Rugoz wrote:The article is abysmal. No link to the study. No information on study design. Just throwing some numbers out there.
In any case, here's a peer-reviewed study that looks pretty good to me (of course nothing beats a clinial trial):
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08- ... afety.html
Here's the paper:https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931
It follows a similar methodology as that Israeli one, and has similar results.
Also, if these effects have a very low probability of occurrence (they definitely do, even for COVID itself
) then it's unlikely you will ever feasibly have a large enough clinical trial to detect them.
At least now it's clear anti-vaxxers are just wrong as far as short term effects that can be more clearly traceable to the vaccines are concerned. This figure is illustrative:
Incidence rate ratio:
BMJ wrote:Statistical analysis
We described the characteristics of each cohort (patients who had been vaccinated with the outcomes of interest) in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity. The self-controlled case series models were fitted using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of the risk period. Incidence rate ratios, the relative rate of hospital admissions or deaths due to each outcome of interest in risk periods relative to baseline periods, and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using each model. Exposure terms for both vaccines and for infection with SARS-CoV-2 were included in the same model. To account for temporal changes in background rates, we divided the study period into weekly blocks starting on 1 December 2020 and adjusted for these changes as discrete covariates in the analysis. We used Wald tests to compare risks associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. We investigated whether the associations between vaccine exposures and outcomes are sex or age dependent by running the analyses in separate subgroups by sex and age group (younger or older than 50 years).
It's also clear that either plenty of people catching COVID also might have been at a greater baseline risk than the vaccinated (but this would NOT account for the whole difference) or that there is a fair amount of noise involved for them, which I find interesting. But even clearer is the fact that it's hard to find a greater incidence ratio for the vaccinated compared to baseline, which again could be a result of the higher sample sizes.