[exceptthisthing]

Because this whole paper is bullshit and is a bias confirmation report

It assesses persons "who were alive on November 1, 2021"

That tantamount to saying "for people alive January 1st 1950, the Second World War was not a significant cause of mortality"

Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?

[biophysboy]

No, because the same conditional is applied to both participant groups. Its good to specify a time frame.

[hervature]

While you are being downvoted, this is actually an astute observation. However, your point is working against you in this case. If the vaccine was actually deadly, the unvaccinated individuals who survived the pandemic would be having better health outcomes. This is not what they found. If they included the pandemic in this study, the deaths by COVID would be much worse in the unvaccinated group.

[dwroberts]

> That tantamount to saying "for people alive January 1st 1950, the Second World War was not a significant cause of mortality"

That’s a nonsense comparison because the thing they are studying is the vaccine, not COVID itself. The vaccine was available at minimum, what, end of 2020? Exposure being defined as first dose May-October 2021 does not seem unreasonable at all (and probably not arbitrarily chosen right - it’s probably something to do with the availability of data)

[gus_massa]

It's a good observation, but I expect that even considering only people alive in 1950, survivors of the Hiroshima bombing or concentration camps (or a few other events), still have long term problems that increase mortality.