French Study on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Finds a Drop in Severe COVID—and No Increase in Deaths
Vaccinated adults had a 74 percent lower risk of dying from COVID-19—and a 25 percent lower risk of dying, period.
A few years before he took over the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called COVID-19 shots the "deadliest vaccine ever made." More recently, various anti-vaccination activists have been claiming that the mRNA vaccines are causing a turbo-cancer epidemic.
A huge new French study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network deflates those claims and confirms the safety and efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The researchers followed 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals for nearly four years. They found not only that vaccinated people have a 74 percent lower risk of death from severe COVID-19, but also that those individuals have a lower risk of death, period. Specifically, people who received the shots have a 25 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality.

As for the turbo-cancer claims, the researchers report that the incidence of tumors among vaccinated adults is 769 per million. For the unvaccinated, the rate is versus 853 per million. In other words, vaccinated adults were about 15 percent less likely to be diagnosed with cancer than those were unvaccinated.
The researchers sought to control for various confounders, such as a healthy-vaccinee effect, where healthier individuals are more likely to opt for vaccination, or a frailty-related bias, where those in poorer health may avoid it. They also note that vaccinated individuals in their study were generally older and tended to have more co-morbidities, such as obesity and chronic illnesses, which would usually be associated with an increased risk of dying. (The different results, they note, might be partially explained by the fact that vaccinated individuals tend to be more socioeconomically advantaged.)
"This study helps to put an end to the misinformation spread about mRNA vaccines," the study's lead author, Mahmoud Zureik, told Le Monde. "Providing data on the absence of long-term risks helps strengthen confidence in these vaccines, which will be developed for other viruses and diseases."
Their results should indeed strengthen confidence. But Kennedy, who has been shifting research dollars to purportedly "safer" vaccines, will likely ignore it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
"A huge new French study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network . . . "
Oh goody.
Talk about reliable sources - - - - -
A French study? (which confirms the government position)
Published in JAMA? (which IS the government position)
Let me guess, Loki reviewed and approved it?
I’m shocked Bailey had never left Reason for a gig at a “mainstream” news site, given he reliably parrots their “science in service of big government “ (in this case, get those government mandated jabs) talking points.
(Deleted. Duplicate post)
Loki wouldn’t go along with this crap. Even he has standards.
Hundreds of thousands of health researchers and nurses around the world are all in on the con. But you can totally trust the Facebook with an AI generated hot chick avatar that says vaccines are harmful.
These government people you revere so have provably been lying through their teeth at every turn on COVID vaccines and other treatments. Yet you refuse to acknowledge any of it,
Do you know what that makes you?
I mean I don't see people dropping dead on the sports fields anymore since they stopped taking the shots. I'm not sure what Ron is being paid to do?
Cherries...they be picked.
Dingleberries... they be picked, from the so-called "brains" of Damned-and-Sick!!!
Don't you eat those things, Melvin?
Vaccinated adults had a 74 percent lower risk of dying from COVID-19—and a 25 percent lower risk of dying, period.
Deaths from, with or adjacent to covid-19?
The vaccine even extends your life! Ignore global life expectations dropped post vaccine.
Killing people is good ass long ass anti-vaxxers have their way in promoting anti-vaxism ass THE most fashionable of ALL Marks of Tribal Virtue!!!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
Just LOOK at the interactive graph right at the top of this link!!!! COVID deaths among the unvaccinated VASTLY outnumbered, and still outnumber, the deaths among the vaccinated!!! WHY do You Perfectly Lust SOOOO Much for death and suffering, LYING servant and serpent of communicable diseases?!?!
PS, "food" is dangerous! People get sick and even die from food poisoning!!! Be SAFE!!! STOP eating!!!!
SQRLSY
Look at the Our World Data link you provided, for the oct 21-jan 2022 date range
Then look at WorldoMeters data for the US
Now try to explain how there could possibly be such high total deaths during that period when 80% of the deaths were in the 65+ age group and that age group was 85-90% vaxed. The math simply doesnt support the CDC computation of the death rate for the unvaxed.
"Now try to explain how there could possibly be such high total deaths during that period when 80% of the deaths were in the 65+ age group and that age group was 85-90% vaxed."
High total death rates among the old are... The results of getting old!!! Old people die more frequently than younger folks, hello?!?!? The COVID vax ass a failed "fix" for getting old and dying of old age? Where did THAT strawman cum from?
The important thing is the DIFFERENTIAL death rate among the vaxxed v/s the un-vaxxed, and the graphs show THAT very clearly!
SQRLSY 19 minutes ago
The important thing is the DIFFERENTIAL death rate among the vaxxed v/s the un-vaxxed, and the graphs show THAT very clearly!
SQRLSY - Nobody disputes that the graph shows a high differential death rate between the vaxed and unvaxed. The dispute is in the accuracy of the data.
The total deaths were too high and the unvaxed population was too small to have a have such high total deaths. Check the math. Its simply implausible for the delta to be that large. The math doesnt work and everyone who has ever worked with any level of math knows the math doesnt work.
I will add that the CDC really embarrassed themselves with their masking studies.
With respect to https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages I have a commenter who says:
“Now try to explain how there could possibly be such high total deaths during that period when 80% of the deaths were in the 65+ age group and that age group was 85-90% vaxed. The math simply doesnt support the CDC computation of the death rate for the unvaxed.”
My question to you: Was that age group REALLY 85 to 90% vaxxed?
Also commenter says: “Nobody disputes that the graph shows a high differential death rate between the vaxed and unvaxed. The dispute is in the accuracy of the data.The total deaths were too high and the unvaxed population was too small to have a have such high total deaths. Check the math. Its simply implausible for the delta to be that large. The math doesnt work and everyone who has ever worked with any level of math knows the math doesnt work.”
Your comments? I’m not sure WHY, exactly, commenter thinks the delta is implausibly high…
Perplexity says...
The 65+ age group in the U.S. did reach roughly 85–95% “at least one dose” coverage at various points, but that does not mean 85–90% were fully up to date or that death rate gaps “can’t” be as large as shown. The commenter is mixing several different quantities (ever vaccinated vs current status, share of total deaths vs death rates, and relative vs absolute risk) and then asserting “the math doesn’t work” without actually doing the math.cdc+1
Was 65+ really ~85–90% vaccinated?
