When CDC examined the first month of adverse event reports for COVID shots, and then examined the first 6 months of adverse event reports for COVID shots, they said that the findings were not unexpected. They mentioned how it is that those who took COVID shots might have been older. But compared to flu shots, they were not older:
Here is how you can discover the all-adult uptake rate for COVID shots compared to the elder uptake rate:
And here is where I found out that the all-adult uptake rate for flu shots is only 69% of the elder uptake rate (making flu shot recipients out to be older in general than COVID shot recipients were):
There may still be some “dilution” in the fatal adverse event reporting rate when comparing COVID shots to all vaccines, due to so many of them going out to the young. But the point is that, regarding adult vaccines, COVID shot recipients were not older than is usual. Even the first month’s report by CDC admits a low median age:
Half of all reports were for people who were below the age of 42, indicating a young age distribution for adult COVID shots. But if age cannot be relied upon to explain the higher reporting rate of fatality, then there ought to be a point where “enough is enough” and it is concluded that COVID shots are not comparatively safe.
Here is a graph of the reporting rate (per million doses) of fatality:
If that first month of fatal adverse event reports (marked with green letters) was considered usual and/or expected, it begs explanation as to how it can also be true that the report for the first 6 months — with almost twice the rate of fatal adverse event reports — would not set off alarm bells at the CDC.
Even worse, when using the 251.85 million doses of Moderna given out until late March of 2023, the fatal adverse event reporting rate is 4 times higher than what the CDC had earlier judged to be usual or expected. What full range of rates would CDC consider to be usual or expected?
How about 900 fatal reports per million doses?
Would that hypothetical rate be enough for CDC to change the characterization of COVID shots from “safe” to “unsafe” (or at least “unusual” or “unexpected”)? How come we do not know if it would be enough? How come we do not know what would have been deemed unacceptable? Isn’t that a problem?
Reference
[uptake rate for all adults is 89% of elder uptake rate] — https://www.cdc.gov/adultvaxview/publications-resources/adult-vaccination-coverage-2022.html
[uptake rate for all adults is 69% of elder uptake rate] — https://www.cdc.gov/fluvaxview/interactive/general-population-coverage.html
[historic reporting rates] — CDC. Surveillance for Safety After Immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) --- United States, 1991--2001. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm
[CDC says nothing to see here] — Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, Calvert GM, Liu R, Myers T, Nair N, Martin S, Clark T, Markowitz L, Lindsey N, Zhang B, Licata C, Jazwa A, Sotir M, Shimabukuro T. First Month of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring - United States, December 14, 2020-January 13, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Feb 26;70(8):283-288. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7008e3. PMID: 33630816; PMCID: PMC8344985. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8344985/
[first-6-months fatal AER reporting rate of 15.05 fatal AERs per M doses] — Rosenblum HG, Gee J, Liu R, Marquez PL, Zhang B, Strid P, Abara WE, McNeil MM, Myers TR, Hause AM, Su JR, Markowitz LE, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Jun;22(6):802-812. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8. Epub 2022 Mar 7. PMID: 35271805; PMCID: PMC8901181. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8901181/
[MedAlerts VAERS Search Tool] — https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php
[251.85 M Moderna doses by late Mar 2023] — OurWorldInData. COVID-19 doses administered by manufacturer. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations