> Unfortunately, specific diagnoses for the healthcare visits were not identified in the study.

Can anyone actually falsify this hypothesis based on the linked article? "Vaccinated teens are healthier and more active. Instead of staying home, they get out, play sports, take more risks, and end up with more injuries."

Do not feed your confirmation bias by just reading the "Breaking" headlines.

BTW: This is about data science and academic work, not vaccines. Personally, I feel ambivalent about flu and COVID shots and I think the pros and cons need to be considered on an individual basis. Also, I would criticize any doctor who refuses to allow for this consideration and insists on vaccinating everyone.

#datovýVěnec

nostr:nevent1qqsxmgdgplzu3h97l60gj95r65lgfxmkajkvy7rdjgzscv0x8td04egpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyrvczkg7p6np2wuxs7e2a4ns4d7ekmp66qv2xc9jsg9neu8hczhrwqcyqqqqqqgfcfgv6

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

That's a rediculous hypothesis

Yes, my hypothesis is exactly as ridiculous as the article's conclusion. The data are not suggesting either. Proper report should say there is a significant difference and we don't know why. Further study would then look into exact diagnosis, clean the data from injuries and move forward.

A conclusion from the data is that you have a lower chance of injury by not getting the shot.

Please elaborate.

Correlation does not equal causation but given the circumstances the vaccine is highly suspect and I don't blame people if they draw that conclusion however without knowledge of the nature of the injuries it is just a strong hypothesis in need of additional data and needs to be stated as such