Any study that is centered on the premise that party affiliation is the independent variable is suspect in my book. Clearly they're trying to make a political point, I've posted many times here on the healthy user bias. Perhaps this is a problem here, perhaps not.bearister said:
I'm totally open to any study discrediting this Yale study:
Republicans' excess death rate spiked after COVID-19 vaccines arrived: study : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study
The researchers note that their study has several limitations, including the chance that political party affiliation "is a proxy for other risk factors," such as income, health insurance status and chronic medical conditions, along with race and ethnicity.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the conclusion drawn by this article, that the vaxxines prevented death for those over the age of 25 up until the end of 2021. How is this germane to the topic at hand? The question is, were vaxxines the appropriate policy prescription for young people given all the available evidence at the time. It's what started this thread and it's what this particular article is about. So let's apply similar logic. All-cause mortality in the young spiked in 2021 and has remained elevated ever since. Death in the young due to cardiovascular issues has seen a very large spike versus pre-pandemic. Absent a study similar to the one cited by NPR but focused on the young, how are we to conclude that vaxxines saved lived in this age group as you seem to imply? I would be very interested to see ANY study which shows the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing disease in the young. Even better would be a cost-benefit study. Given that we experimented on tens of millions of young Americans, I find it disturbing that we do appear to have such a study, but hey, that's what happens when you wear a tin-foil hat.
