I think u folks R misleading and intellectually quite lazy. Yes. It’s a very simple task to adhere to utilitarian arguments without due consideration to the why and whether of hesitancy and safety, respectively. The positions U take are quite superficial and wo nuance. Change.
-
-
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
Pot. Kettle. Black. It is in fact YOUR arguments that are quite superficial and lack nuance. You don’t understand the difference between vaccine-hesitant and antivaccine. You can’t counter the studies I cite that suggest the premise of
#ScreenB4Vaccine has low plausibility.1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
You ignore the evidence of tens of millions of doses of
#CovidVaccine administered without a safety signal predicted by your hypothesis. Instead, you keep robotically repeating#ScreenB4Vaccine and how that’s based on your “immunological prognostication.”2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
David, again. If COVID-19 disease/death and thromboembolic events days after vaccination are not classified as “vaccine related”, a signal won’t be “seen”. If U do not look, U do not see. What of that don’t u get? Believe me, I’d love to C my prognostication not bear out.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
Baseline rates, man. If such events occur in the vaccinated at a detectably higher rate than the expected baseline rate, then THAT’S a safety signal, regardless of how the deaths are ruled. After tens of millions of doses, they haven’t. Do you not understand basic epidemiology?
3 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
You’re wrong about this Dave signals get blunted by noise and by professionals not looking and by system momentum. If u take two seconds to study the hazard that killed my wife u’d understand. That signal was blunted and ignored for over 20 yrs. Pls get a clue. Nuance! Ativan!
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
As sorry as we all are about your wife, there are huge differences here. First, the numbers involved are orders of magnitude larger over a much shorter period of time. Second, there is unprecedented attention being paid to safety monitoring. It’s a VERY different situation.
5 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
1/2: David, real public health signals get blunted and R subject to noise based on the their frequency and based on the way public health experts classify the variables. COVID Disease/Deaths and thromboembolic events after vaccine are not considered "vaccine related".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @gorskon and
The sad irony, if you had made this claim - that our vaccine surveillance systems were not adequately tracking instances of such adverse events - a week earlier, I might have thought "gosh, maybe he's right, maybe that obvious thing got overlooked." But after a week....
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @JDCBurnhil @gorskon and
The surveillance system is quite robust. U R right. The issue is that Post-vaccine COVID disease/deaths and thromboembolic events are excluded as being vaccine related and dropped. They will not be detected or acted on urgently...until possibly later. Much later.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That is, quite simply, not true. That’s not how safety surveillance works. Moreover, if there were a safety signal for a problem as severe as your hypothesis predicts, it would’ve been seen by by now.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @JDCBurnhil and
You’re wrong about this. The data is as useful as the cognitive algorithm used to mine it. If Post-vaccine “COVID-disease” and thromboembolic events are not considered “vaccine-related”, they are excluded or misclassified in the analysis.
@DrWoodcockFDA5 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.