 infection at age 55 – 4,000 micromorts
COVID-19 infection at age 65 – 14,000 micromorts
COVID-19 infection at age 75 – 46,000 micromorts
COVID-19 infection at age 85 – 150,000 micromorts [32]
NYT - Putting the Risk of Covid-19 in Perspective Is the risk of dying from Covid-19 comparable to driving to work every day, skydiving or being a soldier in a war?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-ris...
> Converting this to micromort language, an individual living in New York City has experienced roughly 50 additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly deadly year.
Rare is not zero - but if you are risk adverse, then avoiding things that are fairly high up on the risk counter would be reasonable. Likewise, if there are two options (driving in a car vs driving in a motor cycle), taking the one that adds the least amount of additional risk is reasonable.
For example, according to "Challenges in Inferring Intrinsic Severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant" (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2119682?query=fea...): "This meaningful but fairly small difference [vs Delta] implies that omicron, alpha, and wild-type SARS-CoV-2 have similar intrinsic severity."
Consider "traveling 230 miles by car is 1 micromort"... but that doesn't account for impaired driving or any of the other factors known to influence likelihood or survival of a car crash.
The numbers would likely change if you further specified them, but they are useful for the broad comparisons and risk analysis.
If you've got someone going skydiving every weekend, what does that do to their life insurance rates? Well, skydiving is 8 micromorts per jump. So that's 400 micromorts per year. And that goes into some insurance premium cost calculations.
From Wikipedia:
> Micromorts for future activities can only be rough assessments, as specific circumstances will always have an impact. However, past historical rates of events can be used to provide a ball park, average figure.
Another part of this is a study about risk acceptance.
> An application of micromorts is measuring the value that humans place on risk. For example, a person can consider the amount of money they would be willing to pay to avoid a one-in-a-million chance of death (or conversely, the amount of money they would receive to accept a one-in-a-million chance of death). When offered this situation, people claim a high number. However, when looking at their day-to-day actions (e.g., how much they are willing to pay for safety features on cars), a typical value for a micromort is around $50 (in 2009). This is not to say the $50 valuation should be taken to mean that a human life (1 million micromorts) is valued at $50,000,000. Rather, people are less inclined to spend money after a certain point to increase their safety. This means that analyzing risk using the micromort is more useful when using small risks, not necessarily large ones.
That last sentence is an important one when looking at this.
Would you be willing to be paid $150 to get vaccinated?
As always, xkcd explains it best: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant
Your link is not relevant to this issue so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
To be clear I support vaccination. But patients should make their own decisions free of coercion based on informed consent with full knowledge of the risks on both sides. Don't presume to patronize them with spurious, bad faith comments about "P-hacking". Let's see the actual data.
And FWIW, if you want a more complete (but much less amusing) explainer on the subject, wikipedia always comes through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
For example, peanut allergies don't exist because most people don't have reactions to them. You absolutely can ask the question for if peanuts are good or bad for a subpopulation.
The alternative is just sticking your head in the sand.
I'm not sure why you're trying to derail the discussion by bringing up data dredging. That would only potentially be relevant as a possible criticism of the methodology in a particular study. So what's your point?
It isn’t p-hacking for a dude to inquire what the chances are for the male subgroup.
For example, we know that a dubious methodology was used for counting deaths in Toronto (Canada's most populous city, and the fourth most populous city in North America).
This was publicly admitted to by Toronto Public Health itself, as early as June 2020:
"Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."
https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/127588839006028596...
I can't see how that significant city's death stats could be considered reliable or usable for analytic purposes, after considering how the counting was done. The provincial and national stats would also be affected to some extent.
This makes me quite doubtful about the stats coming out of other regions, too.
The meta-analysis is looking at that question that you are asking.
It also has all the papers that it cites for analysis and an analysis of its own limitations.
> The systematic review encompassed 113 studies, of which 27 studies (covering 34 geographical locations) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.
The closest I've seen to an answer is to remove accidental deaths (eg, hit by a car, firearms fatality, etc) but there's a huge range of arguable cases like stroke which is plausibly covid-affected. Second, you have the problem of comparing stats between locations that used different definitions, so it's harder to do post-hoc correlations.
The decisions seems to have been avoiding false-negative mistakes by increasing false positives in the first wave of analysis: "Let's include everything under a simple rule for covid stats so that we at least have some kind of worst-case baseline modelling with similar datasets, and we can figure out afterwards which are real and which aren't"
Anyway, just wanted to see if you actually have a better answer to the problem than the standard that was used.
The recent Paxlovid study supports this. It reduces deaths days 30-90. Deaths that would not be counted as Covid deaths. But they clearly are if paxlovid reduces them.
> "Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."
I don't know the particulars of Toronto Public Health, but this wasn't uncommon for immediate reporting vs death record reporting. Since, in many places, comprehensive death records can take a few weeks (or longer!) to go through the pipeline before ending up on finalized reports, it's useful to have more immediate death reporting during a pandemic. Such immediate reporting is necessarily going to be a little rougher around the edges, but it generally gets you pretty close to the real numbers.
