>>13394193>COVID won't ask for a 4 year safety trialSo clearly the solution is to take the meme sauce with unknown effects beyond 2 months. One could argue that the kung flu could have unknown long-term effects, which is fair. However, from studies so far, this only seems to be prevalent in the elderly and those that have been hospitalized, and the effects are relatively minor, not requiring re-hospitalization. These also tend to be self-reported, small in sample size and the longer study is only 6 months, so the results are questionable to be fair (picrel).
>For every 1000 doses given, ~1 hospitalization is prevented in the 25-29 age group (not accounting for underlying conditions)This means that there needs to be less than a 0.1% chance of any severe adverse effect in recipients of the vaccine for it to be worth it for the 25-29 group (not accounting for underlying conditions). The number is even lower for younger individuals. So for young healthy individuals, the ouchie needs to hospitalize <0.1% of the recipients in this group.
>But you are talking about some elusive down-the-line effectPrecisely, and the only placebo group we had for testing this has been axed.
>Are you familiar with what a phase 2 and a phase 3 trial are?Yes, and the idea that 2 months long enough for a phase 3 trial is questionable, at least enough so that the FDA is not taking the ouchie off of emergency use guidelines. If you are under 30 and truly believe that what has been done so far is enough to reliably detect a <0.1% outcome within this age group, then by all means, get the ouchie.
>About the articleThe point of including that was to give an example of how it is not always as simple as "vaccine good, virus worse", complications don't need to manifest as enhanced disease
