Evaluation of mortality attributable to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration using national level data from Qatar

[placeholder]

Accurate determination of mortality attributable to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is critical in allaying concerns about their safety...Among 6,928,359 doses administered, 138 deaths occurred within 30 days of vaccination; eight had a high probability (1.15/1,000,000 doses), 15 had intermediate probability (2.38/1,000,000 doses), and 112 had low probability or no association with vaccination. The death rate among those with high probability of relationship to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was 0.34/100,000 unique vaccine recipients, while death rate among those with either high or intermediate probability of relationship to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was 0.98/100,000 unique vaccine recipients.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Thanks PlaceH. Nature is a great source of updates and this one from Qatar provides some reassurance to those who question the vax. I was surprised at the number of doses 6.9 million given Qatars population. It covered 18 months to June 22 which would make that pre-omicron but it seems a good look at the issue. But the virus has moved on since then. But its very interesting data.

 

Youve seen this no doubt about the latest bi-valent vax https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1#page Cleveland Ohio seems to produce quite a lot of research and the sample is smaller than the Qatar survey and the data has yet to be peer-reviewed. But the data suggests a vax effectiveness of 30% so one might wonder how that would stack up now that XBB etc are becoming the ruling variants. The new bi-valents cover variants that are declining.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

 

 

The usual objection. Effectiveness in preventing infection is one thing, protecting against serious illness, hospitalization, and deaths are another. The study you link to was about preventing infection.

"Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1#page

[TorquayFan]

Yes the Cleveland study highlights just 30% protection against infection. Presumably thats the first step in protecting against serious illness, hospitalization, and deaths. Protection from the new bi-valents seems limited by the fact that they are targeting variants that have largely passed through.

 

Re. the Qatar study - re. deaths defined as a result of vaccination, very different conclusions here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by TorquayFan

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes the Cleveland study highlights just 30% protection against infection. Presumably thats the first step in protecting against serious illness, hospitalization, and deaths. Protection from the new bi-valents seems limited by the fact that they are targeting variants that have largely passed through.

 

Re. the Qatar study - re. deaths defined as a result of vaccination, very different conclusions here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

 

Ah yes. The infamous 

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

 

"Scientists such as surgeon and cancer researcher David Gorski, biostatistician Jeffrey S. Morris, and nanomedicine expert Susan Oliver pointed out several issues in the study that indicated potential p-hacking.

P-hacking (also known as data dredging or data snooping) is the manipulation of data analysis to make the results look statistically significant when they aren’t. The study by Fraiman et al. showed several signs suggesting that the authors had analyzed data in a manner that favored their hypothesis."

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/article-by-cardiologist-aseem-malhotra-made-unsupported-claims-about-benefits-risks-covid-19-vaccination/

 

[placeholder]

40 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes the Cleveland study highlights just 30% protection against infection. Presumably thats the first step in protecting against serious illness, hospitalization, and deaths. Protection from the new bi-valents seems limited by the fact that they are targeting variants that have largely passed through.

 

Re. the Qatar study - re. deaths defined as a result of vaccination, very different conclusions here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

 

 

Another problem with this study is that on the one hand, it contends that there is an increased risk of serious adverse events. But it notes no apparent elevated risk in mortality. That alone marks its conclusions as being suspect.