But, it's absolutely true that this immediate reporting isn't perfect. Still, it's very useful, and usually close enough for near term needs. Taking the Toronto example, the main tradeoffs are that a) you include some deaths where Covid wasn't actually a contributing factor and b) you miss deaths where the person was never tested for Covid (especially applicable to deaths that occurred at home). Often, these two somewhat balanced themselves out, but only in places with fairly high levels of testing.
Then, in the medium to longer term, you can switch over to relying on more comprehensive death records. This helps to filter out non-causal scenarios (e.g. the "hit by bus, tested positive for covid, died" scenarios). It also helps add in cases that were initially missed (had symptoms of covid, never went to hospital, died at home, etc).
Finally, to validate numbers, we can also look at excess deaths. This helps ensure that we're not wildly off base with reported numbers. Excess deaths isn't a perfect metric to compare to, but it's still a great benchmark.
To wrap up this comment, let me respond to this:
> We have to be extremely cautious when considering any of the death-related statistics for this particular situation.
I fully agree, but.. I would suggest that your comment missed a lot of the accuracy refinement that happens in practice over the medium to longer term. Additionally, it's very much worth pointing out that, with additional analysis (from death records, from excess death analysis, etc), we've found that very few places were likely over-reporting Covid deaths, but that a significant number of places were under-reporting Covid deaths. So, yes, take shorter term Covid death stats with a grain of salt, but know that we've generally ended up reporting too low, not too high.
This is highly misleading. The average individual may be at such risk, just like humans have ~1.9 legs on average, but that doesn't mean that everyone walks around with their 1.9 legs.
So those statistics are based on the risk to the general population and therefore have approximately zero relevance to any single person.
Almost by definition, the disease will claim those most vulnerable first, so questioning whether vaccination is worth it for those less vulnerable is valid.
What're the risks of vaccination vs covid for a healthy 25 year old who works from home?
I don't believe that comparing those two is unreasonable.
However, to your last question that is what micomorts can answer.
The risk of death from a vaccination is 2.9 micromorts. The risk of death from contracting Covid-19 for a 25 year old is 100 micromorts. So 30x greater risk.. and those are directly comparable numbers.
The other point to consider - you're not always going to be 25. I'm much closer to the 55 bracket than the 25 bracket, and that represents a 40x increase in risk... so about 1200x greater risk than vaccination.
Assuming you remain a hermit for some number of years (and Covid-19 remains endemic), is there a point where you would change your mind on the value proposition of a vaccination? And if the answer is yes - why not do it now?
Yea, currently you're comparing 2.9 micromorts vs 100 micromorts. At 25, that comparison doesn't have too much to it. 100 micromorts is not something that I think too much about either (comparable to the risk of death while giving birth for the women out there). I've done road trips that racked up 100 micromorts cumulative (more if you add in the hiking and skiing micromorts on that trip).
I'll also note I'm older now than when I was when I did that roadtrip... and there are things that I would do now to further mitigate the risks that I took back then.
It's not wrong for your age, but it is something that should be said "yes, its a risk and it is a lot riskier."
That said, there's a number even beyond that 100 micromorts to consider.
New data shows long Covid is keeping as many as 4 million people out of work - https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid...
> 1.6 million full-time equivalent workers could be out of work due to long Covid. With 10.6 million unfilled jobs at the time, long Covid potentially accounted for 15% of the labor shortage.
That 4M number is not part that I want to be part of. While I have better than average health insurance, the not-dying also has a significant risk to it too. It is harder to quantify as it isn't an accurate cause of mortality - but it is not something that should be ignored.
Many people here enjoy better than average salaries - consider the risk of going on long term disability for the next 40 to 60 years with the corresponding reduction in compensation. And yes, I know people who are no longer able to work on anything that has a deadline or expectations of attendance in meetings; their lifestyle has changed significantly from three years ago.
So in other words it's pretty inflated.
1) Putting covid-positive patients in nursing homes instead of isolating them
2) Excess use of ventilators set to maximum
3) Omicron
4) I feel like I'm forgetting something...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm was a initial report on the excess deaths in NYC in the spring of 2020.
The by age micromorts are based on a paper that was published in December of 2020. Delta was first detected in the US in Feb of 2021 and named in May of 2021 - again, those numbers are before Delta and Omicron (and vaccination).
The numbers may not be current, but they are not inflated. They are an accurate representation of the excess deaths at that time.
> The numbers may not be current, but they are not inflated. They are an accurate representation of the excess deaths at that time.
That is exactly my point for mentioning Omicron: When you introduced them above you were using them for current risk.
I'd add to this the fact that it was especially true earlier in the pandemic, and at that time COVID was significantly more likely to be fatal. Even if someone rejects the idea of getting a fourth dose of the vaccine (rightly or wrongly), it's possible to think that the first two doses were an entirely reasonable one-time intervention into an ongoing pandemic that saved many thousands of lives.
