Vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,092.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The full article title wouldn't fit as a thread title, picked a key point from the summary instead

COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk ...

What is added by this report?


During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.


What are the implications for public health practice?


There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Seems like a pretty strong evidence against the fear that there's some underreported issues with vaccine safety.
 

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
People that already are convinced of conspiracy theories despite evidence are not going to change their beliefs just because there is more evidence that they are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Seems like a pretty strong evidence against the fear that there's some underreported issues with vaccine safety.

VSD, a collaborative project between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and nine health care organizations, collects electronic health data, including information on vaccines, for specific studies. In this cohort study of VSD members aged ≥12 years, vaccination status through May 31, 2021 was determined. Index dates were assigned to all persons on the basis of the distribution of vaccination dates among vaccinated persons.¶ Person-time for unvaccinated persons included unvaccinated person-time before COVID-19 vaccination among COVID-19 vaccinees, and unvaccinated person-time of persons who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine by May 31, 2021. To ensure comparable health care–seeking behavior among persons who received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not (unvaccinated persons), eligible unvaccinated persons were selected from among those who received ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine in the last 2 years.



The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, the study was observational, and individual-level confounders that were not adjusted for might affect mortality risk, including baseline health status, underlying conditions, health care utilization, and socioeconomic status. Second, healthy vaccinee effects were found in all but the youngest age group. Such effects were also found in a cohort study conducted in a nursing home population, which reported substantially lower aRRs for 7-day mortality among vaccinated residents after dose 1 (0.34) and dose 2 (0.49) as compared with unvaccinated residents (5). Lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated groups suggest that COVID-19 vaccinees are inherently healthier or engage in fewer risk behaviors (7,8); future analyses will address these issues. Third, although deaths associated with COVID-19 were excluded, causes of death were not assessed. It is possible that the algorithm used might have misclassified some deaths associated with COVID-19 because of lack of testing or because individual mortality reviews were not conducted. Finally, the findings might not be applicable to the general population. The VSD includes approximately 3% of the U.S. population, and is representative of the general population with regard to several demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (9). Other studies have already demonstrated the safety of COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States.

So highly cherry-picked group of data that includes only those who get flu shots every year or every other. Okie dokie.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So highly cherry-picked group of data

Nope, that's not what that phrase means. Cherry picking is what you do after the data is collected and published. You cherry pick the data you like. This study presents its inclusion/exclusion criteria, these happened before the data was collected, not after. There's no way to cherry pick data that doesn't exist yet.

Also

those who get flu shots every year or every other.

Why is that an issue? it's a perfectly reasonable criterium.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
These aren't surprising results.

Much like other health practices, a person who takes one aspect of health more seriously, is likely to take other aspects of health more seriously as well. (obviously that's not true in every case, but just as a general rule)

For instance, if you have a person who's a "nutrition nut" and very strict with what they will and won't eat, it's unlikely that they'll be polishing off a 5th of whiskey every night.

Similarly, if you have a person who's an exercise fanatic, they're unlikely to be pack-a-day smokers.


An interesting survey out of the UK:
Negative vaccine attitudes and intentions to vaccinate against Covid-19 in relation to smoking status: a population survey of UK adults

Results: Relative to never and former smokers, current smokers reported significantly greater mistrust of vaccine benefit, were more worried about unforeseen future effects, had greater concerns about commercial profiteering, and had a stronger preference for natural immunity (Badjs 0.16-0.36, p<0.001). Current smokers were more likely to be uncertain (27.6% vs. 22.7% of never smokers: RRadj 1.43 [95%CI 1.31-1.56]; vs. 19.3% of former smokers: RRadj 1.55 [1.41-1.73]) or unwilling (21.5% vs. 11.6% of never smokers: RRadj 2.12 [1.91-2.34]; vs. 14.7% of former smokers: RRadj 1.53 [1.37-1.71]) to receive a Covid-19 vaccine.

So, bad ideas when it comes to health choices are rarely ad-hoc, but more representative of a pattern of behavior/negligence.

This example is pretty rich with irony...

Smokers (who willfully consume something that we know comes from untrustworthy companies, that we know has long term health effects, and that we know is a profiteering industry) are more concerned than non-smokers about the vaccine (and they base their objections on literally all of the boxes that smoking checks with regards to their espoused concerns)

In fact, now that I look at this...this particular survey could be a good subject for a thread of it's own, I may go start one :)
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This study presents its inclusion/exclusion criteria, these happened before the data was collected, not after.

Also



Why is that an issue? it's a perfectly reasonable criterium.

No, your first assertion is not true. It may occur before; it may occur after some preliminary review.The criteria can be really biased and exclude minorities and those with co-morbidities, who may be the most likely to be prescribed the drug in the first place.


No, it most decidedly is NOT a reasonable criterion to eliminate those who don't get a yearly flu shot (or every other year, minimum). That criterion selects out in advance all who do not adhere to all vaccine recommendations because (who knows...allergic, bad reaction before...never ever gets the flu, stays home most of the time, etc). So you begin with a set of people you already know are used to compliance in routine vaccines.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, your first assertion is not true. It may occur before; it may occur after some preliminary review.

What are you talking about? What "may occur"? What preliminary review? The criteria are set prior to data analysis. That's how it works.

No, it most decidedly is NOT a reasonable criterion to eliminate those who don't get a yearly flu shot (or every other year, minimum). That criterion selects out in advance all who do not adhere to all vaccine recommendations because (who knows...allergic, bad reaction before...never ever gets the flu, stays home most of the time, etc). So you begin with a set of people you already know are used to compliance in routine vaccines.

Except none of them did not get the COVID shot, whilst still getting the flu shot. So not all that compliant at all. I mean you get that, right? The flu shot was an inclusion criteria for the non COVID arm of cohort, not those that got the COVID shot.

Note: The "none of them" refers to the flu shot criterium being applied to the non COVID arm of the cohort. It's possible (or even probable) some subset of the COVID vaccinees did get a flu shot, but the presence or absence of the shot was not considered for inclusion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0