Hacker News Reader

Comment by usaphp | Hacker News Reader

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...

"For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two cardiac adverse event is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

"myocarditis after vaccination was higher than myocarditis after sars-cov-2 infection for people <40"

View on HN

Why is it comparing CAE with hospitalization rate? What's the CAE for 120-day COVID-19 infection, or the hospitalization rate for post-vaccination?

Because it's a garbage preprint of a paper written by unqualified anti-vaxxer weirdos. But it suits the "experts must be wrong" HN trope, so it's being posted all over this thread.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-do...

> “Dumpster diving” is a term used to describe studies using data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database by authors, almost always antivaxxers, who don’t understand its limitations.

Is it really productive to just label people who wrote the paper researching data of vaccine side effects as "antivaxxers"? Does it mean that nobody can question the safety of vaccines now, because the only data that is being captured about side effects, apparently can't be used in data analysis?

No - but there are good ways and bad ways to use the VAERS data. The linked paper is a perfect example of the bad ways for all of the reasons laid out in that post. Of course researchers should be questioning the safety and side effect profile of vaccines -- but that doesn't mean that everyone who purports to do so is acting in good faith or has the capabilities/expertise to do so.

There is some controversy regarding that paper: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dump...

I don't get it, it says that they've used the data from "Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System VAERS", and it says that "In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind."

What's the point of the system of reporting adverse events from vaccines if it's can't be used in data analysis? How do people have to report adverse effects then? How do we measure valid data?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com