I've read conflicting accounts of whether that's true or false, but even if it is - what difference does it make? We're not going to reach heard immunity here. Everybody's going to get it, several times throughout their lives, no matter what we do at this point.
Choosing not to take Advil affects nobody but you. Choosing not to get vaccinated against a highly-contagious virus affects society.
I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.
If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.
No? If they were the best form of contraception we had (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), of course people would use them! It would make abstinence marginally more appealing, of course, but there are already people who don't want or can't afford a pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception. There would certainly be an enormous number of people who would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex entirely.
If vaccination causes you to experience an early immune response, versus several asymptomatic days while unknowingly contagious, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to some of those you would have otherwise.
If vaccination results in a less severe infection with lower viral load, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to some of those you would have otherwise.
My reply was intentionally simple in order to drive home a point about selfish versus societal viewpoints.
Depends on what you mean by "covid" here. If you're referring to the virus, then no - this is a misconception. The vaccines at best only reduce symptoms, they don't stop infection or transmission.
> versus several asymptomatic days while unknowingly contagious
This was also an early guess that turned out to be wrong. We've known this wasn't a thing for years, at least before these vaccines.
> My reply was intentionally simple in order to drive home a point about selfish versus societal viewpoints.
Right now, getting vaccinated is the selfish action because it's likely to turn you into an asymptomatic spreader. At least when unvaccinated you'll know to stay home.
This is a) insane and b) directly contradicts the point you tried to make above it.
If I remember the timeline right it was mid/late 2020 we realized that assumption was wrong, then about a year later it was apparent the vaccines weren't stopping the spread. So yeah, my statements are entirely consistent: There wasn't before the vaccines, there was after.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was routine for medical institutions to be overwhelmed by respiratory viruses. We didn't halt society, we just accepted the consequences and moved on.
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
There's no non sequitur here: getting vaccinated reduces every demographic's risk of serious illness (even when serious illness is not especially likely!), which in turn reduces the burden on healthcare institutions. That is a good civic reason to get vaccinated that has nothing to do with transmission.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Look whatever you think about anything full hospitals everywhere and people in Spain being left for dead in old folks homes were definitely real things - I am not sure about your definition of "halt society" here but policy choices that reduced social contact in indoor spaces was absolutely required. You just can't rewrite history if that is what you are trying to imply.
Is it? No. It is not. Not even for the best protected youngest cohort. Get your shot. You're being misled by politics and tiny, difficult numbers.
In my case i vaccinated because i knew i was a transmission node in case of being infected and not noticing, potetially endangering multitude of vulnerable people.
In some cases, it may well be true that the vaccine is a greater risk than the virus. For example, in Australia, the official recommendation is that people under 30 not receive a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine, since Australian health officials believe the risk from vaccine side effects (such as myocarditis) in that age group outweighs the risk of COVID-19 itself. [0] Furthermore, in the 30-49 age group, the official Australian position on fourth doses is "permitted but not recommended", since it is unclear if the risk of COVID-19 is greater than that of the vaccine. This is different from the recommendations made by a number of other countries (US, UK, Canada, Singapore), but it appears Australian health authorities weigh the risk of vaccination side effects versus the risk of COVID-19 differently than they do.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-you-won-t-get-another-co...
> People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.
———
[0]: https://sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Vaccination-against-cov...
Additionally, I think it's very easy to see something like "Denmark doesn't recommend the vaccines to anybody under 50" and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the age of 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on anti-vax sites). But that isn't the case. What was good health policy in 2021 is different from good health policy now, because we have way more information about the virus, better and more effective drug to treat it, new variants, etc.
Two things can be true at the same time: The vaccines are (on net) incredibly beneficial to people and the population as a whole, and yet at the present time there are certain specific populations of people whose optimal number of doses might be fewer than others.
Sure. But if a person is aware that other countries have different policies, that gives them a legitimate reason to question whether the policy of their own country is correct. If a person looks into the matter, and decides not to follow the recommendations of their own government, because they think some other country's government is more likely to have got it right, such a person isn't necessarily being irrational/irresponsible/etc, nor would it necessarily be irrational/irresponsible/etc for them to share their conclusion with others.
> and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the age of 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on anti-vax sites)
Yes, many people do seem to conflate these two claims:
(1) "for healthy children and young people, the safety risk of additional doses of the vaccine currently outweighs the risk of COVID-19"
(2) "for healthy children and young people, the safety risk of any dose of the vaccine has always outweighed the risk of COVID-19"
While the claim (1) is disputed, some highly respected medical experts agree with it; the same cannot be said for claim (2).
However, I think this conflation goes in both directions – some people who want to defend (2) do so by conflating it with (1); but conversely, some people attack (1) by conflating it with (2).
Some people can't distinguish reasonable scepticism about vaccinations from unreasonable scepticism.
