To establish causal linkage requires much more intensive research. VAERS acts as potential alarm system, where reviewers can look for statistically anomalous problems among the vaccinated. If such an anomaly does arise, then further investigation is required to see if there is a causal link to the vaccine they took, or if there is some completely different cause. But no one can just blindly look at the VAERS database and come to the kinds of conclusions this poster is doing. He is basically assuming that all these effects are because of the vaccine, but this database isn't reporting that at all.
As a simple example of how this works, there were some anomalous results for the AstraZeneca vaccine among younger people which pointed to a potential risk for blood clots. The EU temporarily halted the administration of AZ until they had done further research and rated the potential risks associated with it. Ultimately it was decided that the risks were low enough compared to the risks from covid that they resumed usage. But they couldn't just determine this from the VAERS database, otherwise they could have just immediately made a decision one way or the other.
I think you've missed the point. The data you're looking for isn't just sitting around in an easily consumable form. You're expecting too much in this case. But lack of great data is no excuse for using an obviously unsuitable data source for an analysis of this type.
The risks from covid vary greatly depending on the individual. Two important factors for risks from covid are age and health (although it is possible to suffer from an undiagnosed underlying health condition, such as pre-diabetes, which can skew your personal analysis). But other important factors include: what is the infection rate where you live, how often you interact with other people, what percentage of those people are vaccinated, what other mitigation steps are taken to avoid transmission (masks, social distancing, meeting in outdoor locations), how good are the medical facilities where you live (and what is the availability if you are in a covid hotspot).
As a simple example of how these factors can change your risk profile, if you are content to live as a hermit, you will be extremely unlikely to contract covid. But if there is a reasonable alternative, I prefer to avoid living that way.
On the other hand, the risks from the most effective vaccines appear to be very low. At this point, hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated and very few serious potential side effects have been observed. So, to think there is any significant risk at all from the primary covid vaccines, you have to assume one of two things (or both, depending on your paranoia and fear levels): a) there is some grand coverup of vaccine-related problems or b) there is some long term danger that just has not emerged yet. Personally, I judge either of these two possibilities to be vanishingly small.
By contrast, I think the possibility of contracting covid is fairly high if you interact with a lot of people regularly without many precautions. The sheer number of well-known public figures who have contracted it, many of which were originally openly disputing the risks of covid, argues for this. And a reasonable number of them required hospitalization or even died. So the risks from covid are pretty obvious, in my opinion.
To establish causal linkage requires much more intensive research. VAERS acts as potential alarm system, where reviewers can look for statistically anomalous problems among the vaccinated. If such an anomaly does arise, then further investigation is required to see if there is a causal link to the vaccine they took, or if there is some completely different cause. But no one can just blindly look at the VAERS database and come to the kinds of conclusions this poster is doing. He is basically assuming that all these effects are because of the vaccine, but this database isn't reporting that at all.
As a simple example of how this works, there were some anomalous results for the AstraZeneca vaccine among younger people which pointed to a potential risk for blood clots. The EU temporarily halted the administration of AZ until they had done further research and rated the potential risks associated with it. Ultimately it was decided that the risks were low enough compared to the risks from covid that they resumed usage. But they couldn't just determine this from the VAERS database, otherwise they could have just immediately made a decision one way or the other.
do you have a better link to compare?
I think you've missed the point. The data you're looking for isn't just sitting around in an easily consumable form. You're expecting too much in this case. But lack of great data is no excuse for using an obviously unsuitable data source for an analysis of this type.
you mean, there is no source that could confirm anyway?
I don't understand what you are asking: source that could confirm what? Please leave a more detailed sentence.
How do you compare the risks?
The risks from covid vary greatly depending on the individual. Two important factors for risks from covid are age and health (although it is possible to suffer from an undiagnosed underlying health condition, such as pre-diabetes, which can skew your personal analysis). But other important factors include: what is the infection rate where you live, how often you interact with other people, what percentage of those people are vaccinated, what other mitigation steps are taken to avoid transmission (masks, social distancing, meeting in outdoor locations), how good are the medical facilities where you live (and what is the availability if you are in a covid hotspot).
As a simple example of how these factors can change your risk profile, if you are content to live as a hermit, you will be extremely unlikely to contract covid. But if there is a reasonable alternative, I prefer to avoid living that way.
On the other hand, the risks from the most effective vaccines appear to be very low. At this point, hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated and very few serious potential side effects have been observed. So, to think there is any significant risk at all from the primary covid vaccines, you have to assume one of two things (or both, depending on your paranoia and fear levels): a) there is some grand coverup of vaccine-related problems or b) there is some long term danger that just has not emerged yet. Personally, I judge either of these two possibilities to be vanishingly small.
By contrast, I think the possibility of contracting covid is fairly high if you interact with a lot of people regularly without many precautions. The sheer number of well-known public figures who have contracted it, many of which were originally openly disputing the risks of covid, argues for this. And a reasonable number of them required hospitalization or even died. So the risks from covid are pretty obvious, in my opinion.