Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by panny | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

panny

It stands to reason that

* If the vaccine is safe and effective, life expectancy would improve some over 2020

* If the vaccine is safe and ineffective, life expectancy would stay about the same as 2020

* If the vaccine is unsafe and ineffective, life expectency would drop below 2020

We are now witnessing the third outcome.

View on HN

This is trivially incorrect - it would require exposure level to be constant, whereas in the US people were much more out and about in 2021 than in 2020.

That would hold true if it could be observed in countries with better vaccine uptake. A super quick google:

- 68% fully vaccinated in USA, dropped life expectancy in 2021

- 86% fully vaccinated in Canada, increased life expectancy in 2021

Obviously there are a lot of other potential variables, but it’s hard to make a judgement purely based on vaccination and implying they are unsafe.

Actually you can observe that countries with less vaccination uptake are having less excess deaths at the moment

Not sure how that translates to life expectancy

Literally every meaningful mitigation to an airborne virus has been gutted gradually since 2020. No masks. Laughable isolation periods. No updated vaccines for new variants. No restrictions on large/indoor gatherings. False-negative RAT tests. So, yeah, there’s the explanation.

Very simple-minded view despite that America is hugely overweight and have issues besides covid.

Also your logic is wrong. If vaccine is safe and effective, the life expectancy would remain the same (IE: no additional deaths due to covid)

You're trying to make a point and not making a very good job of it.

I’m more in agreement with him as opposed to your viewpoint. FWIW I have a degree in formal logic, and his logic is not “wrong”. I’d very much like to hear how it is. :)

It seems you're focusing on the fact that a conditional statement can be logically true independent of whether its hypothesis itself has any merit. (e.g. the proposition "If the sun goes dark tomorrow, then within a few years most people on earth will almost certainly be dead" is sound, even if the sun probably doesn't go dark tomorrow)

But like GP said, the conditional statements themselves presuppose that vaccines are the only variable affecting life expectancy. But that's not true, there are other factors.

It’s the inversion of your propositional case, however. His claim is not that the vaccine has caused extra deaths (the sun goes dark) but rather that if the vaccine is unsafe in -some- or all causes then mortality would increase on average. (if more people get sunburned from a hotter sun, we will see more skin cancer) It follows, and my interpretation of the data is that the vaccines are causing some issues or not giving enough protection for some individuals while working for others, and obesity and other factors also increased.

Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers.

The commenter at the top of the tree was implying a degree of unsafety in their premise that was sufficient to overpower other possible statistical causes. In the current discussion, this is a very close equivalent to stating that the vaccine caused extra deaths. To keep to the metaphor, the statement that the sun is hotter is already a huge claim in need of evidence rather than a starting premise.

If we accept that as a premise, it becomes difficult to explain why for instance the Canadian life expectancy increased in 2021 as another commenter noted, despite being society that is similar in many ways but with a higher vaccination rate.

>Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers.

I agree with this advice, hence the need to look at countries outside of the US and to consider the US's traditional life expectancy woes compared to other developed or OECD countries.

All else equal, yes.

What we need now is a 2 graphs, one for the vaccinated, and one for the unvaccinated. The problem is self-selection: the elderly and obese were more likely to take the shots because of the fearmongering campaign that went along with it. Elderly and obese are more likely to die in the first place.

So we need to carefully select individuals in both groups to be similar in there regards, or control for it statistically.

We will find out --some day soon-- if this vaccine was contributing to health or contributing to deaths. Given the fact that Pfizer wanted to hide the side-effects list from the public for 75 years I'm afraid it is the latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com