It also is difficult position for health agencies to be in, because they want to make clear guidelines to prevent confusion, but there are gray areas. For example, it's completely possible that:
(a) The benefits outweigh the risks of a 4th shot for any age group
or
(b) The risks outweigh the benefits of a 4th shot for some or all age groups [not because the risk are high, but the benefits so low]
AFAIK, there aren't any super high quality studies anywhere in the world that have robust data on the 4th shot in particular for all age groups. So one health agency might guess one way, another health agency might guess another way. Reasonable people can disagree. The CDC got a little bit ahead of the science when they were initially recommending the 3rd shot, but in the long run it was proven to be a good gamble that no doubt saved thousands of lives. But now maybe that same logic is a mistake for the 4th shot.
But regardless of the CDC's recommendations, most people seem to have figured out the cost/benefit for themselves: The vast majority of people in the US have 2 shots, a little under half have the booster, and very few have the 4th shot. Most people probably have made the right choices for themselves given the various risks and benefits for them personally.
But I cannot say I know that the bridge won't collapse.
Knowledge is a true and justified belief. But trust is not a justification - quite the opposite. If you had a justification, you wouldn't need trust.
Trust whomever you want, on whatever basis you want, but that's fundamentally not reason or rationality, it's just an argument from authority [1]. No statement becomes more true just because someone said it, regardless of who they are.
I'm not saying it's easy or even possible to do in practice. Science is insanely complex. But let's not confuse trust for rationality, not least of which because it brings to the fore the very real need for institutions that are worthy of our trust.
A statement can become more likely to be true just because someone said it, depending on the nature of the statement and the person making it. For example, my brother is an oncologist. If I had some health concern about cancer, I would certainly be asking for his opinion. His opinions on that topic are not guaranteed to be correct, but as an oncologist, they are significantly more likely to be correct than that of the average person.
One problem with the frequent popular invocation of claimed "fallacies", such as "argument from authority", is many of them are only strictly speaking fallacious when used as purely deductive arguments, but real world human reasoning isn't purely deductive, it involves a great deal of induction and abduction as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with an "argument from authority" as an inductive or abductive argument.
> Knowledge is a true and justified belief. But trust is not a justification - quite the opposite. If you had a justification, you wouldn't need trust.
One can estimate the conditional probability P(proposition X is true|agent A says that X is true) based on observations of what kinds of things agent A has said in the past, and how many of them turned out to be true or false, and also for other agents similar to them. You can then use that conditional probability estimate to inform your own decision as to how much credence to give to proposition X. That is both trust and justification.
I think we may agree in practice if not in theory. I did have the Hume-an problem of induction explicitly on my mind. It would be quite fair to say my epistemology is quite conservative.
There's a fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
(Also, that wiki page mentions that many authors don't see it as a fallacy.)
Other countries compared to who? Not everyone here is from the same country as you :)
I don't think anyone is making a value judgment based on where the policy is from.
Now, much of the population has become either naturally or through vaccination much less susceptible to poor outcomes from a covid infection, and this is especially true of younger people.
So the response to covid was never really about the health of the population as much as it was about the health of the hospitals. The risk to the hospitals is now much lower and therefore the reasonable vaccination effort has now changed.
Meanwhile many EU countries have understood that heart problems are a real risk and have adjusted recommendations accordingly. They’ve also stopped obsessing about vaccinating people.
The vaccination crusade’s dead folks, please stand by for the next pandemic.
I don’t know if there’s already a name for this phenomenon…
Any moron can understand the idea of a round Earth and stuff orbiting around it. It takes a genius to comprehend the sublime intricacies of ether vortex theory which explains how a flat Earth can still permit satellites to stay airborne over the plane.
I've met an extremely intelligent person who was convinced we never landed on the Moon and that Stanley Kubrick faked the whole thing and left clues to this in his production of The Shining. I've also met one who thinks the Nazis invented anti-gravity and are hiding the technology to this day in underground bases in Antarctica and South America.
There are also a lot of crazy and intelligent people. I certainly know so many, it almost becomes a correlation.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
(which is an entertaining movie if you haven't seen it).
The only reasonable course I can see is to not take any chances and vaccinate early and vaccinate often.
There is zero evidence for a "haha i told you you were being misled" position. You are performing either foolish or disingenuous logical gymnastics to equate something like "adjusted recommendations accordingly" with "it was intentionally misleading the whole time."
Show me a place where people haven't adjusted their behavior as the virus has evolved, more time has passed creating more data, vaccination rounds have been administered, death rates have evolved, and exposure/infection has happened. It ain't here in liberal California, so is there any such strawman place you're arguing against in the US? Go out on the street and look around and observe that people are being rational and adapting over time instead of keeping up your silly little "haha i'm smarter than you you fell for a hoax" keyboard battle.
It should be stressed that this guidance explicitly refers to a fourth dose of a vaccine. I feel it's disingenuous to use this example to try to refute the OP when the problem lies in people taking massive leaps of logic such as going from "it's ok to take 3 doses of a vaccine but the benefits of a fourth might not justify it" to "don't get vaccinated ever because you will die".
That's not what the Australian health authorities are saying. They aren't just saying that "the benefits of a fourth might not justify it", they are saying "(for healthy young people) the health risks of the fourth dose likely outweigh the health benefits"–your rephrasing ignores that safety risk aspect.
