New evidence confirms COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe

[BeaverFever]

New evidence confirms COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe

As updated COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out across the country, fresh evidence confirms that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, with only a small percentage of people reporting serious reactions.

More than 38 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered in Ontario alone as of Oct. 8, with 23,002 reports of adverse reactions, an incidence of 0.06 per cent, according to a report from Public Health Ontario.

The report, published earlier this month, is based on surveillance data collected from patients since the start of COVID-19 vaccinations in December, 2020.

Story continues below advertisement

It found that 94.5 per cent of those adverse reactions were not serious, with allergic skin reactions and redness or pain at the injection site among the most common complaints.

Just 5.5 per cent of adverse events linked to the vaccines were considered serious and included conditions that required an admission to hospital or resulted in death.

Rollout of updated COVID-19 vaccines confusing, experts say

But Public Health Ontario says that doesn’t mean the vaccines were the cause. The surveillance program captures all medical events that occur after vaccination, so those that would have happened anyway are included in the report, even if there’s a small likelihood of a link.

“I see this very positively – that there’s been 38 million doses in arms, very small numbers of adverse events reported, less than 0.1 per cent of doses, and the vast majority of those, close to 95 per cent, are non-serious,” said Reed Morrison, a public health physician with Public Health Ontario who has expertise in vaccine-preventable diseases.

There have been 821 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, which involve inflammation of the heart, after COVID-19 vaccination, according to the PHO report, for a rate of 22.2 per million mRNA doses administered. Young males aged 12-24 appear to have the highest risk. Previous research has shown the vast majority of cases are mild, patients recover quickly and risks can be averted by extending the time between doses.

Similar data published by British Columbia earlier this year also confirms the strong safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines. There, the vast majority of reported adverse events were allergic reactions or pain at the injection site, with about 8 per cent of events considered serious.

That report provides extensive details about the serious cases, which included people who required a hospital admission or died, making it clear the vaccine was likely not the cause. For instance, several people died after receiving a vaccine, but investigations revealed they had extensive medical conditions, such as an individual with metastatic cancer.

B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix said in an interview that the evidence is clear: Vaccines are safe.

Story continues below advertisement

“We’re transparent about those adverse events,” he said. “I think it’s important not to say there are none, but it’s a tiny number.”

Meanwhile, COVID-19 continues to cause serious outcomes and death, particularly among the elderly and other high-risk groups. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, 3,786 people were in hospital as a result of COVID-19 for the week ending Oct. 17, a slight decrease from the week before.

At the same time, a new study published by Canadian researchers found that babies whose mothers had been vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy were less likely to experience serious health complications, be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit or die. The study, published this week in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, looked at data from more than 142,000 births in Ontario and followed infants for six months to determine their outcomes.

Researchers found that 7.3 per cent of infants whose mothers had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination experienced a serious event, such as a seizure, in the first month of life, compared with 8.3 per cent of those whose mothers were unvaccinated; neonatal death occurred in 0.09 per cent of babies exposed to the vaccine in utero, compared with 0.16 of those who were not; and 11.4 per cent of vaccine-exposed babies required admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, compared with 13.1 per cent of babies born to unvaccinated mothers.

Sarah Jorgensen, one of the study’s authors, said the findings should provide reassurance to pregnant women that the vaccines are safe and can help protect their babies.

“Pregnant women and really young infants in the first couple of months, they’re also high-risk,” said Ms. Jorgensen, who is a pharmacist and a PhD candidate in the Temerty Faculty of Medicine’s Institute for Medical Science at the University of Toronto.

Some experts have expressed concern over what they describe as confusing or inadequate messaging about the importance of getting an updated COVID-19 vaccine this fall. In B.C., Mr. Dix said the province’s Get Vaccinated system, built during the pandemic, is helping ensure people get timely information about when and where to get their vaccine. Last year, the province vaccinated a record number of people against influenza, which Mr. Dix credits to the success of the new system.

It sends messages to people based on their risk status, age or other information, allowing them to book vaccine appointments instantly. As of this week, the province had already vaccinated more than 250,000 people with the updated XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccine, Mr. Dix said, with another 276,000 appointments booked. Nearly 600,000 people have received flu shots this year, he added.
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-new-evidence-confirms-covid-19-vaccines-are-overwhelmingly-safe/#:~:text=“I see this very positively,Ontario who has expertise in

[Moonlight Graham]

They're fairly safe, but reported incidents doesn't list all incidents if some weren't reported.

[TreeBeard]

On 10/28/2023 at 4:17 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

They're fairly safe, but reported incidents doesn't list all incidents if some weren't reported.

How do you know incidents weren’t reported?  How many?

[OftenWrong]

I know lots of people who had issues, menstrual and one lady who had a prolonged serious illness that her doctor attributed to a vaccine reaction. The statistical odds are too high for it to be an anomaly that I know a few people.

I know you dunderheads may fire back that it's anecdotal, but so what. I trust my experiences more that these official reports.

Thanks to government bungling in the rollout, and hiding information, the general public is mistrustful of these vaccines. If indeed they are safe, then it's a major failure of the government and so-called top health doctors.

Their clown-show is what goofed it up. Data like this:

Right now a few people in my social circle have Covid. I am not getting the shot, same as I do not get flu shots. I prefer to get small exposures to Covid and the flu, so that I become naturally immune.

You people can hide under a rock.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I trust my experiences more that these official reports.

That is a very tribal response to knowledge. 

And despite your proud defiance of institutions and their roles, you actually rely on them in your life in a pervasive way anyway... for economic, safety, security, nutritional, informational governance in all aspects of your life.

It seems cool to be a rebel, I guess, but you still live in a world where choices are made for you by others and you're better off for it.

 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is a very tribal response to knowledge. 

And despite your proud defiance of institutions and their roles, you actually rely on them in your life in a pervasive way anyway... for economic, safety, security, nutritional, informational governance in all aspects of your life.

It seems cool to be a rebel, I guess, but you still live in a world where choices are made for you by others and you're better off for it.

 

Thank you, Papa Hardener. 

Do your feet even touch the ground when you walk? Just wondering.    

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Do your feet even touch the ground when you walk? Just wondering.    

1. I really don't get how you think.  You post "I don't listen to experts because I don't trust them"... despite presumably using consumer goods, listening to weather forecasts, taking medication etc. etc.  I point that out and your response is that *I* am the one who is somehow arrogant.

It's actually humbling to realize how little we know, and put some intelligent capital into the opinions of others.  You really should try it.

[OftenWrong]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I really don't get how you think.  You post "I don't listen to experts because I don't trust them"... despite presumably using consumer goods, listening to weather forecasts, taking medication etc. etc.  I point that out and your response is that *I* am the one who is somehow arrogant.

It's actually humbling to realize how little we know, and put some intelligent capital into the opinions of others.  You really should try it.

Because you focused on me, not the content I wanted to talk about which is the incoherent and obviously flawed  government messaging that created the present level of distrust. Distrust over the covid vaccine, I should add. I'm not talking about going to the grocery store. But you, as ususl, seek to focus on the poster as singular in their view and somehow connect it to everything else. 
You see the problem there? Hope so. It's a nasty liberal trait you need to rid yourself of, if you really want to join the conservative club.

But nah. You won't. Because you're too old now and set in your ways. You are what you are at this point.  

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Because you focused on me, not the content I wanted to talk about ...
 
2. Distrust over the covid vaccine, I should add. I'm not talking about going to the grocery store.

3. But you, as ususl, seek to focus on the poster as singular in their view and somehow connect it to everything else. 

4. ... It's a nasty liberal trait you need to rid yourself of, if you really want to join the conservative club.

5. But nah. You won't. Because you're too old now and set in your ways. You are what you are at this point.  

1. Based on the use of the pronoun "I" in this sentence -> "I know you dunderheads may fire back that it's anecdotal, but so what. I trust my experiences more that these official reports.
2. "Distrust" .... Trust and distrust are emotional brain-states made by individuals based on ... factors. Where 'distrust' is indeed a failure of communication that needs to be taken up, it doesn't necessarily implicate the content.
3. "I don't trust" is an entirely subjective statement based on: the sender of the message, content, and receiver.  You specifically said "I TRUST MY EXPERIENCES" more than the data, which is a huge problem for the receiver of the message in general.  You have fallen into the fallacy of anecdotes to the point where you actually believe you can say that to a general audience and have them agree/empathize.
4. While I am indeed liberal as well as conservative, I have a lot more depth in the topic than to just believe the claims of government without question.  The problem is that we never get to the deep end on here, but we hear people giving knee-jerk reactions and outright rejections of science.

To be clear: there are lots of fallacies and misinformation in the public domain of science and I never say there isn't.  But the tendency for some... uh... types of people... to jump from "the data on vaccination reactions isn't well publicized" to "Bill Gates is injecting my wife with WEF chips" needs to be shat upon in a nice liberal way.

5. A gross misunderstanding, which I chalk up to you being afraid to ask.  Have you ever asked me what aspects of climate science are wrong ?  If not, why not ?  I don't think you're a Chud ... which is why I put such effort in posting in response to your statements about yourself...
 

[OftenWrong]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Based on the use of the pronoun "I" in this sentence -> "I know you dunderheads may fire back that it's anecdotal, but so what. I trust my experiences more that these official reports.
2. "Distrust" .... Trust and distrust are emotional brain-states made by individuals based on ... factors. Where 'distrust' is indeed a failure of communication that needs to be taken up, it doesn't necessarily implicate the content.
3. "I don't trust" is an entirely subjective statement based on: the sender of the message, content, and receiver.  You specifically said "I TRUST MY EXPERIENCES" more than the data, which is a huge problem for the receiver of the message in general.  You have fallen into the fallacy of anecdotes to the point where you actually believe you can say that to a general audience and have them agree/empathize.
4. While I am indeed liberal as well as conservative, I have a lot more depth in the topic than to just believe the claims of government without question.  The problem is that we never get to the deep end on here, but we hear people giving knee-jerk reactions and outright rejections of science.

To be clear: there are lots of fallacies and misinformation in the public domain of science and I never say there isn't.  But the tendency for some... uh... types of people... to jump from "the data on vaccination reactions isn't well publicized" to "Bill Gates is injecting my wife with WEF chips" needs to be shat upon in a nice liberal way.

5. A gross misunderstanding, which I chalk up to you being afraid to ask.  Have you ever asked me what aspects of climate science are wrong ?  If not, why not ?  I don't think you're a Chud ... which is why I put such effort in posting in response to your statements about yourself...
 

1. Yes you fell for the dunderhead comment. Low hanging fruit, for low-brows to find entertaining. 
In general I like to post with an important (to me) topic related point that is usually given by inference. You have to figure it out a little. Then I add a joking remark to capture the attention of those who love ridicule, so they can enjoy that. Something for everyone. But the poster who discerns what I mean will pick up on the important part. Trolls will have fun with the other part.  

2. I allude to the larger more serious issue that faith in our democratic / medical/ scientific institutions is waning, leading to even bigger problems down the road. I blame this squarely on government and the excessive politicization of every issue, which parties are doing for their own benefit. This is the rotthat must be fought against. Foolish, naive leadership and Trudeau is at the helm. My comments echo the sentiment of others on here lately, like this-

On 10/19/2023 at 4:35 PM, I am Groot said:

Experts? Ideologically motivated experts, most like. There are few unbiased agencies left in this ideologically woke world.

 

[OftenWrong]

I bent the argument away from the question, are the mrna vaccines good yes/no, to "how can we ordinary citizens even know, given the media discourse and poor leadership." Pick yer poison.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Yes you fell for the dunderhead comment. Low hanging fruit, for low-brows to find entertaining. 

2. In general I like to post with an important (to me) topic related point that is usually given by inference. You have to figure it out a little. Then I add a joking remark to capture the attention of those who love ridicule, so they can enjoy that. Something for everyone. But the poster who discerns what I mean will pick up on the important part. Trolls will have fun with the other part.  

3. I allude to the larger more serious issue that faith in our democratic / medical/ scientific institutions is waning, leading to even bigger problems down the road.

4. I blame this squarely on government and the excessive politicization of every issue, which parties are doing for their own benefit. This is the rotthat must be fought against.

5. Foolish, naive leadership and Trudeau is at the helm. My comments echo the sentiment of others on here lately, like this-

 

1. I wasn't entertained, I was aggravated.
2. If you are delighted by being being confused by your posts then you should be delighted by me.
3. We are on the same page there but I would ask you to focus on the big messes first.  The big mess would be people who believe grossly exaggerated claims about vaccine ineffectiveness.  If people are skittish about getting a shot and would rather gamble on getting sick then that's one thing.  But if they think the vaccine is equally risky as not getting the shot then that's a misinformed person and a problem for everyone.
4. Again, we are on the same page.  I would fight the rot by promoting something we used to have: the public intellectual.  These people were independent of political parties and argued with each other.  There used to be something called 'the panel' on The National which is an aged, wrinkled, decrepit, decaying and failed version of this.
5. Trudeau is a symptom of a system that evolved to promote style over substance.  Don't hate the playa, hate the game as Snoop Dogg quoted on his terrible album 'Da Game is to be Sold not to be Told'

Any intelligent person should maybe admit first that 'Da Game' is complex beyond the comprehension of any human and needs to be changed, or probably broken down...

