THREAD

Breaking down the “efficacy” and safety of the #COVID19 vaccines if applied to the population

https://t.co/q8sXpkVxjs
https://t.co/tYCGHKgzqW
https://t.co/mQicBLheTJ
Pfizer vaccine summary: https://t.co/u4h7jZWbW8
Moderna vaccine summary: https://t.co/tiBOzjq1Xj
AstraZeneca vaccine summary: https://t.co/tPMa4II0ZE
IMPORTANT NOTE:

Given that only ~1 in 5 #COVID19 cases require hospitalization, this means that only ~20% of the already minute levels of decreases provided by vaccines in the occurrence of #COVID19 would prevent #COVID19 leading to hospitalizations...

https://t.co/UD5pIQjIY2
^ Hence:

* Pfizer vaccine would lead to only ~0.03% less #COVID19 hospitalizations over 1 week

* Moderna vaccine would lead to only ~0.24% less #COVID19 hospitalizations over 2 months

* AstraZeneca vaccine would lead to only ~0.24% less #COVID19 hospitalizations over 6 weeks
^ Simultaneously:

* Pfizer vaccine would cause 1,443,042 serious adverse events over 1 week

* Moderna vaccine would cause 3,081,988 serious adverse events over 28 days

* AstraZeneca vaccine would lead to 54,600,009 serious adverse events over 6 weeks

https://t.co/9Ckp1Fy53h
^ Barring further follow-up and surveillance, we currently have no idea how much more presentation of serious adverse events (resulting in: death, substantial risk of being life-threatening, hospitalization, and/or disability/permanent damage) would occur beyond these follow-ups.
Meanwhile, along with providing rapid health restoration, sufficient niacin supply is mechanistically established to serve as ensured protection against the development of #COVID19

Further, niacin is a safe, natural vitamin; readily available; & would cost <1 cent a gram in bulk https://t.co/rAFMIHzUeA
We also have no idea of effectiveness beyond brief follow-ups

Beyond brief follow-up, they could very well even exasperate burden of disease outcome (i.e. #COVID19 hospitalizations) that they intend to & do initially—albeit meaninglessly—protect against!

https://t.co/ROir4ebMjB
Some more on this... https://t.co/Yz2ji8aPRG

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?