[serf]

>..risks must necessarily be very low, as otherwise with a sample size of billions of doses issued even effects in the 1 in a million would be readily identifiable.

it's by no means easy to identify trends that are worth pursuing for a medical investigation in a varied cohort of a billion people, and poll size is only a single attribute -- this is made even harder during a vacination campaign that is trying to effectively drive the un-vaccinated rates to as close to 0% as possible, making comparative studies even more difficult to establish.

Time/race/status/age/health all matter. You can't just take a look at what conditions that the billions of vaccinated share, that's ineffective for any kind of impact study.

It's my opinion that any 'precise' data is going to come about in years and years once we can establish a generational gap between this event and others so that we can effectively create a cross-generational comparative study.

[cloverich]

Yet we managed to publish papers on myocarditis[1] whose incidence rate is reportedly 1900 (or fewer) cases per 190 million individuals. If you look up the numbers that triggered the concerns and walking back of recommendations, they are quite small. There's much we won't know for a long time, but the idea that we can't detect statistically significant trends of concern, much less large ones, is demonstrably untrue.

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

[VBprogrammer]

I agree with you that measuring precisely whether the vaccine was beneficial for 15 year olds or not is difficult.

However, at the same time we have people in sibling comments claiming to know multiple people with conditions ranging from changes to their menstrual cycle to death. This can't possibly be related to the vaccine at anything like the rate people are for some reason inclined to believe.

Personally I found the effects from the 3rd booster almost as bad as COVID itself so I'm unlikely to get another unless there is a compelling reason.