In my mind, there are three different positions here:
(1) "Vaccines are perfectly safe, and anyone who even mentions death or serious injury caused by vaccination is just being an alarmist"
(2) "Everyone who took the deadly COVID vax is about to drop dead! Just watch!"
(3) "Vaccines have real safety risks, some people have died from vaccination, and it is certain that more people will die from them in the future. However, sometimes, the risk of death or disability from the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent, is going to be significantly higher than the risk of death or disability from the vaccine. Whether or not that is true in any particular case is going to vary depending on the particular disease, its current prevalence, availability of treatments for it, etc; whether the disease or the vaccine poses the greater health risk will vary across time, place, disease and vaccine; our estimates of those respective risks are always going to be imperfect, evolving, and open to informed disagreement; generally we should trust the public health authorities to make that judgement for us, but they are not infallible, and it can be legitimate to doubt or question their judgement in any particular case"
I see myself as defending (3), whereas what some other people in this conversation are saying seems to me to be closer to (1), and also encouraging the fallacious conflation of (3) with (2).
Summarized: The Covid vaccines have real safety risks for which there is a body of evidence, that taken in totality, leads one to believe that the temporal and Absolute Risk Reduction of =< 0.85% is not worth the adverse events. Given the suppression of data around the true adverse events, and the time limited protections from the vaccines, it should be used sparingly after the patient is fully informed of the risks, and minimal protections provided. Given the uniqueness of each patient's medical situation though, patients are in the best position to decide if their comorbidities are sufficient to merit the risks of these vaccines. Similarly to the Nordic countries, any younger person without severe comorbidities < 50 should not take the vaccine, but they should be able to make their own decision fully informed of the risks and limited protection, and without any type of coercion.
I don't believe that all Covid vaccines share the same risks since the microgram dosing of the MRNA vaccines vary greatly, and the Novavax vaccine [2] [3] is coming onto the scene, unfortunately with a few of the same adverse events as the MRNA vaccines though
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2022.2...
This is a red herring.
It's irrelevant if anyone feels that the 3rd or 4th or 5th dose of Pfiser's increases health risks. The problem is the misrepresentation of these findings. You cannot in good faith jump from "a residual number of people experience health issues when taking the 4th or 5th dose of Pfiser's vaccine" to "do not take any vaccine at all ever or you'll die" specially when they deny that COVID poses a threat and already killed over 6million people.
You're talking about health concerns of taking a vaccine when not taking the vaccine poses a far greater threat, and somehow that's left out of the equation. That's the problem: the disingenuous misrepresentation of the problem.
I'm genuinely curious what you mean here about "changing their narratives a dozen times about the efficacy of the vaccines"?
These people never seem to have a problem with the changes in the polio vaccine over the years, or chickenpox
Yes, because that's how science works. When new information is acquired, new hypotheses are created and tested.
If science can't make up its mind and this is "how science works," anyone who thinks anything should be mandated based on science should be shot. You can't tell people something, have it directly and deeply affect their personal lives, then tell them something substantially different 2 years later, without people grabbing pitchforks. Your theoretical definition of science is irrelevant and makes popular perception of "science" a whimsical joke.
Historically, the majority of opposition to vaccines has been "left-wing" rather than "right-wing". It was only really with COVID that it suddenly picked up on the right as well. I've had some rather frustrating conversations online with people (mostly Americans it seems) who are utterly convinced that it is fundamentally a "right-wing" phenomenon, and seem to just want to ignore the evidence of its long history among self-identified "progressives":
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/how-one...
I can think of two people my wife and I know personally who are vocally "anti-vax" – one is a rather conservative Christian, the other is a woman with a long-standing interest in the New Age / Tarot / occult / crystals / psychics / alternative medicine / etc. The first, when I was younger (15–20 years ago), I used to run in his circles a lot, and I never heard anybody say anything remotely against vaccines at any of the churches / youth groups / bible studies / etc I used to go to with him. He only started becoming "anti-vax" around when COVID started, and it obviously had a lot to do with US politics (he was a big Trump fan, and so was his church–I'm not sure if they still feel the same way about him now), despite living on the other side of the planet. Even then, he was always primarily "anti-COVID vax" rather than "anti-vax" in general.
Our "New Age" friend, her being "anti-vax" was entirely expected, because "anti-vax" opinions have always been very common among people like her. She became very political about it around COVID, organising protests, etc. It became even more intense when she lost her government job (as an adult vocational education teacher) due to her refusal to be vaccinated against COVID. But, the anti-vax protest movement she became involved in was rather left-leaning, it was all composed of New Age types, hippies, etc, who live in a "hippy area" (the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales). I think if someone like our other friend – a conservative Christian spouting pro-Trump rhetoric – had turned up at one of her protests, she would have run them off.
> Note that extreme idealogies sort of "wrap around" the political spectrum
I don't know if that's really true though. While opposition to COVID vaccination may be one of the very few things these two friends of ours could agree on, I think their reasons for their respective positions are very different. I'm not sure the whole "wrap around" or "horseshoe" thesis is really that useful in understanding why two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum may occasionally end up agreeing on something, even something outside the mainstream.