CDC and ACIP slide decks summarizing 2024–2025 coverage show:
• For adults 65+, ever having completed an initial COVID vaccine series is in the high 80s to low 90s percent nationally.aamc+1
• However, the share who are up to date with current season vaccination is noticeably lower (often nearer 40–60% depending on season and state), and coverage is not uniform; some subgroups and regions have much lower coverage.cdc+1
So, “85–90% vaxxed” is reasonable if the commenter means “ever had at least a primary series or one dose,” but it is misleading if used as “everyone is well protected right now.” Our World in Data’s death rate chart is based on CDC data that classifies people by vaccination status at each point in time (unvaccinated vs primary series only vs boosted), not just “ever vaxxed at some point.”ourworldindata+2
Why large death rate gaps are mathematically plausible
The key is that death rate = deaths / population size in that group. If:
• 90% of 65+ are vaccinated and 10% are unvaccinated, and
• unvaccinated people have, say, 10 times the COVID death rate of vaccinated people (which is within the range seen in several waves),ourworldindata+1
then you would expect something like:
• Vaccinated 65+: 90 people × 1 death per 10,000 = 0.009 total deaths fraction
• Unvaccinated 65+: 10 people × 10 deaths per 10,000 = 0.01 total deaths fraction
So roughly half of deaths could come from the 10% unvaccinated minority, even though they are a small slice of the population, purely because their per capita risk is much higher. The Our World in Data graph expresses this as deaths per 100,000 in each status group, not absolute counts, so a large vertical gap is entirely compatible with high coverage.ourworldindata
The commenter’s argument that “the unvaxed population was too small to have such high total deaths” only holds if the relative risk is assumed to be small. But the whole empirical point of the chart is that relative risk was large (often one order of magnitude or more in bad waves), which makes those total death patterns arithmetically consistent.cdc+1
About “the math doesn’t work”
Without showing a specific calculation (population size by status, period death rate, and resulting expected number of deaths), “the math doesn’t work” is just an assertion. The underlying CDC age stratified data and denominators are published and used by multiple independent groups, and there is no obvious arithmetic inconsistency:
• Denominators for vaccinated vs unvaccinated by age come from CDC immunization records and census based population estimates.cdc
• Numerators (deaths) are taken from surveillance systems that link death records with vaccination status.ourworldindata+1
There are legitimate caveats (misclassification of status, differences in health between groups, timing of doses, etc.), but these affect how large the benefit is, not whether a large gap is mathematically “impossible.” As long as a small group can have a much higher per capita risk, large deltas in death rates are not only plausible, they are exactly what these data show.cidrap.umn+1
How to respond concisely to the commenter
• Yes, 65+ coverage for “ever vaccinated” has been around 85–95%, but fewer are fully up to date at any given time.aamc+1
• A small group with a 5–15× higher death rate can produce a disproportionate share of deaths; that is ordinary arithmetic, not a contradiction.ourworldindata+1
• If they believe the data are numerically impossible, the onus is to specify actual numbers (population by status, per capita rates, and implied deaths) and show a contradiction; when you plug in realistic figures, the pattern on the OWID/CDC chart is mathematically consistent.cidrap.umn+2
1. https://www.cdc.gov/acip/downloads/slides-2025-09-18-19/04-Srinivasan-covid-508.pdf
2. https://www.aamc.org/news/your-fall-2025-vaccine-guide
.. etc. ....
SQRLSY
How to respond concisely to the commenter
• Yes, 65+ coverage for “ever vaccinated” has been around 85–95%, but fewer are fully up to date at any given time.aamc+1
• A small group with a 5–15× higher death rate can produce a disproportionate share of deaths; that is ordinary arithmetic, not a contradiction.ourworldindata+1
• If they believe the data are numerically impossible, the onus is to specify actual numbers (population by status, per capita rates, and implied deaths) and show a contradiction; when you plug in realistic figures, the pattern on the OWID/CDC chart is mathematically consistent.cidrap.umn+2
LEt me respond to several of your attempts at rebuttal
A - SQrlsy states that fewer are upto date - Precisely - a vaccine that requires multiple boosters isnt a very effective vaccine to begin with.
B - SQRLSY states that a small group with15x higher death rate ... - That is true - however SQLSRy overlooks the fact that death rate for the unvaxed post introduction of the vax has to be 5x - 10x the death rate for unvaxed pre introduction of the vax ( pre Jan 2021). Further, SQLRSY fails to note that the risk of death does not increase by not taking the vax - Taking the vax can reduce the risk (presuming the vax works) but not taking the vax can not increase the risk. The CDC reported data which SQRLSY relies on requires a massive increase in risk which is a biological impossibility.
C - SQRLSY state the onus is on the person disputing the numbers - No - the onus is on the CDC to demonstrate their computation is valid, especially when there are far too many conflicting data points. Its quite frankly astonishing that activists dont question the data in the face of overwhelming conflicts.
Food requires "booster shots" as well! Will ye fault "food" for this? AND, not eating food for a month or more has MASSIVE increases in risk! Or is this impossible ass well?
"The CDC reported data which SQRLSY relies on requires a massive increase in risk which is a biological impossibility."
Says who? I mean, besides those people who will BLEEEEEEVE whatever they WANT to BLEEEEVE?
SQRLS Y - if you are going to quote me, then quote the entire statement.
As I stated - Not taking a vaccine does not and can not increase the risk. A person's risk factor can not change by not doing something, the status quo does not change.
A person's risk factor can go up or it can go down by doing something, but it cant change by maintaining the status quo.
Not taking EATING FOOD does not and can not increase the risk (of starving to death). A person's risk factor can not change by not doing something, the status quo does not change.
A person's risk factor can go up or it can go down by doing something, but it cant change by maintaining the status quo.
STOP EATING FOOD, YE FOOLS!!! SHIT IS A WASTE OF TIME!!!
It's credible that a rate of 85-90% among the US population over 65 was reached at one point considering how aggressively the shots were pushed toward that particular group; also, refusing the vaccine made less sense for older patients because of both their much higher risk of death from the virus and their relatively lower danger from any unknowable long term side-effects (people who have already lived longer than they were told to expect to growing up aren't likely to have a strong concern about something that might happen in 5-10 years). Because of the importance of age in the mortality rates during the pandemic, a "fully vaxxed" 70 year old was still at 400-600x the danger of dying from Covid as anyone under age 25 ever was without the vaccine (for children under 18, the rate of asymptomatic cases was estimated to be possibly as high as 70-80% at some points in the evolution of the data.
According to data on the CDC website (which indicated very different conclusions from what the CDC Director was saying publicly through pretty much all of 2020-2021), the median age of "covid deaths" in the US was around 75 years old (half of all deaths were within a group which made up maybe 15% of the population) at the time of the vaccine rollout, and 12 months later, that age had actually increased despite the emphasis on vaccinating the elderly ahead of most of the rest of the population, and the demographics of the "vaccine hesitant"
MAGA is supporting the murderer Hegseth.
Arizona has a Democratic Attorney General because too many MAGA Republicans listened to her Republican predecessor COVID disinformationist. Killing your voters is bad campaign strategy.
Twat can (should?) we do to pervSuade Hag-Smith to murder the anti-vaxxers instead of peaceful travelers upon the high seas? For the long-term good of sanity and humanity? If'n shit is good to "Hang Mike Pence"... Then twat are we waiting for, here?
If vaccines are so great, unharmful and effective why do you care if I get one or not? Get it yourself and mind your own business
All of the assholes around here who LIE, encouraging needless sickness, suffering, and death, encouraging others to join the anti-vax "True team R Brothers and Sisters", and shaming the vaxxers, are SNOT minding THEIR own business!!!
Didn't France lose all scientific credibility with climate science and being the usual country that finds everything causes cancer so regulate it?
Just for reference, "A 1:200 Korsakovian Dilution of duck heart and liver extract remains the overall best-selling flu medicine in France."
