- "According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year in the U.S., RSV leads to approximately 60,000-120,000 hospitalizations and 6,000-10,000 deaths among adults 65 years of age and older."
Those are respectively 0.1 – 0.2%, and 0.01% – 0.02%, annual risks for this subgroup (55 million persons).
The OP discusses three studies, with a combined N of about 17,500 (12,500 + 2,500 + 2,500) (the non-placebo groups). They apparently attribute one death to this vaccine (in combination with an influenza vaccine), which is 0.006% of the participants of the three studies.
I don't know how to interpret this. The FDA's endpoints are "RSV-associated [lower respiratory-tract disease]" and "severe RSV-associated LRTD". Okay. I guess they're ignoring mortality because its small-number statistics aren't meaningful to interpret. But then why endorse a vaccine at all, if the mortality rate is so low? You'd need a vastly larger study to answer the question "does this therapy increase or decrease the risk of death", because the probabilities are microscopic on both sides.
You should inform yourself more, because your statement is false. There are plenty studies monitoring covid vaccine injuries and deaths among youth. Numbers are high.
In the 15-24 age group VAERS reports 14 deaths. That is not cause by vaccine, but deaths in the months following vaccination, including suicides and infections.
These death totals do not substantially pass the baseline for expected deaths in that population. In none of these cases has spike protein been observed on heart tissue, which is the potential vector for vaccine induced myocarditis and can be performed visually under standard microscopy.
Feel free to cite studies supporting your claims (genuinely, not sarcasm, but making positive claims about factual matters can and should be supported by evidence).
I think it is only fair, that since T0bia did list his studies, that
elif also be asked to list his studies that zero deaths are linked to covid vaccinations...
It is simply not possible to have study about zero death from covid vaccines. Multiple user here has personal experience with death/injuries from covid vaccinations. Those studies I posted would be lies. And it's just a fragment. Somehow not covered by mass media. Probably because that would be open admission of complicity in the dissemination of false safety information about vaccines in recent years.
Trust is fragile and loose when anecdotal evidence is differnet with official agenda.
After the 2016 election, I became super interested in epistemology and how we learn things (including effects of trust and influence). In practice, we know almost nothing from first principles and we “know” almost everything because we heard/read it from sources we trust.
The difficulty with COVID is that people who either trust or distrust the vaccines have strong priors and discussions like this thread don’t spend the time to understand each others priors, hence the reasons they trust different sources.
Example: a pro-vaccine arguer probably understands that VAERS entries are not necessarily vetted, may represent post hoc ergo promoter hoc fallacies, and should be taken with a grain of salt. An arguer on the other side may assume that all VAERS entries represent a floor (perhaps many other side effects were somehow prevented from being reported). The truth is most likely somewhere in between the positions of the two arguers.
> Trust is fragile and loose when anecdotal evidence is differnet with official agenda.
Trust has little bearing on the objective truth. Most people trust other people who haven’t proven to be trustworthy. Your statement could be about fraud in the 2020 election. Despite low trust in the election (initially among Republicans, but that distrust has spread to independents and Democrats), no election fraud claims have withstood scrutiny. Repeatedly stating distrust has created more distrust, despite no more evidence that we should distrust it (since early 2021).
Trust in mass media has historic low. Covid agenda is one reason. No wonder that sensation and tabloidisation of news is new normal. They desperately trying to keep business run. However it makes news agenda almost irrelevant.
(1) One of my points is that trust is perception, not reality. I don’t care that people are increasingly distrustful of “media” because that term is both polymorphic and loaded. We currently have some of the best media available in the history of the world. Just because many other outlets are low quality or conflate facts with opinion doesn’t disprove my previous sentence.
(2) The more you use the word “agenda”, the more you sound like you have political motives as opposed to curious + minimally biased. If your goal is to spread factual information, use the language of facts. If it is to be political, then continue using the language of politics / those who spread conspiranoia.
- We currently have some of the best media available in the history of the world.
Please, name those best avalible media.
- If your goal is to spread factual information, use the language of facts.
How can I do that on internet?
Also... Official news about covid was unfortunately more political, than anyone would like to have it. Opposite opinions and discussion was not present and those who disagreed was discriminated and censored. Those signs are discribed in terms of propaganda - official and only one allowed agenda.
Those are respectively 0.1 – 0.2%, and 0.01% – 0.02%, annual risks for this subgroup (55 million persons).
The OP discusses three studies, with a combined N of about 17,500 (12,500 + 2,500 + 2,500) (the non-placebo groups). They apparently attribute one death to this vaccine (in combination with an influenza vaccine), which is 0.006% of the participants of the three studies.
I don't know how to interpret this. The FDA's endpoints are "RSV-associated [lower respiratory-tract disease]" and "severe RSV-associated LRTD". Okay. I guess they're ignoring mortality because its small-number statistics aren't meaningful to interpret. But then why endorse a vaccine at all, if the mortality rate is so low? You'd need a vastly larger study to answer the question "does this therapy increase or decrease the risk of death", because the probabilities are microscopic on both sides.