 

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if they think the vaccine is equally risky as not getting the shot then that's a misinformed person and a problem for everyone.

Says you. Other experts differ, and so do I. For a young healthy person the risk factors drop to such low numbers, the benefit is debatable and the person need not be vaccinated per government bureaucrat orders. Stay out of my health care decision, government man. I defer to family physicians and individualized care, not carte-blank one size fits all chowderhead decision making. Out of that will come the risk that it harms the person who didn't need it. Albeit a low number statistically, when applied to thousands some will be harmed. So no, not "a problem for everyone". 

Statistically it killed in large numbers those who were on their deathbed in LTC homes, as these respiratory viruses so often do. Yet the government actually did not do enough to protect this demographic. They used the deaths numbers to justify their position on mandates though. It's unconscionable.

Edited October 30, 2023 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Other experts differ, and so do I. For a young healthy person the risk factors drop to such low numbers, the benefit is debatable and the person need not be vaccinated

2. ...  per government bureaucrat orders.

3. Stay out of my health care decision, government man.
  

1. Ok - devil in the details.  But there's also the benefit of reducing the spread to other people.
2. Your hate of government people is yet another emotional aspect to this.
3. You have to move out of Canada to get that.

And there's a big part of my post you didn't respond to, where I talk about issues with the public sphere...

[impartialobserver]

where is WCM on this topic? No matter what the topic is.. he always reverts to COVID. 

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

where is WCM on this topic? No matter what the topic is.. he always reverts to COVID. 

Along with Hunter's laptop, Steele's dossier, Trump's stolen victory etc etc.

Its all connected you see.

[impartialobserver]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Along with Hunter's laptop, Steele's dossier, Trump's stolen victory etc etc.

Its all connected you see.

Its like the whole six degrees of kevin bacon schtick. Only difference is that the former (kevin bacon) is funny while WCM's garden variety conspiracy theory diatribes are not

[herbie]

New evidence confirms COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe

Overwhelmingly and mostly are not synonyms.

As for anecdotal evidence tell us exactly how many of the 30,000,000+ Canadians who were vaxxed that you personally know suffered any consequences? One? Two?

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And there's a big part of my post you didn't respond to, where I talk about issues with the public sphere...

I went back to look but it's not much, really. Trudeau is a symptom of weakness in democracy, and demonstrates that people can be led into voting for anything. We've seen people vote for their own undoing a few times now. There are psychological techniques that are known to work, especially when the government has control over the media.

....

Well this is about Covid vaccine. It's not what the government is telling you, it's what they're not telling you. And what they are not saying is, you have to get the shot. They're not saying you have to get your covid vaccine pass updated. They're not forcing federal workers to keep their shots up to date(as far as I know) and not enforcing masking in public spaces, or closing facilities and imposing curfews. All things they did in 2021. 

And yet Covid is still as deadly, and vaccinesjust about as ineffective, in that you need to be continually boosted to get any supposed benefit from it. All they do now is give advice. I think that's fine. I question why they've made such an about-face from not so long ago when the PM called unvaccinated Canadians misogynists and racists who are anti-science.

[OftenWrong]

On 10/30/2023 at 5:04 PM, herbie said:

New evidence confirms COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe

Overwhelmingly and mostly are not synonyms.

As for anecdotal evidence tell us exactly how many of the 30,000,000+ Canadians who were vaxxed that you personally know suffered any consequences? One? Two?

Yes well I only know about 200 people. If I know 4 out of 200, this is 2% of the people I know. Does it represent the whole? Well possibly. I'm not special.

'New evidence confirms COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly safe'

Apparently Matthew Perry would disagree... 

[OftenWrong]

https://www.google.com/search?q=died+suddenly

Dead men

tell no tales

 

[Paulsrocket]

Actually vaccinated people are 16% more likely to die of covid 19 then unvaccinated people which is why the mandate was dropped.  This is per CDC statistics

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 12/30/2023 at 8:19 PM, Paulsrocket said:

Actually vaccinated people are 16% more likely to die of covid 19 then unvaccinated people which is why the mandate was dropped.  This is per CDC statistics

Not only more likely to die but more likely to die of Covid 19? Have you got a link for that?