If you have no idea what a Korsakovian Dilution of any proportion of any material is, I congratulate you on not being retarded, French, or both.
Wow, I don't know if I'm smarter or more stupid for now knowing that such a thing as Korsakovian Dilution exists.
I prefer the Mandela Effect version of reality where it's an obscure Half-Life reference and not an artifact of "medical" history.
74% lower risk of dying from Covid 19 over 4 years?
Once Delta was replaced with Omnicron the death rates greatly diminished.
The percentage of vaccinated folks prior to Delta was nil or low.
This study is biased by the difference of severity of the VOC as much as anything else.
During the main phase of delta as many or more folks vaccinated were dying than unvaccinated. Of course the deaths were with comorbidities or elder age.
Not sure how the data can be considered usable because of the actual reporting of covid deaths completely falsified.
Does the study include the 65% ish of deaths reported as Covid deaths originally but were revised later to be deaths caused by the comorbidity which actually killed them?
Too many folks had their elderly loved ones with stage 4 cancer or equivalent dying in a hospice or in palliative care prior to becoming infected with covid but were reported as covid deaths because in their last couple days of life they contracted covid in the care center.
Ass to ALL of Your PervFected ASSertions... Your cites fell off!!!
Also...
Anti-COVID-vaxxers often harp on heart-tissue damages or inflammation (heart-lining tissues of some sort?). Yet I very recently read a for-pay hardcopy science magazine that discussed a reputable study that showed that children who are vaccinated get less of this heart-tissue swelling than those infected with COVID. Do you have a good link that shows this?
AI response:
Yes. There are now several large analyses showing that myocarditis and related heart complications are more common after COVID infection than after mRNA vaccination in children and adolescents.
Here are two very clear, accessible links:
Child/teen-specific study (UK data)
• University of Cambridge summary: “Risk of rare heart complications in children higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination” (2025).cam+1
o Using English health records, they found that children and young people had higher and longer lasting risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and related inflammatory heart problems after COVID infection than after vaccination.cam
o Over six months, infection was estimated to cause about 2.24 extra cases of myocarditis/pericarditis per 100,000 infected children versus 0.85 extra cases per 100,000 vaccinated children.cam
o After vaccination, the risk bump was short term (first ~4 weeks) and then returned to baseline, whereas after infection, elevated risk persisted for months.cam
That Cambridge page is probably very close to the article you saw in spirit.
Broader comparative data (including youth)
• A systematic review/meta analysis comparing myocarditis after infection vs vaccination concluded the risk of myocarditis is more than seven times higher after SARS CoV 2 infection than after COVID vaccination overall.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih
• CDC linked analyses similarly report that cardiac complications are significantly more common after infection than after mRNA vaccination, across sexes and age groups, including adolescents.cdc+1
These don’t say vaccination is risk free (vaccine associated myocarditis, especially in teen males after dose 2, is real but rare), but they support exactly the point you mention: for kids and teens, the net myocarditis/inflammation risk is higher from catching COVID than from getting vaccinated.gavi+3
1. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/risk-of-rare-heart-complications-in-children-higher-after-covid-19-infection-than-after-vaccination
2. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-longer-heart-risks-children-vaccination
etc. ...
Rates of mortality in Canada by age group. 2015 to 2023
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2023&referencePeriods=20150101%2C20230101
Very consistent rate of death year over year from 2015 to 2023.
Odd how 2019 is reported as the lowest rates of death for all ages throughout the period from 2015 to 2023.
Without knowing would anyone see massive increase in rate of death due to covid or a reduction in death from vaccines? No...
Yes, well, how about all the unvaxxed people who got "long COVID" and died from it, AFTER 2019?
My favorite AI, Perplexity, has this to say about your post:
Canada’s official mortality table does show very stable age‑specific death rates from 2015–2019 with a low point in 2019, followed by clear increases in 2020–2023, especially at older ages; read directly, the table does not support “no signal” of the pandemic in mortality.[1]
## What the StatCan table actually shows
The Statistics Canada table you linked is “Mortality rates, by age group, both sexes, Canada, per 1,000 population,” and the snippet in your file is for 2019–2023; the downloadable CSV for the full table includes 2015–2018 as well. Across most age bands, rates drift slightly over 2015–2018, then are lowest in 2019, and rise in 2020–2023, with the largest absolute increases in the 65+ groups (for example, the 90+ mortality rate is lower in 2019 than 2015–2018, then higher in 2020–2023 than in 2019).[1]
Put differently, 2019 is a local minimum before a step‑up: that pattern is exactly what you would expect from a relatively benign pre‑pandemic year followed by a respiratory pandemic that hits older age groups. The increases are age‑graded: very small in children, moderate in mid‑age adults, and large in the oldest groups, which again matches COVID’s risk profile rather than looking like random noise.[1]
## Why the “very consistent” impression is misleading
Looking at a single crude death rate (all ages combined) compresses a lot of structure; because the population is aging, a small change in the crude rate can mask bigger changes in older bands. In the StatCan table, the “all ages” crude rate goes from 7.6 in 2019 to 8.6 in 2022, which is more than a 10% increase in three years; that is not nothing, especially when it comes almost entirely from older ages.[1]
The year‑to‑year changes are also systematic rather than random: many older age bands rise in 2020, stay elevated or rise again in 2021–2022, and only ease slightly in 2023, which is hard to explain as ordinary fluctuation. So if one actually inspects the table by age, there is a clear mortality perturbation after 2019, even though the numbers are not “massive spikes” in an everyday‑news sense.[1]
## What you can and cannot infer about COVID vs vaccines
From this table alone, you can say:
- There was no obvious mortality disaster in Canada before 2020; 2019 looks relatively good.[1]
- There is a noticeable, age‑structured rise in mortality starting in 2020, consistent with pandemic‑era excess mortality.[1]
From this table alone, you cannot say:
- How much of the post‑2019 increase is direct COVID infection vs. indirect effects (health‑care disruption, delayed care, etc.).
- How much vaccination reduced deaths, because that counterfactual requires comparing observed mortality to estimated “no‑vaccine” mortality, not just eyeballing a single time series.
So the commenter’s rhetorical question—“would anyone see massive increase from covid or reduction from vaccines? No”—only works if someone skims the crude rate and ignores the size and direction of the changes by age band. A more careful reading is that the StatCan series is fully compatible with a sizable COVID mortality impact and says nothing either way about vaccine effectiveness without additional analysis.[1]
[1](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2023)
Vaccinated people have long covid.
TL/Dr the rest
Some people who EAT FOOD still die early of malnutrition! Shit can happen if you don't eat right!!! GIVE UP FOOD, ye fools!!! Shit is SNOT perfected yet!
Twat my AI says about YOUR shit:
What is the percentage of vaccinated people v/s un-vaccinated (for COVID) who get “long COVID”?
