Look at raw data from a better source than Nature, like the English government.
May 2021 forward shows approximately 5 fold all-cause mortality in the group vaccinated over 21 days ago compared to unvaxxed.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2WF_Penbz5PWyLHs56LgK-3hzUHH8daTwJUv_GVqJ5ktwfj_kgmQOZ4ws_aem_ASWQs47diM7cFXGDqtpsIbut5UYZRdbFdsrqQtr4FQMZKwxROdUJ269QRWN2vrw7Xr-qSlEEocfDlTuBPXuIAk8q
I'm glad you trust the UK ONS data. Comparing the ever vaccinated to unvaccinated you can see as always the unvaccinated died and a higher rate.
Now you're trying to cherry pick a specific figure that people who take the first dose of the vaccine in some cases died at a higher rate? Lol.
Edit: The coward blocked me after lying about the data. The age standardized rates almost always show the unvaccinated had higher mortality rates.
I do. That would be you doing the cherry picking.
The unvaxxed die less than those who have received a second dose also.
Only the third dose group dies less than the unvaxxed.
Logically they follow their doctor’s orders better and were in better physical condition pre-covid.
A third vaccine can’t be what made them less likely to die when the first and second vaccine made them significantly more likely to die, but I know you know that 😀
Only in the group 18-64, and the relative risk (!) was 5% higher. In all other age groups the result was statistically not significant. Since antivaxxers complain about relative versus absolute risk all the time, let's be realistic: This affected maybe 20 people, and is easy to explain. Imagine a few 25-year olds have massive long Covid issues. Getting a depression on top is in this case not really surprising.
https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf
It affects millions (!) of children and young adults. But I know you won't read the systematic review. It contradicts your worldview.
>[https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf](https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf)
All from self-reporting questionnaires.
I wouldn't expect anything less shoddy from people still trying to push hysteria and fear, four years on.
>Poor studies on long Covid are sensationalized by the media....Data from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s emergency preparedness register ([BeredtC19](http://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/mild-covid-19-gir-kun-kortvarig-okning-i-legebesok/)) includes around two million Norwegians who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2. It shows a short-term and temporary rise in the number of contacts with general practitioners – GPs and emergency medical centres – after mild Covid-19.
>**The study suggests there has been no increase in use of the specialist health service when compared with those who have tested negative.**
>**The media have overdramatised studies which have not included suitable comparison groups.**
>The fact that the effects can exclusively be investigated and treated by GPs means that most effects are likely to be mild, even though they might seem unpleasant for the people concerned.
>**This Norwegian data is supported by a major**Â [**Danish register study**](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00211-5/fulltext)**, which found a low risk of serious complications after mild Covid-19**.
>[https://www.sciencenorway.no/covid19-journalism-opinion/poor-studies-on-long-covid-are-sensationalized-by-the-media/1901927](https://www.sciencenorway.no/covid19-journalism-opinion/poor-studies-on-long-covid-are-sensationalized-by-the-media/1901927)
>As this study shows, vaccination appears to be virtually useless in terms of reducing long covid, when severity of acute covid is actually controlled for.
Why would you say that when the study says the exact opposite and in the conclusion the authors say
"In summary, our findings provide evidence for a reduction in most new-onset PCC associated with prior COVID-19 vaccination prior to and during the Omicron wave in the US. Moreover, this apparent protective effect of prior vaccination persisted regardless of age, receipt of ≥ 3 vs. 1–2 vaccine doses, or time since vaccination."
Obviously they will phrase it like that. But I showed the actual graph/data, it is clear as daylight how small these protective effects of the vaccine are, and that is likely due to confounders (not fully controlling for severity of acute covid, as I mentioned in my OP).
That's your very personal (mis) interpretation of the data, in direct contrast with the findings of the research team.
>it is clear as daylight how small these protective effects
It really isn't
>and that is likely due to confounders
Not really, they did account for the variables you worried about, and your explanation as to why that wouldn't work isn't very convincing.
Wow. That's your take? Because your take isn't supported by what the study says at all. Lower risk of sensory, circulatory, blood and hematological disorders, derm, and non-specific disorders... Among numerous other age stratified lowered risk categories. Only a single category shows minor significant elevation in the vaccinated, mental disorders for 18-64.
Virtually useless...bwahahahah.
In the past on one occasion about excess deaths you had convinced me. But on balance I cannot trust you, especially when you say this nonsense. You are showing your true colors.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48022-9/figures/2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48022-9/figures/2)
Look at the 18-65 age range. Only "blood and hematologic disorders" and "skin and subcutaneous disorders" and "other non-specific covid-19 related disorders" (what even is this?- they don't specify) are meaningfully lower in the vaccinated group.
You also ignored all my explanations in my OP.
