The SCCS method -- basically dividing observation time for each case into control and risk periods -- is extremely powerful. The observation period can be further subdivided into age categories to address age as a (time-varying) confounder. One key advantage is its implicit control for confounders that remain constant over time, such as genetics, location, and socioeconomic status.
safe & effective became myocarditis SAEs arent serious and passes quickly...
from the study:
"The majority of myocarditis cases were classified as severe. Among the total cases, 66.94% (1187/1773) required hospitalization, 16.13% (286/1773) were reported under life-threatening conditions, 4.68% (83/1773) resulted in permanent disability, and 1.8% (32/1773) were fatal."
it seems the intervention was far more risky for young people than the virus <1% hospitalization rate, .002% or less infection fatality rate...
1) Any clue if this can be applied to autism and vaccines?
2) SCCS has a two weaknesses in any context. First, the control period may not actually be free of risk. Thus signals are diluted. A recent SCCS found no risk of retinal occlusion from covid vaccines, but a cohort study did. The second weakness is that it can only study short-term risks. In example, the above cohort study found the elevated risk took MONTHS to go away!
I am glad and relieved to learn that a better method of evaluating vaccine safety has been devised. Now we can say if a person is lucky enough to have no bad "side effect" from their first dose of the jab, just wait for doses 2 and 3. What are the odds the FDA and CDC will ignore or obscure this research?
The SCCS method -- basically dividing observation time for each case into control and risk periods -- is extremely powerful. The observation period can be further subdivided into age categories to address age as a (time-varying) confounder. One key advantage is its implicit control for confounders that remain constant over time, such as genetics, location, and socioeconomic status.
safe & effective became myocarditis SAEs arent serious and passes quickly...
from the study:
"The majority of myocarditis cases were classified as severe. Among the total cases, 66.94% (1187/1773) required hospitalization, 16.13% (286/1773) were reported under life-threatening conditions, 4.68% (83/1773) resulted in permanent disability, and 1.8% (32/1773) were fatal."
it seems the intervention was far more risky for young people than the virus <1% hospitalization rate, .002% or less infection fatality rate...
demonic
1) Any clue if this can be applied to autism and vaccines?
2) SCCS has a two weaknesses in any context. First, the control period may not actually be free of risk. Thus signals are diluted. A recent SCCS found no risk of retinal occlusion from covid vaccines, but a cohort study did. The second weakness is that it can only study short-term risks. In example, the above cohort study found the elevated risk took MONTHS to go away!
I am glad and relieved to learn that a better method of evaluating vaccine safety has been devised. Now we can say if a person is lucky enough to have no bad "side effect" from their first dose of the jab, just wait for doses 2 and 3. What are the odds the FDA and CDC will ignore or obscure this research?