Vaccination clearly lowers the risk of long COVID, but there is no single universal percentage that applies everywhere; most studies find vaccinated people are about 20–60% less likely to develop long COVID than comparable unvaccinated people after infection, with stronger protection in earlier (pre Omicron) waves.nature+2
What large studies and reviews show
• A 2025 systematic review and meta analysis pooling dozens of studies found that people who had received COVID vaccination had about a 23% lower odds of long COVID than unvaccinated people (pooled odds ratio around 0.77 for “any vaccination vs none”), with primary series and boosters both associated with reduced risk.sciencedirect+1
• A large cohort of Quebec health care workers estimated that, in the pre Omicron period, two vaccine doses cut long COVID risk by roughly 80–90% among those who got infected, and that during Omicron, a booster still reduced the risk of long COVID by about half, with some waning over 6–11 months.academic.oup
• Other syntheses conclude that vaccines are “moderately effective” against post COVID conditions: risk reductions across studies usually fall in the 15–70% range depending on variant, number of doses, time since vaccination, and how long COVID is defined.aamc+3
Translating those into rough percentages: if, for example, 10% of infected unvaccinated people in a given study met criteria for long COVID, a 50% relative reduction would imply about 5% among comparable vaccinated people; if the reduction was 25%, it might be 7–8% versus 10%. Exact numbers differ by study and wave, but the consistent pattern is lower long COVID incidence in vaccinated groups, especially with more doses and more recent vaccination.yalemedicine+3
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65302-0
2. https://www.pfizer.com/news/announcements/pfizer-reaffirms-safety-and-efficacy-covid-19-vaccines
Virtually everyone who had Covid outside of China caught it after 2019. Also, everyone was Unvaxxed until spring of 2021 at the earliest.
The choice of 2019 as the demarcation line is virutally meaningless in the context of Covid.
Yes Canada's draconian COVID measures saved lots of lives. Thank you for pointing that out. Had the US had the same COVID death rate as Canada there would have been over seven hundred thousand fewer dead Americans. But we listened to murderous disinformationists instead.
that's a dumb take from dumb person.
Sorry but that is a false equivalence.
We definitely listened to murderous disinformation's in the media and government however and what did it accomplish? More death. Ask your buddy Andrew Cuomo how well that went for his constituents.
This study is a joke
A - the oldest age was age 59. That alone sshould discredit the study especially when the age 65+ composed 80% of the deaths.
B - The computed deaths are
85 deaths per million unvaxed = 0.0085%
18 deaths per million vaxed - = 0.0018%
Those %'s are note even remotely statistically significant.
Bottom line - the study is a joke!
Yup I agree
Since it is a Poisson distributed random variable, those are statistical significant.
The Law of Large Numbers also applies.
As if you know anything about those, commietard.
What about the law of tiny numbers, like handfuls per million (or your IQ)?
you probably need to get up to speed on poisson distribution.
The delta is not even remotely statistically significant. Its 4 decimal points before the delta shows up.
You are flat-out wrong! See my comments in response to your comments elsewhere here... I accidentally patched it in twice already... Sample sizes here (numerators and denominators both) are WAY larger than what would make an honest statistician get nervous!
The first significant number is 4 places to the right of the decimal point. it can never be statistically significant for purposes of determining the effectiveness of a vaccine. The noise and/or confounding variables vastly exceed that factor.
Flat assertions here with NO backup or logic behind them, thanks!
HOW MANY... In millions, billions, or trillions... And for how long... Need to be examined before YOU find the results (that you don't like) to be believable?
85 deaths per million unvaxxed * 5.9 million = 501 deaths... That is NOT significant in your mind? When DO the numbers become significant? Or do they only become significant when they AGREE with what you ALREADY BLEEEVE?
No, 500 deaths is not a significant number in any statistical sense when talking about large populations.
Learn how to maths bro.
More morons dog-piling on doesn't make lies become true!
I don't know the real numbers here, but ? several BILLION sperm try to fartilize the egg. Sometimes, ONE succeeds... A WAY-too-low number to be credible! Statistically insignificunt! Birth control and attempts to reproduce are ALL wasted efforts!!! Long term, this GUARANTEES that humans will go extinct soon!
AI says:
• Very small numbers of events (like 0–5) make estimates unstable and standard asymptotic methods dubious.
• For many simple comparisons of proportions or means, people often want at least on the order of 30–50 observations per group before relying on approximate normal methods, but there is no hard universal cutoff.
Oh, please enlighten us, Tiananmen Tony.
(This will be good)
Read the memo, bro, Reason's no longer down with statistical significance! Newer methods are way more right on now.
You wrote:
B - The computed deaths are
85 deaths per million unvaxed = 0.0085%
18 deaths per million vaxed - = 0.0018%
Those %'s are note even remotely statistically significant.
The article said: "The researchers followed 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals for nearly four years. "
HOW MANY... In millions, billions, or trillions... And for how long... Need to be examined before YOU find the results (that you don't like) to be believable?
85 deaths per million unvaxxed * 5.9 million = 501 deaths... That is NOT significant in your mind? When DO the numbers become significant?
I asked Perplexity about this "significance" thing and the response was too long (I can import it if you want). The significance in the numerator thing comes in as follows:
• Very small numbers of events (like 0–5) make estimates unstable and standard asymptotic methods dubious.
• For many simple comparisons of proportions or means, people often want at least on the order of 30–50 observations per group before relying on approximate normal methods, but there is no hard universal cutoff.
SQRLSY comment: 501 is WAAAAY larger than 30 to 50!!!! You, Sir, are full of shit!!!
Your comments are becoming delusional.
The study remains a joke for the reasons I stated.
HOW MANY... In millions, billions, or trillions... And for how long... Need to be examined before YOU find the results (that you don't like) to be believable?
85 deaths per million unvaxxed * 5.9 million = 501 deaths... That is NOT significant in your mind? When DO the numbers become significant?
Becoming?
That is precisely the age group where a study looking for reasons for excess mortality should focus. Old people die for all sorts of reasons and there simply aren't enough boxes to check all the co-morbidities. Nor are autopsies even held for most deaths of old people because those deaths are basically expected.
You look for excess mortality among those who don't tend to die as frequently.
Yeah because being vaxx'd for Covid helped prevent you from dying by drowning...
Look at Dem vs. Repub death rates from COVID once the vax came out. Dem deaths dropped far more than Repub. Bunch of fucking retards.
https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-radio-hosts-anti-maskers-death-covid-19-2021-9
At least 7 conservative radio hosts and anti-mask advocates have died from COVID-19 after bashing the vaccines
Intergalactic or Cosmic-Karmic ironic coincidence, maybe? Or candidates for Darwin Awards?
BTW, I am STILL waiting for “the science” concerning sneeze guards at the salad bars, to be settled! Meanwhile, “R” party governors are secretly getting ready for FORBIDDING sneeze guards at the salad bars!!!
Who volunteers to eat what MAY be infected mucus from strangers, on their salads, in double-blind, MASSIVELY statistically significant studies, to settle this, for once and for all? Because I just KNOW, oh so VERY well, that once the “science” is settled, there will be NO tribalistic ideologues who will dispute these findings! We are ALL data-driven now!
On the bright side - at least people killed their own support.
More
testingboosters needed!More food needed!!!
If food is SUCH a viable "fix", then WHY do people have to KEEP ON eating?!?!?
Ron, this makes no sense. Just how gullible are you?