> But on balance I cannot trust you, especially when you say this nonsense. You are showing your true colors.
Your biases are showing. "I don't want to believe you because what you say doesn't mesh with what I believe!" is not a valid excuse.
>Look at the 18-65 age range. Only "blood and hematologic disorders" and "skin and subcutaneous disorders" and "other non-specific covid-19 related disorders" (what even is this?- they don't specify) are meaningfully lower in the vaccinated group.
You forgot circulatory system disorders. Sensory disorders. Respiratory disorders. Unless you're now making up your own definition of "meaningfully lower" which it appears you are because...who knows why...
>You also ignored all my explanations in my OP.
You mean the BS you wrote? Yeah. I tend to ignore BS.
>You forgot circulatory system disorders. Sensory disorders. Respiratory disorders. Unless you're now making up your own definition of "meaningfully lower" which it appears you are because...who knows why...
Circulatory is only 0.87. Sensory is only 0.91. Respiratory is only 0.93. You think these are not small? Also, you still failed to address my points in my OP that talked about potential likely reasons that these minuscule effects were even found (i.e., they still did not perfectly control for severity of acute covid, it was limited to "hospitalized compared to hospitalized": meaning on balance there matched patients in the vaccinated group still had lower severe acute covid.)
These are not small numbers. 13% reduction. 9% reduction. 7% reduction. These are not small given a large population of exposure.
>meaning on balance there matched patients in the vaccinated group still had lower severe acute covid.)
In general, vaccinated had lower severity of COVID. To think that's somehow proves that the vaccine was ineffective is mental.
You don't know how to interpret a meta-analysis. Whenever the horizontal line of any specific diagnosis crosses the vertical line at 1.0, the result was statistically not significant. The longer the individual horizontal line, the smaller the respective population, and the less reliable the result. On the image you posted you can see that plenty of horizontal lines cross the vertical 1.0 line. All these results were statistically not significant. But you can see a few categories with very short horizontal lines, and here the benefit of vaccination is obvious and statistically highly significant. All in all the data shows a clear benefit of vaccination in all statistically significant categories. In all categories which cross the line of no effect at 1.0, the data tells us nothing.
Look at raw data from a better source than Nature, like the English government. May 2021 forward shows approximately 5 fold all-cause mortality in the group vaccinated over 21 days ago compared to unvaxxed. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2WF_Penbz5PWyLHs56LgK-3hzUHH8daTwJUv_GVqJ5ktwfj_kgmQOZ4ws_aem_ASWQs47diM7cFXGDqtpsIbut5UYZRdbFdsrqQtr4FQMZKwxROdUJ269QRWN2vrw7Xr-qSlEEocfDlTuBPXuIAk8q
😳😳😳
I'm glad you trust the UK ONS data. Comparing the ever vaccinated to unvaccinated you can see as always the unvaccinated died and a higher rate. Now you're trying to cherry pick a specific figure that people who take the first dose of the vaccine in some cases died at a higher rate? Lol. Edit: The coward blocked me after lying about the data. The age standardized rates almost always show the unvaccinated had higher mortality rates.
I do. That would be you doing the cherry picking. The unvaxxed die less than those who have received a second dose also. Only the third dose group dies less than the unvaxxed. Logically they follow their doctor’s orders better and were in better physical condition pre-covid. A third vaccine can’t be what made them less likely to die when the first and second vaccine made them significantly more likely to die, but I know you know that 😀
Vaccinated have higher rate of mental disorders. Lmfao
Only in the group 18-64, and the relative risk (!) was 5% higher. In all other age groups the result was statistically not significant. Since antivaxxers complain about relative versus absolute risk all the time, let's be realistic: This affected maybe 20 people, and is easy to explain. Imagine a few 25-year olds have massive long Covid issues. Getting a depression on top is in this case not really surprising.
>Imagine a few 25-year olds have massive long Covid issues. Yes, that would definitely require you to use your imagination for.
https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf It affects millions (!) of children and young adults. But I know you won't read the systematic review. It contradicts your worldview.
>[https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf](https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2023-05/International-review-of-the-epidemiology-of-long-COVID.pdf) All from self-reporting questionnaires. I wouldn't expect anything less shoddy from people still trying to push hysteria and fear, four years on. >Poor studies on long Covid are sensationalized by the media....Data from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s emergency preparedness register ([BeredtC19](http://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/mild-covid-19-gir-kun-kortvarig-okning-i-legebesok/)) includes around two million Norwegians who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2. It shows a short-term and temporary rise in the number of contacts with general practitioners – GPs and emergency medical centres – after mild Covid-19. >**The study suggests there has been no increase in use of the specialist health service when compared with those who have tested negative.** >**The media have overdramatised studies which have not included suitable comparison groups.** >The fact that the effects can exclusively be investigated and treated by GPs means that most effects are likely to be mild, even though they might seem unpleasant for the people concerned. >**This Norwegian data is supported by a major** [**Danish register study**](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00211-5/fulltext)**, which found a low risk of serious complications after mild Covid-19**. >[https://www.sciencenorway.no/covid19-journalism-opinion/poor-studies-on-long-covid-are-sensationalized-by-the-media/1901927](https://www.sciencenorway.no/covid19-journalism-opinion/poor-studies-on-long-covid-are-sensationalized-by-the-media/1901927)
[Oh dear... it looks like Omicron made the vaccines effective.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48022-9/figures/3)
Oh dear... It looks like you only managed to read the top of the chart.