Furthermore, entering the military requires accepting a predefined list of vaccines and that is understood when entering - but adding new vaccines requires following the USC Code, which if you read, I can fully understand why some would feel very uncomfortable with it, and may feel that their protections against being "guinea pigs" have been ran around, as the USC Code would imply that this should not have happened so easily.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title10/html...
I think this frequent conflation of "science" with "public health authority interpretations of science" is rather misguided – and it isn't just "anti-vax" people who commit that conflation, many "pro-vax" people do the exact same thing. I've always been supportive of vaccination – indeed, I have all my recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccine – but I think the excessive rhetoric which some people use against those who express doubts has been very harmful – it has actually been a major unnecessary setback in the cause of encouraging vaccination.
But the best one, to me, is when we go back at the very root... "You're a conspiracy theorist like those who believe the moon landing was faked if you don't accept that it's a pure coincidence that the outbreak started in a market next to a lab known to do gain-of-function research on modified bat viruses".
That tune changed too and, at least, discussing the lab leak possibility became acceptable.
It's all seriously WTF. I got two Pfizer shots but I always fought for and respected those who didn't want to get the shot.
And with all the evidence out now and all the countries saying: "We don't recommend a fourth shot if you're below this or that age", I certainly don't plan to ever get a third shot.
It's not a bad thing for experts to change their opinion as new evidence comes out.
It's only been 2 years, they were announced at the end of 2020.
Please cite instances of "browbeating" from Fauci or other prominent public health figures. Please support this wild story in, well, any way at all.
> The problem is the massive leaps of logic being made by people who have (quite wrongly, based on available evidence) become convinced that the vaccines are a greater threat to healthy people than the virus is.
I believe the problem is that we were so convinced that our solution to covid was infallible that we removed a basic human right: the ability to make informed choice about your medical care.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most people involved did this out of a genuine desire to save lives and help people.
The issue is the hubris.
The idea that "I know better than you do what's good for you and for society, so I'm going to force you to do a thing".
This is where we went wrong. The forcing.
If we'd presented vaccination as informed choice, had recommendations but not coercion, I think there would have been a lot less resistance.
We decided that public health was a trump card that allowed us to ignore almost every civil liberty the U.S. was founded on.
We actively limited speech and debate, going to far as to silence and destroy the lives and careers of qualified physicians who dissented.
We restricted freedom of assembly.
We seized property through forced business closing without compensation.
We restricted free movement.
We coerced vaccination in the strongest possible ways shy of physical force.
The list goes on.
We did this out of a hubris that "we know better than you".
It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not, it's fundamentally anti-liberal.
It's made worse by the unfortunate fact that in most cases we were wrong.
Asymptomatic spread wasn't a thing. The initial studies that said it was were based on flawed methodology. Even China isn't counting asymptomatic cases anymore.
Pretty much every model that we based policy off of, predicting extreme fatality rates and recommending extraordinary interventions, were dead wrong.
As others have pointed out, mortality counts were wildly off due to many factors, including how death certificates were filled out (died with covid v/s died from covid).
The vulnerable populations were identified fairly early on, but we chose to implement draconian restrictions for everyone, regardless of their individual risk.
This was the problem.
Hubris.
Fuck authoritarians!
Never forget.
Totally.
And what was the gov's response? An even greater swing toward authoritarianism - the Canadian government literally locked people out of their own bank accounts, seized property and arrested and charged hundreds.
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. The anger is still palpable. And its going to simmer til our current gov is replaced.
This has never really been shown to be that accurate considering the excess deaths from the averages every year. You’re ignoring an inconvenient fact.
I took screen shots almost daily of all-cause mortality stats through the lockdown.
The entire time it tracked pretty close to the expected linear increase that we see year over year with an aging population, with the exception of a bump in April that was almost exclusively New York City. Given the reported quality of care issues that drove a lot of that, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
I also saw a sudden jump in these numbers right at the end of the year. Could have been completely legitimate due to delays in reporting, but for some reason the CDC refuses to release anonymized data sets that would allow independent analysis.
Which is highly abnormal.
Additionally, all-cause mortality measures don't do a good job of indicating covid deaths, necessarily. Many deaths were due to delays of care for critical conditions. I experienced this myself, and was fortunate to not have become a statistic. We had deaths of despair, and we have several conflicting studies about those. We also have a significant (maybe majority) number of the deaths attributed to covid being a six to twelve month acceleration of death for those who were at end of life, especially the elderly with comorbidities.
While sad, it's not quite the terrifying tragedy that the numbers without nuance present. It will be interesting to see if 2022 and 2023 see a concomitant dip in expected mortality.
I also spent countless hours hunting down source data (as much as was available) understanding how Covid ID was generated for cross region case tracking, data collection methodology and evaluting transmission studies and models.
I saw massive revisions of numbers post-investigation in several counties, such as Collin county in TX.