Pardon my ignorance, but this doesn't pass the smell test. Get a COVID shot and have a 74% less chance of dying from COVID, well, sure, I suppose it's possible. But then also have 25% less chance of dying from other causes? What is this miracle shot which covers everything, not just COVID? Or does it imply that without the COVID shot, the chances of dying from COVID are so horrendous that merely preventing COVID reduces overall mortality by 25%?
Good God that is stupid. If there were that many people living so much longer, it wouldn't take a peer-reviews scientific study to notice it.
Again — this appears to claim that the COVID shot also protects against cancer. What doesn't it protect against? I'm surprised they didn't throw in measles, mumps, and herpes while they were at it.
Ron, this is bollocks. It doesn't pass any kind of smell test. You are the most gullible science reporter I have ever heard of.
80% of covid deaths were in the 65+ age group
This study covered only individuals age59 and younger.
This study is complete joke!
You wrote:
B - The computed deaths are
85 deaths per million unvaxed = 0.0085%
18 deaths per million vaxed - = 0.0018%
Those %'s are note even remotely statistically significant.
The article said: "The researchers followed 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals for nearly four years. "
HOW MANY... In millions, billions, or trillions... And for how long... Need to be examined before YOU find the results (that you don't like) to be believable?
85 deaths per million unvaxxed * 5.9 million = 501 deaths... That is NOT significant in your mind? When DO the numbers become significant?
I asked Perplexity about this "significance" thing and the response was too long (I can import it if you want). The significance in the numerator thing comes in as follows:
• Very small numbers of events (like 0–5) make estimates unstable and standard asymptotic methods dubious.
• For many simple comparisons of proportions or means, people often want at least on the order of 30–50 observations per group before relying on approximate normal methods, but there is no hard universal cutoff.
SQRLSY comment: 501 is WAAAAY larger than 30 to 50!!!! You, Sir, are full of shit!!!
From the article above...
"(The different results, they note, might be partially explained by the fact that vaccinated individuals tend to be more socioeconomically advantaged.)"
Cause and effect aren't always totally clear, and that is acknowledged here. Correlation may or may not reflect causation.
I could see how total paranoia, and BLEEVING that the medical establishment is out to "get" us all, and BLEEEVING in crystal healing power, etc., instead, could lead to some BAD outcomes!!! Well-adjusted, mainstream-trusting, NON-paranoid, mentally and physically and economically advantaged people take vaxxes... And come out ahead! WhetHer this is PRECISELY due to vaxxes alone, isn't clear, granted. Butt... Butt WHERE are all the people KILLED by the vaxxes, is twat I want to know! In Heaven or in Hell, and, are people sent to Hell for getting vaxxed?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
“Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot”
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
(End subtitles and excerpts).
See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) ass much ass possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!
The shot allows you a lower chance of death from falling, transportation and drowning according to the study... Wow it truly is a miracle drug.
200% effective!
More effective than cuntstantly telling people to commit SUICIDE, Ye PervFected lying, death-and-suffering-lusting Servant, Serpent, and Slurp-Pants of the Evil One!!!
I found footage of Bailey getting vaccinated…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKukzCe_P8I
Best example ever! I know some folks that obsessed!
Well - we know the jab protects people from car accidents.
Pardon my ignorance, but this doesn't pass the smell test. Get a COVID shot and have a 74% less chance of dying from COVID, well, sure, I suppose it's possible. But then also have 25% less chance of dying from other causes?
I believe that in the middle of the COVID retardation, several claims were made that the COVID vaccine helped with "all-cause mortality" and even cleared up hormonal acne, reduced birth defects and resulted in lower divorce and STD rates than the unvaccinated. I'm too lazy to look this up, but if I stretch my increasingly failing memory, I believe the justification was that people who got the vaccine were totally right on, with it, and hip to personal health and conscientiousness, ate more organic, drove less, had a smaller carbon footprint, were more likely to wear not one, not two, but three masks AND a plexiglass face shield while swimming alone in a lake at night, and were less racist and more likely to use alternate pronouns suggesting they eschewed trad-wife gender norms-- oh, and they had one of those "in this house we believe" signs in their front yard as well.
COVID vaccine claims like this are on the order of slick hucksters pitching all purpose curative tonics back in the 1800’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3wEZ34za24
Odd that Teen Reason chooses to feature the statist rants of Ron Bailey and the TDS malignancy of Jacob Sullum during their webathon. Not a good look. But do carry on.
They should have published more of Stossel’s stuff.
What the hell is the association between the covid vaccine and overall death? What else did it do to the human body to keep those who took it 25% less likely to die? This is raising all sorts of red flags about this study.
"What else did it do to the human body to keep those who took it 25% less likely to die?"
They were significantly less likely to have the researchers shove them off a cliff when they weren't looking.
The people who died before 2 weeks post 2nd jab were all included in the unvaccinated bucket? That was the standard they used in the original vaccine trial.
Yeah, folks with severe vaccine reactions died and recorded as an unvaccinated Covid death. Many of these were the revised numbers later but they did not add them to vaccine reaction related deaths. They ignored this "fact" also as standard practice to make the vaccine efficacy appear effective.
Also the revisions were changing "died with" and not "died from" as originally recorded. This helped reduce the amount of vaccinated death counts down.
Of course statistics can be manipulated to paint a desired picture as witnessed with this study.
"What the hell is the association between the covid vaccine and overall death?"
Read and heed!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
Just LOOK at the interactive graph right at the top of this link!!!! COVID deaths among the unvaccinated VASTLY outnumbered, and still outnumber, the deaths among the vaccinated!!!
Where's Aaron Brown when we need him?
Wow. It is almost like medical science works.
Kill yourself.
Broken-record-playing Demonic Death-Worshitter Worshits Death... More news at 6:66!!!
Cuntsorevaturds making friends, gathering votes, and influencing people by... PEDDLING KOOL-AID AND SUICIDE!!! How's it workin' for ya, servant, serpent, and slurp-pants (pants-slurper) of the Evil One?
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
He’s truly, completely a necrophiliac,
His brain, squirming toad-like, is REALY, really whack!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Whose tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Signed, Yours Truly, Heaven-on-Earth-Based Skeptic of Servants, Serpents, and Slurp-Pants of the Evil One
Works to paint a false narrative and present results as desired where politics get involved and takes over. No difference from climate pseudo science.
This shit did not work as advertised. Why would you shill for it?
It's 5 years later. If you have to point to a French study five years later to find evidence that the vaccines work, they don't work.
There were studies in August of 2020 that showed the vaccine worked.
Dum dum, the vaccine wasn't even ready until after that. If you're gonna lie, make it believable.
Molly is more accurate than the Politically Aligned and Correct Tribalistic Shamans of Anti-Vax Mystical Magic!
AI Perplexity says...
