People in red states report more COVID vaccine side effects: Study

[Social Media]

 

A recent study published in the JAMA medical journal has shed light on an intriguing correlation: states with a higher percentage of Republican voters appear to be experiencing more reports of adverse side effects from COVID-19 vaccines.

 

The study delved into data from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), analyzing over 600,000 vaccine adverse events reported by adults aged 18 and older. Researchers focused on three key outcomes: the rates of adverse events among vaccine recipients, rates of severe adverse effects, and the proportion of adverse events reported as severe.

 

Surprisingly, the study found that a 10 percent increase in state-level Republican voting was associated with higher odds of adverse event reports. Interestingly, this link between political inclination and adverse event reports did not hold true for flu vaccines.

 

Despite these intriguing findings, the study acknowledged some limitations. For instance, since vaccine recipients could file multiple reports, each report might not necessarily represent a unique individual. However, one strength of the analysis was its consistency across different statistical models.

 

The study's conclusion highlighted the bidirectional relationship between observation and belief. It suggested that individual experiences shape perceptions of truth, while preconceptions can influence what individuals perceive in the first place.

 

It's important to note that like all vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines carry some potential side effects. A previous multi-country study, published in February, indicated an increased association between coronavirus vaccinations and side effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis, and pericarditis. However, the researchers underscored that these conditions were more likely to result from COVID-19 infections rather than vaccinations.

 

As the vaccination campaign continues, understanding the factors influencing vaccine perception and reporting remains crucial in promoting public health and safety.

 

03.04.24

Source

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

If the above report actually wanted to be fair-minded, it would have told its readers important additional information needed to fairly evaluate what was being reported:

 

1. Although not explained in the OP article by The Hill, the reports submitted to the U.S. government’s VAERS database that are the basis for this study don’t actually show or prove that claimed adverse events were in fact related to the person’s vaccination. The reports there can be filed by anyone, and remain there regardless of what any subsequent follow-up inquiry may show.

 

“As the VAERS website explains in a disclaimer, reports “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.” Reports are not vetted before being included in the database.”

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-what-vaers-can-and-cant-do-and-how-anti-vaccination-groups-habitually-misuse-its-data/

 

Or as the U.S. CDC said of VAERS in a different news report on the study data being reported here:

 

“VAERS reports have not been verified, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes. "Anyone, including healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public, can submit reports to the system," the CDC says. "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."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/states-lean-republican-report-more-covid-vaccine-related-adverse-events-study-finds

 

As one example of that, a doctor, James Laidler, reported filing a VAERS report in the early 2000s claiming “an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk,” a report that remained in the VAERS database until Laidler later agreed to have it removed.

 

“If I had not agreed, the record would be there still,” Laidler wrote in a 2005 blog post, “showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.”

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-what-vaers-can-and-cant-do-and-how-anti-vaccination-groups-habitually-misuse-its-data/

 

2. Whereas large numbers of Republicans clearly don’t believe in the scientifically documented benefits of COVID vaccines, other research has shown that their beliefs are in fact mistaken.

 

Multiple studies have shown Republican leaning areas with low COVID vaccination rates have higher COVID death rates than Democrat leaning areas with higher COVID vaccination rates – another relevant fact not included in the OP report by The Hill, even though the authors of the subject study here did take note of it.

 

"Antivaccine sentiment is increasingly associated with conservative political positions," the study authors wrote. "COVID-19 mortality has been higher in US jurisdictions that are more conservative in their party registration, voting history, or representation. These differences are likely explained, in part, by differences in vaccination rates."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/states-lean-republican-report-more-covid-vaccine-related-adverse-events-study-finds

 

In other words, the OP reported data here shows what Republicans believe about COVID vaccines. The other studies have shown what actually happens to them when they follow thru on those beliefs and avoid COVID vaccinations.

 

“Excess death rates were 2.8 percentage points (15%) higher for Republican voters compared with Democratic voters (95% PI, 1.6 to 3.7 percentage points).

