Question about virus and vaccine warnings

[nikolai_42]

It seems to me - and this is an impression - that we have been receiving constant, "up-to-date" numbers on the COVID spread. That is within a few days (and certainly within a week) of any asserted COVID event, we are being told how many people have the virus - and how many deaths there are from it. The CDC (and this isn't my main point) takes in the order of months to flesh out who actually died from what when they publish their mortality numbers on the website. Sometimes you have to wait a couple of years for a finalized set of data that tells you who died from what. I expect this is usually tweaking the data by (relatively) insignificant numbers in an effort to be as accurate as possible - but the main point there is that you can't get reliable data very quickly. For example, if you go to find out how many people died in 2020 (of anything), you won't find anything official. As a Reuters fact-check article says here, as of Nov 2020, the CDC still didn't have official overall mortality numbers for 2019 :

Fact Check : Chart does not present accurate US deaths figure for 2020

The numbers that are announced are questioned by everyone for a variety of different reasons - not the least of which is the reliability of the tests that have given large numbers of false positives. I understand that is less of an issue now, but it is still an issue. So we are given data that is very close to real time in an industry that is known for its hesitancy to commit to such numbers even a year later. To compound that, if you are interested in Vaccination data (and any related incidents), you can go here :

Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System

This is a government site that tracks the impact of reactions to Vaccines. Before you can look at the data, however, you are faced with a full-sized disclaimer (apologize for the odd formatting of the bullet list) :

Disclaimer​

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

• Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
• Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
• The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
• VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
• VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

So here we have a full-throated warning that we can't jump to conclusions about the data that (at least anecdotally) links some medical condition or event to a vaccination. The irony is that the very definition of a vaccine requires that the individual have a copy of the virus in his or her system. And while that virus is dead or weak - it should still be easier to make a causal connection to the vaccine response to someone testing positive for COVID (because of false positives and people likely dying from other things....such as car accidents or gunshot wounds!). And what sort of lead time does the CDC need before they will even allow you to see the data? Read what actually comes before the Disclaimer :

VAERS Data​

VAERS data is accessible by downloading raw data in comma-separated value (CSV) files for import into a database, spreadsheet, or text editing program, or by using the CDC WONDER online search tool. Information provided to VAERS which identifies a person who received the vaccine or vaccines will not be made available to the public. De-identified VAERS data are available 4-6 weeks after the report is received. VAERS data change as new reports are received, so your results may change if you repeat the same search at a later date. To learn more about interpreting data see Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data.

So the CDC needs 4-6 weeks to confirm whether or not a vaccine averse event could even be considered valid. And yet, in the middle of a maelstrom of data (all the way from the long dead relative that just "tested positive" to the nursing home resident who was just exposed and at serious risk) all that data is made available to the public without any filtering. And public policy decisions are being made based on this raw data. Where's the oversight there? Am I the only one who finds this ironic (to put it mildly)? I know I'm not, but I try to be as even as possible - and generous with benefit of the doubt - but this just emphasizes to me how unscientifically the data is being managed (especially for something with - by all accounts - an exceptionally low death rate).

 

[chair]

The irony is that the very definition of a vaccine requires that the individual have a copy of the virus in his or her system.

This isn't the case with the new vaccines. There is no "copy" of the virus, only a small portion of the viral RNA.

 

[nikolai_42]

Point taken...but the fact remains that admittedly unreliable testing is being used as the basis for policy (and being called "science") when normal review of data takes months (and at least 4 weeks based on the CDC VAERS statement). It's assuming the conclusion and then trying to figure out how to prove it thereafter. That's backwards.

 

[ok doser]

Point taken...but the fact remains that admittedly unreliable testing is being used as the basis for policy (and being called "science") when normal review of data takes months (and at least 4 weeks based on the CDC VAERS statement). It's assuming the conclusion and then trying to figure out how to prove it thereafter. That's backwards.

The television, the main stream media and the politicians all assure chair that it's OK.

 

[chair]

Point taken...but the fact remains that admittedly unreliable testing is being used as the basis for policy (and being called "science") when normal review of data takes months (and at least 4 weeks based on the CDC VAERS statement). It's assuming the conclusion and then trying to figure out how to prove it thereafter. That's backwards.

The problem lies in the fact (yes, it's a fact) that there's an epidemic, and the situation is very dynamic. The people who have to make policy decisions don't have the luxury of waiting for months until the data is near -perfect. We all have to do the best we can with what there is.

 

[nikolai_42]

The problem lies in the fact (yes, it's a fact) that there's an epidemic, and the situation is very dynamic. The people who have to make policy decisions don't have the luxury of waiting for months until the data is near -perfect. We all have to do the best we can with what there is.

Then they are doing the public a service by calling it "science" when they make claims that can't be corroborated and/or change their tune multiple times on a single issue. That's not science....that's arbitrary exercise of power.

 

[Right Divider]

Then they are doing the public a service by calling it "science" when they make claims that can't be corroborated and/or change their tune multiple times on a single issue. That's not science....that's arbitrary exercise of power.

I believe that you mean disservice.