The first strong evidence that COVID vaccines “worked” in humans comes from phase 3 efficacy readouts in November–December 2020, showing protection beginning within about 10–14 days after the first dose and reaching around 95% after the second dose.[1][2][3]
## Earliest phase 3 efficacy signals
- Pfizer–BioNTech (BNT162b2) reported their phase 3 primary efficacy analysis on November 18, 2020, with about 95% efficacy against symptomatic COVID‑19 starting 7 days after dose 2 (28 days after dose 1).[4][1]
- The NEJM paper for BNT162b2 (published online December 10, 2020) shows that protection was already evident between doses: about 52% efficacy from dose 1 to dose 2, with curves separating around day 12 after the first injection.[2][5]
- Moderna’s mRNA‑1273 phase 3 (COVE) trial similarly reported 94.1% efficacy against symptomatic disease at least 14 days after dose 2; preliminary results were public by late November and detailed data appeared in NEJM on December 30, 2020.[3][6]
In other words, the earliest *definitive* “this prevents COVID in people” evidence is late 2020, with measurable benefit starting roughly 10–14 days after the first dose and near‑maximal protection reached a week or two after the second.[2][3]
## Earlier‑phase evidence before phase 3
Before those phase 3 readouts, phase 1/2 trials in mid‑2020 (e.g., for BNT162b2 and mRNA‑1273) had already shown that the vaccines were immunogenic and generally safe, inducing neutralizing antibodies and T‑cell responses comparable to or stronger than convalescent sera. Those studies suggested the vaccines *should* work, but phase 3 placebo‑controlled outcome trials in late 2020 were the first to show large reductions in actual symptomatic COVID cases.[7][6][3][2]
[1](https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine)
[2](https://web.archive.org/web/20201210143620/https:/www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577)
Etc. ...
Molly is two steps beyond whatever is dumber than extremely retarded. Way up on the Walz Scale.
We should completely develop the Walz scale as a universal way of quantifying the leftist idiots who comment here. Maybe a 1-20 scale. Or perhaps a Walz + or -. Like Tony is Walz +3, and Quixy is Walz -2.
LOL
This is what, study # 50 or so that shows that the vaccines work. You retards dismiss all of them while believing a brain worm infected moron.
Walz +1
Fu should get a Walz - 5 for this comment since he somehow thinks RFK Jr was in the CDC during Covid and that the prior studies were not as bullshit as this one?
...
This effect's discovery has a fascinating history. When Jenner did his original research on vaccination. one little-publicized finding was that those who took the cowpox not only experienced immunity to smallpox, but also transient improvements in a wide variety of other conditions, not all related to infectious disease. However, it was a time when medicine was trying to emerge from the panacea era, so these findings were downplayed. Many years later, however, it was discovered that the pox family of viruses had great potential as immune modulators, and that many endogenous factors in immune control also are factors in other facets of homeostasis.
It's not unique to poxes or vaccines: an effect between homeopathy and hormesis. As indicated and is widely understood, it gets into speculative medicine.
There's a widely entertained modern theory that our modern caloric excess, combined with our relative defeat of all manner of pathogens has left our immune systems with a constant surplus of energy and nothing, except our own cells, to fight with.
At one point it was speculated as the, or one of many, of the causes of life extension from hypocaloric diets (which has since been conditionally debunked). Again, the more speculative you get about the outcome for any given condition, the less it has to make any sort of sense because, in pseudo-Scientific fashion, you're working backwards from a conclusion.
Widely recognized, maybe, but not understood in much depth.
Remember when we were running 35+ cycles of PCR to detect asymptomatic carriers? Remember when research was being bandied about showing that 6 ft. of separation led to a significant decrease of colony forming units per micron? Remember when we looked at viral load titers (in the absence of IgG titers and even with IgG titers are about as reliable at predicting infection as using transmission and brake fluid measurements to predict your car's stopping distance) and confirmed that fever, loss of taste, etc., weren't reliable indicators and we all had to wear masks everywhere? Remember when we the Australian PM or health minister or whatever "own goaled" himself against Ted Cruz by bragging that even though they had fewer deaths and fewer cases than TX they were going to continue to lock down harder?
Remember when we went from *that* to "Men can menstruate."?
Being retarded in French doesn't make you any more classy.
“Hon hon hon!!!”
This study only looked at people aged 18-59; there were fairly few actual Covid deaths. Which makes it at least a little interesting that the reduction in deaths from cancer in particular is less than the reduction of overall deaths, to a statistically significant degree. I'm not saying there's a link; I highly doubt there is. I'm saying that if there WAS a link, this study, which showed the Covid vaccine somehow also resulted in a statistically significant reduction in *drowning* deaths, wouldn't have caught it.
Correlation is SNOT causation!!! That's some pretty simple shit!!!
Stupid people, clumsy people, gullible people who BLEEEVE in their Magic Anti-Drowning Healing Crystals, and little children whose parents don't love them very much (and so don't watch them very closely) tend to drown more... They ALSO fall for STUPID AND EVIL LIES from the Tribalistic anti-vaxxers!!!
There! Shit is SNOT all that hard!!!
The most logical guess is that people who chose to vaccinate or not had other health and behavioral characteristics that influenced overall death rates. Thus the vaccines did not cause anything, but result from other factors.
"...behavioral characteristics..." Such ass BLEEVING in STUPID AND EVIL LIES from the Tribalistic anti-vaxxers?!?! And falling for "cummands" to cummit SUICIDE, from PervFected lying, death-and-suffering-lusting Servants, Serpents, and Slurp-Pants of the Evil One, for examples?
Unless they're so abjectly retarded as to assert that mRNA vaccines that don't even prevent COVID for more than a couple months somehow slow the advance of pre-existing cancer, it seems exceedingly likely, especially in France (where smoking is still generally a thing) that simply showing up in front of a healthcare professional every 3-6 mos. was just as, if not more effective than any of the other causes.
Unless they're so abjectly retarded as to assert that *a single* dose of mRNA vaccines that don't even prevent COVID for more than a couple months...
A single dose of FOOD won't even last you THAT long!!!
THAT is why the SMART people do SNOT BLEEEEEVE in eating food!!!
DOCTOR Casually Mad and other anti-vaxxers are VERY wise, and have noticed that all food-eaters eventually die, or that a YUUUUGE percentage of them, 100%, sadly, eventually die, at probability of "1", certainty, FOR SURE! But the really important things to notice is that '1) ALL FOOD-EATERS EVENTUALLY DIE! Also '2) Some Breatharians, who do NOT eat, are still alive. Armed with this (Posterior Probability (P(belief | data)) = Prior Probability (P(belief) × Likelihood (data | belief)) / Likelihood (data | belief) according to https://towardsdatascience.com/understand-bayes-rule-likelihood-prior-and-posterior-34eae0f378c5/ ) "a posteriori" knowledge, that all non-Breatharians (food eaters) eventually die, the probability of successful food-eating is flat-out ZERO!!!!
A priori, there are many-many "Breatharians" who do NOT eat (and are still alive), and the probability of them dying or not, is not precisely or infallibly known. Even All-Knowing God-like beings like DOCTOR Casually Mad doesn't know (But good luck getting him to EVER admit to THAT!) for sure, if-when they will die. For "Breatharians", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia .
So Thomas Bayes and DOCTOR Casually Mad are Infinitely Wise, and we should ALL STOP EATING!!! This applies Double-Plus Good to Trump, MAGA Maggots, Trumpaloos, anti-vaxxers, and DOCTOR Casually Mad.