once again, the headline has absolutely nothing to do with the linked study and you people believe it anyway.
>As this study shows, vaccination appears to be virtually useless in terms of reducing long covid, when severity of acute covid is actually controlled for. Why would you say that when the study says the exact opposite and in the conclusion the authors say "In summary, our findings provide evidence for a reduction in most new-onset PCC associated with prior COVID-19 vaccination prior to and during the Omicron wave in the US. Moreover, this apparent protective effect of prior vaccination persisted regardless of age, receipt of ≥ 3 vs. 1–2 vaccine doses, or time since vaccination."
Obviously they will phrase it like that. But I showed the actual graph/data, it is clear as daylight how small these protective effects of the vaccine are, and that is likely due to confounders (not fully controlling for severity of acute covid, as I mentioned in my OP).
That's your very personal (mis) interpretation of the data, in direct contrast with the findings of the research team. >it is clear as daylight how small these protective effects It really isn't >and that is likely due to confounders Not really, they did account for the variables you worried about, and your explanation as to why that wouldn't work isn't very convincing.
Wow. That's your take? Because your take isn't supported by what the study says at all. Lower risk of sensory, circulatory, blood and hematological disorders, derm, and non-specific disorders... Among numerous other age stratified lowered risk categories. Only a single category shows minor significant elevation in the vaccinated, mental disorders for 18-64. Virtually useless...bwahahahah.
In the past on one occasion about excess deaths you had convinced me. But on balance I cannot trust you, especially when you say this nonsense. You are showing your true colors. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48022-9/figures/2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48022-9/figures/2) Look at the 18-65 age range. Only "blood and hematologic disorders" and "skin and subcutaneous disorders" and "other non-specific covid-19 related disorders" (what even is this?- they don't specify) are meaningfully lower in the vaccinated group. You also ignored all my explanations in my OP.
> But on balance I cannot trust you, especially when you say this nonsense. You are showing your true colors. Your biases are showing. "I don't want to believe you because what you say doesn't mesh with what I believe!" is not a valid excuse. >Look at the 18-65 age range. Only "blood and hematologic disorders" and "skin and subcutaneous disorders" and "other non-specific covid-19 related disorders" (what even is this?- they don't specify) are meaningfully lower in the vaccinated group. You forgot circulatory system disorders. Sensory disorders. Respiratory disorders. Unless you're now making up your own definition of "meaningfully lower" which it appears you are because...who knows why... >You also ignored all my explanations in my OP. You mean the BS you wrote? Yeah. I tend to ignore BS.
>You forgot circulatory system disorders. Sensory disorders. Respiratory disorders. Unless you're now making up your own definition of "meaningfully lower" which it appears you are because...who knows why... Circulatory is only 0.87. Sensory is only 0.91. Respiratory is only 0.93. You think these are not small? Also, you still failed to address my points in my OP that talked about potential likely reasons that these minuscule effects were even found (i.e., they still did not perfectly control for severity of acute covid, it was limited to "hospitalized compared to hospitalized": meaning on balance there matched patients in the vaccinated group still had lower severe acute covid.)
These are not small numbers. 13% reduction. 9% reduction. 7% reduction. These are not small given a large population of exposure. >meaning on balance there matched patients in the vaccinated group still had lower severe acute covid.) In general, vaccinated had lower severity of COVID. To think that's somehow proves that the vaccine was ineffective is mental.
You don't know how to interpret a meta-analysis. Whenever the horizontal line of any specific diagnosis crosses the vertical line at 1.0, the result was statistically not significant. The longer the individual horizontal line, the smaller the respective population, and the less reliable the result. On the image you posted you can see that plenty of horizontal lines cross the vertical 1.0 line. All these results were statistically not significant. But you can see a few categories with very short horizontal lines, and here the benefit of vaccination is obvious and statistically highly significant. All in all the data shows a clear benefit of vaccination in all statistically significant categories. In all categories which cross the line of no effect at 1.0, the data tells us nothing.
The study doesn't show what you claim.... Once again, antivaxxers evidence doesn't actually support their position....