If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that the data is a collosal mess. If you spend any time digging into the data collection methods and how reporting was happening you'd see this for yourself.
FWIW, my background is in healthcare logistics, data analysis and technology.
So if you are aware of some facts that I'm ignoring, I'd love to understand them.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-...
I wonder what happened in 2020 and beyond that so many more died? It must just be the weather
But here, I'll save you some time. Those pretty graphs you're linking to use the HMD database as the primary source through Feb 2021.
Take a look at how the HMD database derives it's numbers [1].
Now we can discuss the issue in rational, educated terms.
[1]https://www.mortality.org/File/GetDocument/Public/Docs/Metho...
2018 - 2,839,205
2019 - 2,854,838
2020 - 3,383,729
Expected deaths for a given year are based on a combination of factors such as the population age, and function fitting previous trends. It would have been around 2.9 million for 2020.
So the raw excess death count for 2020 is somewhere south of 500k.
Many of these deaths were due to covid directly. The vast majority of which were people already at end of life, very elderly and with significant comorbidities.
We're still doing research on how many of these excess deaths were due to downstream effects of covid interventions, such as lack of access to care, deaths of despair, etc...
Also, when researching all cause mortality in 2020 and 2021 make sure to take into account fentanyl, which has exploded during those years and account for over 100,000 deaths in 2021 alone.
Honestly, I seriously doubt it. I think the resistance would have been about the same; even the most gentle "recommendation" would have been cast as coercive by those who oppose the vaccine now. All a more "gentle" approach would have done is to dissuade those on the fence.
My understanding is that there've always been risks associated with vaccines, and they were always relatively small risks. What I can't find any unbiased information about is how the risks of the Covid vaccine compare with the risks of, say, the mumps or rubella vaccines.
- I was curious
- I went to OECD to get datasets for COVID, excess, and all mortality [1]
- I subtracted COVID deaths from excess deaths to get “likely non-COVID excess deaths”
- then I made a chart [2], showing the ratio of COVID to non-COVID; log-2 scale with a black line at zero (equal COVID and non-COVID)
- I expected mostly COVID excess, like during the delta wave near the 2020/2021 boundary
- chart doesn’t look like that
- I would like the FDA to explain more, including serious studies
What is wrong about that process?
[1] - https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
[2] - https://zmichaelgehlke.com/images/relative-mortality.png
Your graph does clearly have a peak at the 2020/2021 boundary, that falls down after the vaccines got widespread, by the middle of 2021 (with most countries going into negative excess deaths). There is another, smaller peak at the end of 2021, that's when omicron got widespread.
What exactly were you expecting to see?
You’re not seeing countries go into negative excess in 2021 and 2022 — you’re seeing non-COVID excess surge.
I was expecting during the omicron wave that we had more than two COVID deaths compared to non-COVID excess deaths — and that more broadly, we’d see more COVID than other excess death
What we see instead is that during the height of omicron, 33% of the excess death was non-COVID — and that for most of 2021 and 2022, 66% of the excess death was non-COVID.
What has been killing as many people as a global pandemic? — and if there’s so many non-COVID excess deaths, did our policies help?
Negative excess deaths through the pandemics were pretty common and very well explained.
Anyway, such concepts like "non-COVID excess" doesn't even start to make sense. Either you are determining the death causes, or you are doing statistical analysis over unknown causes.
When that chart turns negative, it means that the ratio of COVID deaths to non-COVID excess is less than one, ie there is more non-COVID excess death than COVID deaths. When there is no non-COVID excess, but still COVID deaths, the chart shoots up; when there’s none of either, it clamps to the black line. This is a log-scale chart of their ratio; that solid black line represents a ratio of 1, ie, equal amounts.
The chart going below the black line represents positive excess death in a ratio that favors non-COVID excess deaths.
Edit: I’ve added a log chart of excess deaths, with the black line at zero, ie, the expected amount.
https://zmichaelgehlke.com/images/shaded-excess-mortality.pn...
> concepts like "non-COVID excess" doesn't even start to make sense
Sure they do: excess deaths which exceed the number of registered COVID deaths in the same period. We can detect that by looking at all cause mortality and subtracting identified COVID mortality.
That may be true overall (and it may not btw, only time will tell), but it's certainly not true on a by-indvidual basis. Someone who's, say, 18 with no major health disorders is going to experience a lot more risk of adverse outcome from any of the vaccines than from SARS-CoV-2. That's partially a function of the incredible SARS-CoV-2 outcomes in the "not old" age range but also because vaccination is also a fundamentally different intervention than exposure to the entire SARS-CoV-2 virus. If we're talking about the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/moderna/etc), those are basically spike protein mRNA suspended in lipid nanoparticles. It makes your cells express the spike protein, not the whole SARS-CoV-2 virus. So metaphorically speaking you're getting pure spike protein antigen, and different peoples' genetic predispositions/etc are going to play out differently in that scenario as opposed to contact with the normal virus.
...Like those of the people in the case report we're looking at.