I'm going to assume everyone in the unvaccinated group for this study were homeless fentanyl addicts. That is what they meant by "sought to control for various confounders".
Between locking the unvaccinated out of care and requiring the vaccinated to show up for additional care they're effectively using the vaccine as cover for a gross ethics violation.
Beyond break your legs and provide you a crutch, it's just shy of using science as a cover for just stabbing the unvaccinated.
Specifically, people who received the shots have a 25 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality.
This has been a hallmark of bad/pseudo-science going back 50 yrs. or more to a time when going vegan cured everything from morning sickness to astigmatism to athlete's foot to male pattern baldness.
You're not helping science or The Science. Please stop.
You anti-vaxxers might ass well be telling people to stick their tongues in "hot" AC outlets, to help their health troubles!!!
You're not helping science or The Science. Please stop.
Specifically, people who received the shots have a 25 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality.
This evidence is going to validate "Long COVID" but, of course, Ron and probably 50+% of the people involved in the study are already convinced of it as fact even though everybody already died of COVID once and very, very frew of us, even the unvaccinated, are walking around complaining about Long COVID.
I feel like I would have remembered if I had died of COVID.
West J Med. 2000 Feb;172(2):106. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.172.2.106
I'm pretty sure an injection that isn't even effective against its target for the span of several months reducing all-cause mortality falls somewhere in the vicinity of:
Scientific Phrase: “It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomena occurs”
Translation: I don't understand it.
and
Scientific Phrase: “While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions”
Translation: An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.
and
Scientific Phrase: “A highly significant area for exploratory study”
Translation: A totally useless topic selected by my committee.
I never ever ever get tired of Ron Bailey's desperate quest to rationalize his 96 boosters to himself.
He appears to be suffering from a number of pseudo science related delusions.
I've gone over the papers results several times and finally figured out how it is true.
Systemic and structural jabism. The unjabbed to denied medial care, not allowed to work, not allowed to socialize. They were estranged from family and friends. We all know that these things are important to an individuals health. The unjabbed were murdered by society for being unclean.
Shit is the jabbed who be unclean!!!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
“Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot”
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
(End subtitles and excerpts).
See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) ass much ass possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!
Also from Florid-Duh...
https://news.yahoo.com/why-ron-desantis-cant-stop-talking-about-covid-134001001.html Florida had some bad COVID stats!!!
From there…
After reopening, DeSantis went on to ban mask requirements and falsely claim that people who receive COVID boosters are “more likely to get infected.” His senior-heavy state now has one of the lowest booster rates in the country and “by far” the highest vaccine-era COVID death rate of the six most populated states, according to a September analysis by the Tampa Bay Times. (That group includes California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.)
SQRLSY -
You showing delusions again
properly Age weighted , florida's per capita death rate was right in the middle of most every state. Learn to understand statistics.
I have a link. https://news.yahoo.com/why-ron-desantis-cant-stop-talking-about-covid-134001001.html Florida had some bad COVID stats!!!
Where is YOUR link? Or did you count all of the deaths and non-deaths, and we need to take your word for it?
OK, Perplexity agrees with you on this one. See further below.
But you are ABSOLUTELY wrong on how "statistically valid sample and results sizes" are judged!
No, Florida did not have abnormally high COVID death rates relative to other U.S. states; its age-adjusted mortality rate has consistently ranked near or below the national average throughout the pandemic.wusf+2
Florida's Performance in Context
• Cumulative through 2025: Florida has recorded over 100,000 total COVID deaths (~89,000–100,000+ depending on source), but with a large, elderly population (highest % of 65+ in the U.S.), its age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 was ~10.1 in recent CDC data—ranking it around 30th–35th among states, below national leaders like Kentucky (19.1), West Virginia (18.9), and Tennessee (16.5). Early peaks (e.g., 2020–2021: ~324 deaths per 100,000) were high in absolute terms but middle-of-the-pack after age adjustment.wikipedia+2
• Recent years: Deaths dropped sharply post-2022 (e.g., 6,025 in 2024, ~1,144–2,298 in 2025 YTD), now ranking COVID outside Florida's top 15 causes of death—behind flu/pneumonia and respiratory diseases. This pace is far lower than peak years (23,351 in 2020).wlrn+1
• Per capita vs peers: Compared to similar sunny, retiree-heavy states: Florida's rate (~340–455 per 100k cumulative) trails Arizona (~450+), Nevada (~430+), but beats California (~420) and Texas (~440). No evidence of sustained "abnormally high" excess.statista+1
Why the Perception Persists (DeSantis Angle)
The Yahoo article highlights DeSantis' ongoing COVID references as political theater—defending Florida's lighter restrictions (no mask/vax mandates) against critics who claimed they'd cause excess deaths. Data shows those policies did not lead to outlier mortality: Florida's rates stayed comparable to other low-restriction states (e.g., Texas, Georgia) and even outperformed some strict ones early on, per CDC/WHO-adjusted metrics. Critics often cite raw counts (Florida's size amplifies them) or unadjusted elderly deaths, ignoring demographics.cdc+2
Period / Metric Florida Rate (per 100k) U.S. Avg/National Rank Notes wusf+1
Peak 2020–21 ~324 cumulative Mid-tier (20th–30th) Elderly skew; adjusted not extreme.
2023–25 10.1 (recent adj.) Below avg (30th–35th) Now minor cause of death.
Total Cumul. ~340–455 Middle pack Trails MS (15.5), WV (18.9).
Florida's outcomes validate DeSantis' narrative more than refute it—no abnormal death spikes tied to policy.wlrn+1
1. https://www.wusf.org/health-news-florida/2025-07-22/floridas-covid-deaths-top-1100-in-2025-lower-pace-than-previous-five-years
2. https://www.wlrn.org/health/2025-11-17/floridas-covid-deaths-topped-100-000-but-its-no-longer-among-the-top-15-causes-of-death
SQRLSY -
your AI generated search confirmed the very point I stated. Properly adjusted for age groups, Florida's covid death rate was right in the middle of all states.
you continually demonstrate that you dont understand the data or the topic.
You continually demonstrate that you cun't read!!!! In the post that you responded to, right up front I admitted...
"OK, Perplexity agrees with you on this one. See further below."
But you are ABSOLUTELY wrong on how "statistically valid sample and results sizes" are judged! Now WHEN is PervFected You (who is ALWAYS right!) gonna GROW THE BALLS to be a REAL MAN and admit error? PervFected You PervFectly lacks the HUMILITY to do that, right, right-wing wrong-nut?
And of course Florida had the highest amount of traffic in and out of the state from all over including international travel.
Even those who locked down their constituents went and partied unmasked without social distancing in Florida.
I think one of the best accusations that went out was how the motorcycle event Sturgeon caused Covid outbreaks all over America...
The study does say you needed either a negative test or proof of vaccination to access nonurgent hospital consultations, as well as social stuff like eating in a restaurant. I think this is a plausible explanation for at least some of it. A missed "nonurgent" consultation could well have revealed something urgent but treatable, and social isolation doesn't do anything good for your health either.