 

After May of 2021, roughly 1 month after COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, the [excess deaths] gap between Republicans and Democrats further widened, to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0 to 9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis, or a 43% difference, the authors said.

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths

 

COVID vaccines save lives, and the actual vaccine related side effects are exceedingly rare. Follow the proven science, not the unproven anti-vax claims espoused by too many in the right-wing political domain.

 

"The February 2024 publication of the largest peer-reviewed study of Covid-19 vaccine safety to date has inspired misleading social media claims that its findings show the jabs are unsafe. Study authors and independent experts say the research confirms that adverse reactions to vaccination are rare and pose far fewer risks than Covid-19 infection."

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34K78ZW

 

Edited April 2 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Bkk Brian]

Pretty simple & predictable, from the study:

 

"Conclusions and Relevance  This cross-sectional study found that the more states were inclined to vote Republican, the more likely their vaccine recipients or their clinicians reported COVID-19 vaccine AEs. These results suggest that either the perception of vaccine AEs or the motivation to report them was associated with political inclination."

 

My take. Considering anyone can report them, then those who were more exposed to vaccine misinformation were the ones from Red States so they reported more to Vaers even though it was probably nothing to do with the vaccine.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I agree. But IMHO, the report by The Hill misleads by omission by not making clear that the adverse event reports that are the basis of the cited study and its ensuing news report are in no way verified or proven to be actually related to people's vaccinations. That's a pretty big omission, IMHO.

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I agree. But IMHO, the report by The Hill misleads by omission by not making clear that the adverse event reports that are the basis of the cited study and its ensuing news report are in no way verified or proven to be actually related to people's vaccinations. That's a pretty big omission, IMHO.

 

 

 

Who cares, the study is linked.

[Crossy]

So, viruses and vaccines now follow politics?

 

I suggest the report linked in the OP is a load of dingo's kidneys (c)Douglas Adams

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

 

[bunnydrops]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

The study's conclusion highlighted the bidirectional relationship between observation and belief. It suggested that individual experiences shape perceptions of truth, while preconceptions can influence what individuals perceive in the first place.

In short "self-fulfilling prophecy"

[KhunLA]

Safe & Effective vaccine ... a bit of an oxymoron IMHO

 

Safe .... "600,000 vaccine adverse events reported by adults aged 18 and older"

Effective ...

... doesn't stop getting covid

...  doesn't stop spreading covid

 

Here's a bit of an observation.  When I quote the VAERS numbers, pointing the vaccine may not be a safe & effective as we were told, I'm chastised and told the numbers are irrelevant, meaningless.

 

But, when the numbers can show the right, red states or REPs in a negative view, well hell, they are accurate and prove some point they/the left are trying to make.

 

Go figure ... 

 

Makes you wonder, (well, not me), who controls the MSM and the narrative that's allowed ?

Edited April 3 by KhunLA

[save the frogs]

it's in the news, so it must be true

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I agree. But IMHO, the report by The Hill misleads by omission by not making clear that the adverse event reports that are the basis of the cited study and its ensuing news report are in no way verified or proven to be actually related to people's vaccinations. That's a pretty big omission, IMHO.

And yet, mandatory to report 2 types, along with most reports are from HCP & vaccine manufacturers and SVSC (78% +/- of reports).  Surely they actually know what they are reporting.

 

... "Healthcare providers and manufacturers are required to report two types of adverse events to VAERS within a 7-day period: (a) those that the manufacturer has identified as contraindicating reactions to the vaccine as specified within the manufacturer's package insert and (b) any adverse events present on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table [4]. Healthcare providers and manufacturers are also encouraged to report any other adverse event they consider to be clinically important."

 

... "From 2000 to 2004, approximately 60% of all domestic reports came from either HCP or vaccine manufacturers and approximately 8% came from vaccine recipients or their parent/guardian; during 2006–2011 these proportions increased slightly to 64% and 10%, respectively, and approximately 4% came from State Vaccine Safety Coordinators (CDC unpublished)

(source)

 

Also, most adverse events are NOT reported ...

