So that's what 0.0000095%?
I'll take 5 nines success chance.
I'll take 5 nines success chance.
41/22e6 = 0.0000019 = 0.00019%
So yeah, easily 5 nines, nearly 6. For this particular metric (i.e. death).
Regardless, you're both doing it wrong (as mentioned in sibling).
To find the correct denominator of persons-fully-vaccinated (second doses), visit the regulators YellowCard report for the vaccine adverse reactions.
It's a sobering read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid...
It's not sobering, it's scientific or clinical. It's what doctors do on a daily basis even without a pandemic.
If the shots happened to take 8 doses to be completely delivered, by tracking shots instead of complete treatments as your denominator, you've just artificially deflated any concern level by 8 times.
100 deaths / 8,000,000 doses = 0.0000125 (in 80,000 people, one is killed - not too worrying, or so it would seem)
100 reactions / 1,000,000 treatments = 0.0001 (in 10,000 people, one is killed - uh oh)
The issue you are tracking is how many humans are impacted by the treatment. In the case of COVID-19 treatments (which are two-dose in the UK) - if you choose to track shots versus reports, you lose accuracy by a factor of 2, and this accuracy is skewed against safety. By tracking treatments, you get slower feedback, but it is accurate and supports the correct interpretation of safety levels.
Tracking shots may be partially useful as an early warning signal. Other than that though, it's not just not useful, it's completely wrong.
The "sobering" references the massive disconnect between what is typically reported by media, and what is reported in the system by doctors and nurses on behalf of, or in limited cases directly by, harmed people. If you read the entire report, and bear in mind these are under-reporting figures, you may - if you're lucky, perhaps - experience a moment of sobriety when it comes to the actual experienced level of safety of what's being assured as "safe".
1. Do your own research -> see something concerning -> ask your doctor to verify/interpret -> follow doctor's orders
2. Do your own research -> see something concerning -> accept your research as truth
#1 is valid and good.
#2 is bad.
This has always been the case.
In the general case, a physician is obviously better than a patient in terms of being informed.
On the margin, however, a well-researched patient will almost always be better informed than a physician accustomed to the average patient. This is particularly relevant to the ~130 IQ HN populace.
It's quite dangerous and egotistical to think that you are in that group, though. When most people think they're a better than average driver, many are bound to be wrong.
If you think you're right about something and the doctor is wrong, get a second opinion. Don't assume you know better than a medical professional.
Sure, in the sense that you can get second opinions if you're extra concerned about the topic.
If you're pregnant or have a blood clotting issue, by all means get a first and second opinion if you're worried about getting the vaccine.
But don't think that you are more qualified than medical professionals to understand the risks and side effects (unless of course you are a medical professional).
Everywhere did I say that you are much more likely to make mistakes than your doctors.
What you should be saying is that a more-informed person is less likely to make mistakes than a less-informed person.
You assume that doctors, in the couple of hours they may dedicate each day to catch up on all of the many plethora issues affecting all of their patients covering thousands of different areas of research that affect human health (and retain all of these things), is going to be more informed about the particular health issue affecting one person, who is extremely invested in this one aspect of their own health, and can dedicate the same or greater amount of their time researching that specific issue.
A specialist, possibly - but a general practitioner - unlikely.
Seems to be the case that Pfizer and Moderna didn't get in as much trouble with clot risk I guess?
How come? COVID infections have a high probability of causing blood clots.
Also, bear in mind that adverse event reporting has been clocked (in pretty much every study) at under-reporting adverse reactions anywhere from a handful of times to hundreds of times (even for serious or fatal reactions).[0]
Finally, after you've accounted for those trifling caveats, you've now arrived at an approximation of the odds for a princely one adverse effect, that happened to be apparently causal enough to be readily discovered, and also accurately reported enough to be identified almost immediately.
There could be many others of course, complicated by genetics and unforeseen reactions with other medications or conditions, along with that not insignificant variable of time. (Ordinarily, for new substances injected intravenously, a generous several years is afforded to that one.)
You also don't know if there is a large demographic out there who share both a reluctance to sign up for medical trials, along with a propensity to exhibit an as-yet undetected adverse reaction. (Quite a reasonable proposition, if you think about it. Don't we always find things in the last place we look?)
And all this for a disease most people below average life-expectancy have little risk of dying from, even if they catch it and undergo no treatment, and for which safe, high-efficacy preventative measures and treatments already exist.[1]
[0] keywords: pharmacovigilance + under-reporting