The mRNA vaccines have a modified spike protein, that is non functional compared to natural infection. On top of that, cells naturally infected with covid also express the spike protein [1], and would do so in far greater amounts than what would be caused by the vaccine.
People's different genetic dispositions will change their immune response, and that might maybe change how they respond to the vaccine as opposed to the virus. But there's no way of knowing which way you will fall, and our current evidence suggests that getting the vaccine is probably always the safer alternative.
This study looked at 25 cases of unexpected death in
Fair enough, but where is that data? Why a study of only 25 if there are millions?
It's not a conspiracy theory to say such things simply don't add up. The largest drug test in history and no encompassing and definitive follow up? Why?
Not trolling. Serious question (i.e., why).
Shouldn't people decide that for themselves?
Note, I am not saying you are saying it is not that they should decide for themselves, it is more that yours is the same logic used to defend vaccine mandates.
Before the vaccine mandates and coercion I had a seething hatred of corrupt and incompetent little tyrants in positions of power, afterward was nothing new, it just confirmed what I already knew about them. I don't care if I would have a statistically better outcome with the vaccine, I took great pleasure in standing up and defying their bullying and coercion. The wailing and the gnashing of teeth and name calling and crocodile tears from these pathetic clowns about people not getting vaccinated really warmed my heart gave me great pleasure and has mentally helped me tremendously in the past few years. I'm actually starting to feel a bit sad they're slithering back into their holes now, I was hoping for a showdown, but these people are nothing if not cowards like all bullies so this is to be expected.
What surprised me more was how many and how quickly people folded, or never even had any concerns in the first place. Obviously a good portion of the population are a meek and subservient type who just want to be ruled. After that a good number are flighty and will panic and run with the heard if something spooks them, sadly a trait that's easily exploited. I really should not have been surprised though, I've seen the same dynamic play out time and time again to start wars, invade privacy, take rights, and take money so irrational optimism that it would be different next time is my failing.
What’s warmed my heart is most Covid deaths being from the unvaccinated. Clearing out the weak and stupid even sooner than natural causes.
Strawman.
> What’s warmed my heart is most Covid deaths being from the unvaccinated. Clearing out the weak and stupid even sooner than natural causes.
And the wailing and gnashing of teeth continues. You sound like a nasty, sick person xcrunner529. They don't make a jab for that.
There really should be real life DARWIN awards.
The great thing, it’s mostly right wing voters dying. :)
It wasn't, this is just how you're coping with your cognitive dissonance.
> There really should be real life DARWIN awards.
There are. They are called the Darwin Awards. They have a website and everything.
> The great thing, it’s mostly right wing voters dying. :)
No I know you don't really mean it, you're just angry and lashing out because you've been wrong and humiliated so many times. You're a good person deep down I think.
And surprise surprise, you're wrong about this too. Vaccination rates correlate highly with age, and so do right wing political beliefs.
Because the vaccine is more beneficial for older people. And people can in fact make reasonable decisions about their health. Incredible isn't it?
I didn't "admit" any such thing. My post is there for everybody to read.
> can you really blame people for seeing that decision as irrational?
I don't care what people think of my choices, but I never blamed people or complained about what they think of me. On the contrary I was quite explicit that a large segment of the population sees subservience to authority and following the herd as positive things and can simply never comprehend an objection to authoritarianism or see anything wrong with medical coercion "for the greater good, according to our betters". Clearly they will think my decision is irrational.
I don't understand this line of reasoning.
If one is being bullied and coerced into what you and I both consider to be the correct decision, one ought to a) make the correct decision, and then b) deal with the bullies?
But that's really aside, as I said it's not about the clinical benefit of the treatment. I have principles and I have pride, and it would hurt me mentally to do what they tell me. I believe on balance this choice is better for my health. I know several people who didn't want to get the vaccine but were forced to for their jobs, and are deeply upset by that.
I perfectly realize that there are people who get fearful and panicked and are comforted by subservience to authoritarian leaders, who will never understand my line of reasoning. Just like I will never understand theirs. But I can empathize with them -- it must have been terrifying for them, and I don't blame them for being riled up and angry at people who disagreed with them and with their authorities.
What made me sad was how little empathy there has been from people towards what they don't understand. I guess it goes with the fear mindset, fear of the unknown, the other.
This is how they prey on us, I guess.
For healthy persons in certain age group, COVID risk is almost missing. If they don't want vaccine, regardless of taking 3 doses, I have no right to tell them to take not-thoroughly tested vaccine to help reduce the spread at the potential cost of their own.
The solution is more open studies and acknowledge statistical (in)significance of vax side effects instead of trying to shove it under conspiracy and censorship. Oh, and dont lie about vaccine effectiveness.
This study looked at 25 cases of unexpected death in people aged 46-75 and found 5 cases of myocarditis. Without any control group to compare to, there is literally nothing that can be drawn from this study about the risk presented by the vaccine, and the authors admit as much:
"The nature of our autopsy study necessitates that the data are descriptive in quality and does not allow any epidemiological conclusions in terms of incidence or risk estimation."