Notice how virologists, especially those directly involved with the GOF leap of Covid to actually infect humans which it never would without their meddling have never commented?
No comments by the 1000's of others around the wold. But nearly immediately 100's of new virology labs were being built in many counties around the world.
JAMA you say? You cannot be that stupid.
Scientific studies are leftist.
"Efficacy" only if you run with the goalpost far beyond the normal placement for expectations of vaccines.
Well at least Trump won the FIFA Peace Prize - for his proven accomplishment at saving the lives of billions of people and maybe even trillions.
I heard he also won the Fisher Price Peace Prize.
It just kills you that he’s ended several wars and is on the verge of being being the Obama created Russia Ukraine conflict, doesn’t it?
Trump will ultimately be seen as the greatest peacemaker of the 21st century.
Seethe harder.
I find the number of conspiracy minded commentors on Reason quite amazing. Show them the data and they have a rationalization as to why the data is not right. The commentors seem to swam like ants to honey. Trump is President, Kennedy is Secretary of HHS so you don't have to take any vaccines. So just let the rest of us living in the real world take our vaccinations peacefully.
Moderation4ever, your Pervfected COVID booster-shots and booster-shits are LOADED with mind-cuntrol micro-chips from the Lizard People; BEWARE!!! Do SNOT EVER say that NO ONE warned ye!!!
(The mendacious medical people have been cuntspiring and LYING to us through ALL of these years since the "cowpox" vaccine was introduced in 1796. Now we have had 229 years of LYING ASSHOLES!!!! We CuntSoreVaTurds do SNOT need to cuntserve that twitch we have been LIED TO about!!! That goes double-plus-good about this sham called "Spermy Daniels Drag Queen Spermy Hour" shows, Demonocrapsy-democracy-Necroscopy-/witchcraft/women's-rights-and-tights too, ya know!!!)
And ALL of the right-wingers here will call YOU grade-school names AND prove ALL of your data to be WRONG... Because YOU are of the WRONG tribe; THAT'S why!!!
You were walked through the data. You obviously are incapable of understanding any of this and only wish to spew your ChiCom propaganda.
Walz +3.
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank PervFected You! -Reason Staff
Doing great on that through the first three sentences. Should have stopped there, maybe include the fourth.
As to the fifth, if you want to take a vaccine, fine. But let's agree on this libertarian forum that while you make take a vaccine peacefully, many others wish to peacefully not take a vaccine.
But yeah, way too much conspiracy theorizing here.
Most of the misfortune in the world is not from intent, but incompetence or sheer bad luck.
Please go get peacefully boosted. Go now. Get 2 of you want. Get 3.
Moderation4ever 18 hours ago
"I find the number of conspiracy minded commentors on Reason quite amazing. Show them the data and they have a rationalization as to why the data is not right. "
I have repeatedly explained the conflicting data and the reasons the conclusions that the effectiveness of the covid vaccine is suspect. Its not my fault that the basic background knowledge and basic math skills are lacking for supposedly educated people to recognize the deficiencies in the studies.
“So just let the rest of us living in the real world take our vaccinations peacefully.”
Lol. Nobody is even talking about denying you scared little bitches the opportunity to get your umpteenth booster, you fucking moron.
Seriously, just how addicted to victimhood do you have to be to type something like that?
Idiot.
Esteemed Greasy-Pants and Shit's fellow tribalistic anti-vaxxers (mostly) aren't YET threatening to take our vaxxes away!!!
Yet they WILL yammer about the "rights" of un-vaxxed doctors to SNOT be fired from their jobs, for being un-vaxxed and SNOT wearing masks, in the immune-compromised-patients ward, during a pandemic!
Then we ALSO have right-wing criminal scum-idiots doing shit like below (AI found it for me):
Yes. The best-known case is a hospital pharmacist in Wisconsin who deliberately spoiled hundreds of doses and was prosecuted and imprisoned.[1][2]
## Key case you’re thinking of
- In December 2020 at Advocate Aurora Health in Grafton, Wisconsin, pharmacist **Steven Brandenburg** intentionally removed 57 vials of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine from refrigeration on two nights, rendering **about 500–570 doses** unusable.[3][4][5]
- He was arrested, fired, and later **sentenced to three years in federal prison** after pleading guilty to charges related to tampering with consumer products.[2][1]
You can read one clear summary here (PBS NewsHour):
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/ex-wisconsin-pharmacist-gets-prison-for-ruining-covid-19-vaccine-doses%5B1%5D
And an earlier report with details of what he did here (NPR):
- https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951736164/some-500-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-intentionally-destroyed-hospital-says%5B4%5D
[1](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/ex-wisconsin-pharmacist-gets-prison-for-ruining-covid-19-vaccine-doses)
[2](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pharmacist-who-intentionally-destroyed-500-covid-vaccine-doses-gets-three-n1269944)
etc.
Moreover, with regard to (The) Science and individual liberty, it's not the vaccine or the boosters we object to, it's the tossing your pre-teen children into the volcano of "gender-affirming care" that we oppose and, even then, we completely understand that there are kids who are going to throw themselves into that volcano whether their parents help them or not.
Wear a mask if you like. Don't throw your kids in a volcano to appease the equity Gods. If you force your kids to wear a mask against their will, you may be forced to move further away from or banned from approaching the nearest metaphorical volcano.
I find the number of gullible naive and gaslit commentors on Reason quite amazing how they rationalize nonsensical and completely debunked leftist talking points and TDS their way through the day slinging hate.
They should seek help or at least stop voting.
Reason: "What do you believe, scientific research papers that disprove your beliefs, or tiktok and youtube videos that support them?"
Posters: "videos, duh".
And the worms ate into their brains.
If you can't trust the government of France and the pharmaceutical companies, who can you trust?
Where is the research wrong?
How would I know?
How would I know? (Displays shit's faked humility proudly!)
Then ALSO writes shit like...
"Efficacy" only if you run with the goalpost far beyond the normal placement for expectations of vaccines.
SRG2 please talk about the scientific paper with the Rat's and the piece of paper between them showing how this signifies masks worked and that actual leaders followed this "science" and how this wouldn't sow along with many other sloppy/weak studies these disbeliefs. What inspires trust from lies and sloppy work?
The differential between the "vaxxed" and "unvaxxed" groups for accidental deaths is about the same as the difference between the rates for "all disease"; the one exception being that the "vaxxed" had a very slightly higher (but probably insignificant) rate of suicide.
Is there any hypothesis as to why the vaxxed had 20% fewer fatal vehicle collisions? Or drownings?
Study was for ages 18-59 at time of vaccination. As most deaths were of those over age 65, the study starts out flawed.
Death by transport, drownings, falls, and other unintentional deaths were also higher in unvaccinated. How vaccination would have an effect is odd,
Can this study be replicated in other countries with a complete database of all ages?
Can anyone explain why non-medical deaths were somehow affected by vaccine? Or is there a propensity for non-vaccinated to have other lifestyle activities that would have an affect - drinking, smoking, vaping, obesity, dietary habits, blue collar vs white collar, etc. that are not accounted for.