 

... ""Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. "

(source)

Edited April 3 by KhunLA

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The info you cite above on the sources of some past VAERS reports came from a 2013 study that predated COVID by years. It used reporting data from past years involving periods drastically unrelated to the massive, highly publicized nationwide COVID vaccination campaign in the U.S. that occurred primarily in 2021 and 2022 amid the pandemic, where public awareness, media attention etc. was significantly heightened. Apples and oranges.

 

Also, as has been reported previously, the adverse event reporting requirements for VAERS were significantly expanded in the U.S. for COVID vaccines vs. what they had been before, leading to more reporting.

 

"As we explained then, the huge number of VAERS reports following COVID-19 vaccination and relative paucity for other vaccines is likely mostly due to a reporting bias. For one, because the COVID-19 vaccines are or were at first authorized under an emergency use authorization, there are much broader reporting requirements for health care providers.

 

For the COVID-19 vaccines, health care providers are required by law to report any vaccine administration error; any serious adverse event following vaccination, regardless of the suspected cause; any case of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome; and any COVID-19 case that results in hospitalization or death."

 

Reporting any post vaccination serious adverse event regardless of the suspected cause.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/12/scicheck-increase-in-covid-19-vaers-reports-due-to-reporting-requirements-intense-scrutiny-of-widely-given-vaccines/

 

The second source you cite above, an undated U.S. government website with background on the VAERS program that makes no mention whatsoever of COVID, appropriately opens with the following passage:

 

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event."

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

 

In short, reports in VAERS prove nothing about whether any given vaccine caused any particular side effect. There can be millions of reports submitted to VAERS, and they still prove nothing -- other than serving as a early warning system for health officials to investigate potential patterns, which they do.

 

And here's what they've found, per the U.S. CDC:

 

"Multiple factors contribute to reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination, including heightened public awareness of COVID-19 vaccines, requirements under FDA authorization for COVID-19 vaccines that healthcare providers report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS (even if it is unclear whether the vaccine was the cause), and reporting requirements in CDC vaccine provider agreements. People receiving COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to die from COVID-19 and its complications and are at no greater risk of death from non-COVID causes, than unvaccinated people." [emphasis added]

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

Edited April 3 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[ballpoint]

4 hours ago, Crossy said:

So, viruses and vaccines now follow politics?

 

I suggest the report linked in the OP is a load of dingo's kidneys (c)Douglas Adams

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

 

 

I disagree!

 

The quote is "load of fetid dingo's kidneys".

[Robert Paulson]

It’s so crazy given all the recent news on vaccines how much this particular forum leans in favor of vaccines. 

[dhupverg]

7 hours ago, Robert Paulson said:

It’s so crazy given all the recent news on vaccines how much this particular forum leans in favor of vaccines. 

Cult like, almost as if there are shills.  "Stops transmission" "you won't get covid if you get the jab"  propoganda that was spread and has proven to be false.  Go against this narrative, it's at best misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, and at worst get a time out. Wonderful job.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Yes, such news about the COVID vaccines... It's shocking!

Latest COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization risk by around half

March 01, 2024

 

The latest COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk for hospitalization or visits to an ED or urgent care by around 50%, according to interim data published in MMWR.

 

This season’s influenza vaccines were similarly protective against hospitalization among children and adults, early estimates published in MMWR showed.

 

The updated, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines recommended by the CDC in September target omicron XBB subvariants of SARS-CoV-2.

 

 

(more)

 

https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20240301/latest-covid19-vaccines-reduce-hospitalization-risk-by-around-half

 

[Robert Paulson]

4 hours ago, dhupverg said:

Cult like, almost as if there are shills.  "Stops transmission" "you won't get covid if you get the jab"  propoganda that was spread and has proven to be false.  Go against this narrative, it's at best misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, and at worst get a time out. Wonderful job.

In UK they are serious complaints about the vaccines and what was said on social media influencing people to get vaccinated without proper information https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/media/cwvkqvyz/3741-case-report-28-march-2024.pdf

[stats]

A post with unsourced and unsubstantiated claims has been removed.