Discussion on answer by 0xDBFB7: Do COVID-19 vaccines cause two deaths for every three deaths they prevent?

Feeds

04:48

183

A: Do COVID-19 vaccines cause two deaths for every three deaths they prevent?

A series of comments on the article's PubPeer appears to entirely invalidate the paper's conclusion; the paper commits several classic errors which have been previously discussed on skeptics.se. First is misuse of adverse event databases, exactly as discussed here. These sorts of adverse event da...

0xDBFB7

This is a lousy answer, but it's what I've got for now. I recall seeing a much better example of a correctly produced risk-reward analysis somewhere regarding blood clots and age groups, but I cannot find it offhand. Other possible improvements might include the types of statistical mining that are done to establish causality, maybe an example of the number of deaths expected after a certain time period based on chance (Poisson process?), a better rebuke of the 95% underreporting figure.

Libor

Just to make sure it's clear - the numbers in this answer are to demonstrate the math error. 32000 people have not died of the covid vaccines, which after 300m doses are causally linked to 0 deaths to the best of my knowledge.

Barry Harrison

Just to note in connection with "The database used by the authors specifically states that it cannot be used this way." The authors didn't use the CDC VAERS database, though the database does say reports are not necessarily caused by a vaccine.

vsz

"suffers from its own success" : This is similar to the classical example of a very effective heart medicine being introduced, and then decades later observing that the cancer deaths increased significantly among those who used it. Then mass hysteria ensues that the aforementioned medicine causes cancer. However, in reality it didn't cause cancer at all, it just reduced the prevalence of the biggest cause of death, but as people are not immortal, most would then later die of the second biggest leading cause of death.

abligh

Your absurd example is instructive, but you might want to add it assumes the vaccine is 'practically' 100% effective. If you then alter the thought experiment to assume the vaccine is (e.g.) 90% effective, then some significant number of additional people would die (and be included in the adverse event after vaccination list) - but they are dying of Covid-19 (inadequately protected by the vaccine), not dying of the vaccine. This rather demonstrates the absurdity of using the adverse event list for this purpose...

... equally you could run a thought experiment where 100% of the population were injected with a saline solution 0% effective vaccine, and the "adverse event" math would hold the vaccine responsible for every subsequent death in the US (Covid-19 or otherwise).

user24582

04:48

We have the same uncertainty with COVID deaths (at least in Germany), the statistics state they died "from or with" COVID. Some people just happen to test positive, even when they died from cancer or road accident.

Konrad Rudolph

@user24582 That's correct but the base rates are vastly different, making these measures not at all comparable. This may be surprising but it's really a result of basic statistics, and well known in epidemiology.

Nzall

@CJR minor correction: Both the mRNA vaccines and the adenoviral vector vaccines have been linked to a VERY rare but also very serious form of blood clotting that has in some rare cases caused the death of a vaccinated person. However, we're talking about a VERY low death rate here: in the entirety of the USA, after 300M doses, there have been 3 deaths from J&J due to these clots, and 11 cases of thrombocytopenia (including deaths). For comparison: in the entirety of 2020, the same amount of people have been killed by shark attacks in the USA.

Libor

@Nzall That's an excellent point; the viral vector vaccines have been linked to deaths. No equivalent events have occurred for the mRNA vaccines, although there is likely a very low risk of myocarditis/pericarditis in some people that hasn't resulted in any deaths as of yet (to the best of my knowledge).

Owen Reynolds

The 2nd half seems to fall under "back-of-the-envelope", which isn't allowed. But the first half is perfect -- the paper is based on raw VEARS-like data, which by now we know is only used by liars; and the OP didn't do their research (since the paper's comments disprove it just fine w/o our help).

jamesqf

@user24582: But we have observed that deaths from cancer or road accidents remain fairly constant over time. If we suddenly see an unexpectedly high of bodies being carted out of the ICU, Occam's Razor suggests the excess are not dying from cancer or road accidents.

Dan M.

04:48

@abligh aren't all mainstream vaccines are practically 100% effective (at preventing death from COVID, not infection itself)?

Shadur

@DanM. Something like high 90s, but yeah.

wizzwizz4

@jamesqf Unless, of course, hospitals being overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases prevented (e.g.) routine cancer screening, which led to more people with later-stage cancer.

abligh

@DanM. I am not sure I have that data to hand, but I would have thought effectiveness in preventing death was well over 90%. However, I was not asserting the opposite. Rather I was proposing a thought experiment that showed the paper's way of attributing causality of death was clearly flawed.

user253751

You know that the people who believe this statistic will refuse to accept "the database says it's not for this purpose" even though they're the same people who've been screaming "the creator of PCR says it's not for this purpose" for the last year and a half.

PoloHoleSet

Even if we accept the metric, having a single death caused less than deaths prevented validates the use of a vaccine.

0xDBFB7

04:48

Honestly, given the amount of publicity the paper and this answer is getting, I really wish it was better. It's correct, but the rhetoric seems... unconvincing and hostile for its target audience. The paper is thoroughly bunk from tip to stern, and deserves a point-by-point rebuke. I really like Barry's answer.

Beyond anything else, the limited few-week timespan considered really deserves a mention, since the vaccines will work for years at least.

Konrad Rudolph

@0xDBFB7 For precisely the reason you mention, the paper does not deserve a point by point rebuttal. It's Gish gallop. Engaging with it is a waste of time, and won't convince believers anyway.

terdon

@user253751 what's this about people claiming that the inventor of PCR says PCR is not for what purpose? Presumably, Dr. Mullis was not referring specifically to Covid-19 since he died before the pandemic.

user253751

@terdon It's a common talking point among pro-covid-spread people.

terdon

@user253751 OK, but what is the talking point? I haven't heard this and I'm curious to know what they could possibly be claiming. PCR was designed as a way to amplify genetic sequences and it is being used as a way to amplify genetic sequences. As a biologist, I am very curious to know what these folks are claiming since I cannot for the life of me imagine what it could be. So if you could link me to something that would be great!

user253751

@terdon They say the PCR test was designed to amplify genetic sequences, not to test for viruses, and therefore, it's somehow incapable of doing that. They do not care about your well-reasoned arguments that "well testing for viruses is actually done by amplifying genetic sequences". They just latch onto any saying that discredits the hoaxdemic, regardless of actual merit. I Googled 'pcr tests are not designed for' and here's one result

fredsbend