Likely reason for this - #manipulatingProceduralOutcomes
Current definition of vaxed is "2 weeks post dose 2"
Any side effects in that time period? Person was unvaxxed.
If people take a 3rd dose the side effect count would start immediately unless... the definition changeshttps://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1451570326740086784 …
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Obvious bad reactions immediately after vaccination are probably ONLY kind they’ll count. Any complications that develop later will not be counted because it’ll be impossible to attribute to the vaccine.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @aephax @CovfefeAnon
It should be quite easy to attribute to the vaccine variant seeing that not everyone is taking the same vaccine so it's a natural experiment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @torinmccabe @CovfefeAnon
If a brand new condition or problem of an unknown cause arises weeks or months after taking the vaccine, how will they determine or “prove” the vaccine caused it? Maybe later if they observe certain conditions occurring with greater frequency in the entire vaccinated population?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aephax @torinmccabe
The standard way these things work is that they take all reports then do a stat comparison - this is how they wind up with those list of "side effects" you hear reported in drug commercials. What they *don't* count is anything in the initial period (3 after dose 1, 2 after 2)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
3 after 1 is "unvxxxed" 2 after 2 is "part vxxxed"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @aephax
Not sure I understand what you're saying. I can say that they are looking at how many doses and at what time of the dose when researching sickness as this is how they measure efficacy. I don't know why this wouldn't also be the case for long-term complications
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @torinmccabe @aephax
Because they
#manipulateProceduralOutcomes . Informally, they're reluctant to document side effects. Formally, they define a bunch of people who have taken the *** as being "partially ***ed" or "un***ed"1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @aephax
Sure there are incentives to not report and it is something to look out for. But as I said we have plenty of cases of this reporting and drugs being taken off the market.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
On your definition game. Aren't we race realists that say "human difference exists no matter what you call it"? What they call it is of course important for propaganda but the data of how many shots you got exists whatever that is called.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The definition game counts when there's a database that stores the data destructively. "No, we only have buckets for ***ed and non-***ed and this is our definition of ***ed"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.