Thread by @EmpireinWinter

And this is entirely fine--our conversation has largely sidestepped the ideological, or any need to join an information warfare campaign against vaxx hesitancy, or the WEF, etc.

https://twitter.com/godfriedpimlott/status/1474176727853142023

We've seen potential harms & benefits for 2 options--without other nuances such as limited use of vaxx for high C19 risk & no jabs for high vaxx risk while pursuing
#ZeroCovid & / or
herd immunity thru Omicron &/or
a better vaxx selection & / or
prophylaxis & early treatment

We've recognized how isolated, healthy individuals (low risk to catch C19; moderate risk of severe illness) might opt out of (low) vaxx risk, or high-vaxx-risk (teen males) might still opt out of vaxx w/ high odds to get Omicron, but low expected C19 impacts.

These decisions will be based on personal medical & life circumstances, risk perception, interpretations of how vaxx is being used (#ZeroCovid vs. Go Canucks), avail. & quality of care, & the ethical, legal, social & political entailments of policies.

With you, I'm prepared to say that if we use Cdn official figures of 253 (reports of deaths *linked* to not necessarily caused by vaxx--say 20% causal) X an URF of say, 10, we would have 500 deaths, plus serious events @ 7000 X .2 X 10: 140,000 serious events, then...

I am more inclined to take the risk than from US VAERS (almost 4 x Cdn rate per capita) @9000 deaths x .2 causal x URF 10 = 18,000 deaths, plus the equivalent .2 x 10 URF calculation for these other outcomes:

But even .2 causal x URF 10, these are not negligible #s. What is acceptable? What level should trigger doubts about whether we are on the right track?

These are the sorts of questions one would expect from a functioning pharmacovigilance system.

Are we tracking these #s?

We can all quote efficacy claims (95%, etc.) but do we see anything equivalent to this for safety?
Again, metric means 'safe', or 'rare'?
How close are we to a safety trigger?
Who do we trust to disclose this & how?
Where is the science we are following here?

Do we suppress myocarditis news until it can't be ignored, as appears to have happened recently?

Having acknowledged this (after how many avoidable cases), can we still mandate jabs for kids at relatively high risk from vaxx (teen boys) & low risk for C19, esp. Omicron?

So, say, 10 deaths & 3000 serious events/wk. If we don't freely acknowledge, are these 3000 people getting treatment for something more than hypochondria? Compensation? Are we aggressively tuning vax to ⬇️harms,⬆️ treatment protocols?

Then we have longer-term, population-level risks.
1. lifetime prognosis / costs for boys w/ vaxx myocarditis?
2. risks of vaxx driving evolution of virus--so far direction of travel is to more transmissible & till Omicron more severe--vs viral evolution without limited vaxx.

3. declining auto-immune response, esp. to boosters. Effects may be cumulative, non-linear; previous cases of vaxx in trials shutting down an immune system.

4. longer-term unknown harms, especially for kids--are we discounting their health tomorrow for our benefit today, much as we've done with climate?

So yes, precautionary principle, but this fuller discussion, which will necessarily entail economic pseudoscience & a societal / technical blindness to systemic & existential risk.

@threadreaderapp unroll

That's 14,000 serious events. Not 140,000.