Right, that's the assumed number of prevented deaths for that particular scenario- this is why it's better to do due diligence and read all the source material (no matter what it is) before coming to conclusions. This is also why I dislike memes for info (though, to be fair, even the meme said it was an expectation based on an estimate, not something that already happened or that the FDA is claiming to have done), or partial information that doesn't contain a link to the source material (which is why I always try to include one and did in this case, in the post where I first referred to it).
Scenarios, models, assumptions. I bet the people in the Wuhan lab had lots of scenarios, models, and assumptions, too. I read the document. I find it dishonest that they publish a chart as if it were factual, when in fact it is guesswork. As I said before. So we agree to disagree. I'm done.
Model assumption about constant incidence rate generates great uncertainty on the estimate of benefits.
Vaccine efficacy may change due to new emerging variants of virus
Hospitalizations and ICU stays from COVID-19 and myocarditis are not equivalent and cannot directly compared
The benefit of reducing COVID related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children may not be fully captured by preventable hospitalizations, ICU stays and deaths due to COVID-19
This BR risk assessment does not consider potential long-term adverse effects due to eitherCOVID-19 or myocarditis
This BR assessmentdoes not include secondary benefits (reducing COVID-19 diseasetransmission) and risks
Brian, I NEVER called you out. I explained that. It's the fed I disbelieve. Jeez, man.You called me out twice on the same post over the span a few days, the second time literally saying, 'Help me understand'- I'm not the one belaboring the point, and I thought we were done with it the first time.
It doesn't say, 'This is absolutely what's going to happen'- someone whose specialty is risk assessment made the report based on the conditions at the time. There are six charts, which show varying assumed (it's clearly noted they're assumptions in a bold heading before the charts begin) effectiveness of the vaccine program on a risk vs benefit standard based on a same/worse/better analysis- some make it seem very worth doing, others make it seem like a pointless undertaking. While it's very possible the numbers of the charts showing the vaccine program to be less efficacious are the most accurate, the fact both potential sides are shown make it the opposite of 'dishonest'. The parameters and limitations of the assessment are clearly listed for anyone who takes the time to read it.
If taken out of context, it's very easy to misrepresent or manipulate the data to make it seem like something other than what it is, but, viewed in its entirety, it's just a 'best guess' and doesn't claim to be anything else, and it notes the factors it's bound by under the bold heading, 'Major Limitations'. You can agree with or dispute the info the report contains, but I don't think it was compiled in a way that's intended to deceive people based on the 'both sides' view it gives.
I know, but you quoted my post twice, and asked me to comment on what you had to say about it- you were under the misapprehension that the FDA report was claiming to have done something (which it couldn't have, as younger children have been approved to be vaccinated only since November 2nd, way under the scope of the report), when all it was was a risk assessment based on various scenarios that showed what might happen 'if'. If you want to call BS on their numbers, I can't say you're wrong, but I'd bet the reality is somewhere between their best/worst-case scenarios- I'd say the only argument is toward which direction it skews.Brian, I NEVER called you out. I explained that. It's the fed I disbelieve. Jeez, man.
Did you by any chance read the paragraph highlighted in red letters at the top of the page?
Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting dataResearch Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.www.researchsquare.com
The stupid......it burns!An average of 2.8 doses per resident…
What happened to 95% effective?
Maybe there’s some math wizards here who can tell me how this all works…
IA sponsor’s supportive efficacy analysis1 suggests 90.7% efficacy against infection among ages 5-11 years (data accrued through Oct. 8, 2021)
The CDC has no credibility. None. Zero.Reported death rate by CDC Data Tracker is about 3x higher...
Another country that is reintroducing lockdowns amid growing Covid numbers is the Netherlands, where 85% of the population has been vaccinated. But that didn't prevent a record surge in new cases about a month and a half after social distancing restrictions were lifted - ostensibly as unnecessary due to what was considered a successful vaccination campaign.
Yep restrictions still in place thanks to a percentage of the population too pigshit thick to understand that if they had joined the rest of the population and not turned it into a political issue, then we’d be on the other side of the pandemic with no restrictions.
Your last post has set off Themis, the Greek goddess of social order and justice. Please log out and wait 2 minThis is a great example that shows how doggedly stupid antivaxxers are.
The stupid......it burns!Yep restrictions still in place thanks to a percentage of the population too pigshit thick to understand that if they had joined the rest of the population and not turned it into a political issue, then we’d be on the other side of the pandemic with no restrictions.
Nah! Owning the libs is more important and then bitching about the continuing infections and restrictions.
It’s like deliberately hitting your own thumb with a hammer and bitching about it hurting.
According to the article virtually ALL adult Gibraltar dwellers were fully vaxxed?Yep restrictions still in place thanks to a percentage of the population too pigshit thick to understand that if they had joined the rest of the population.
Wow....THAT didn't age well. Especially since this new strain seems to be weaker than the first one that came through 2 years ago.