@FLSurgeonGen there's this thing called "behavior". And it impacts passive surveillance. Don't trust the COVID-19 data? Then let's look at another vaccine...
HPV. In 2008, we had ~6000 reports to VAERS for adverse events following HPV vaccination. In 2013, we had ~50 reports. This means reports decreased by 12x.
Why you may ask? Did it get safer in 5 years? No. We didn't change the vaccine formula.
Maybe fewer people got the vaccine so less people reported adverse events? No. In 2008 <10% of teens had the HPV vaccine. In 2013, 40% had been vaccinated. ...
1/n Estimating death rankings from a novel virus is incredibly challenging. We don't have a "counter-factual"-- A 12-month period with no restrictions and stable virus-- to know the "true" toll. These ACIP numbers came from a preprint with an important nuance.
2/n Authors ranked C19 based on 23-month cumulative deaths. They did this to account for restrictions. They also ranked based on annualized deaths (not on ACIP slide). Using annual, the ranks are as follows:
i hope people recognize how privileged it is to say “don’t panic” to the public. we’re asking people to understand the second most complex system in the human body while navigating a sea of misinformation while coping with significant exhaustion and mental health problems 1/4
all while receiving little-to-no communication from CDC/FDA/WH or even scientists in “English”. SO i humbly suggest an alternative to “don’t panic”… we take the public along for the ride. we communicate the science and how it’s changing. if ive learned anything with my 2/4
newsletter it’s that the average person wants to know! not just “go get your vaccine still” but WHY. not just “we’re waiting for studies” but WHAT science we’re waiting for. not just “there were 61 pos people on a plane” but WHAT we’re looking for if they are positive. 3/4