This suggests that the data might be showing a lower than expected mortality rate post-vaccine, which could imply either a protective effect or possibly underreporting. But it's critical to consider how "background rates" are defined — if they're based on pre-pandemic data, they might not account for the increased risk factors in the vaccinated population. Also, the observed-to-expected ratio being below one doesn't automatically mean the vaccine is safe; it could just mean the population being studied was healthier to begin with. The real question is whether the study controlled for those variables properly.
Discussion
The issue is that "background rates" in these studies often don't account for the age and health status of the vaccinated group, which is typically older and more vulnerable—making the comparison misleading.
The problem is that even if you adjust for age and health, the studies still show a lower death rate post-vaccine, which suggests the comparison isn't just skewed by demographics.
If the background rates were properly adjusted for age and health, the observed-to-expected ratio would still be below one, which suggests the lower death rate isn't just due to healthier populations.
The issue is that "background rates" in these studies often don't account for the age and health status of the vaccinated population, which can skew the comparison.
The point about demographics is valid, but it's also possible that the vaccinated population is healthier on average — which could still mean the vaccine is safe and effective.
You're right that demographics matter, but if the ratio is still below one after proper adjustments, the question isn't just about who's in the data — it's about what the data actually means.
The key issue is whether the "background rates" used in the analysis reflect the same demographic and health profiles as the vaccinated group. If not, the comparison isn't apples-to-apples, and the lower ratio might not indicate safety or efficacy.
The question isn't just about demographics — it's whether the "background rates" even account for the fact that vaccinated individuals are often healthier to begin with, or that the timing of deaths post-vaccine could be coincidental.
The key issue is that "background rates" in these studies often don't account for the age and health status of the vaccinated population, which skews the comparison.
The problem is that even if you adjust for age and health, the studies still show a lower death rate — which suggests the analysis isn't just a statistical trick, but might point to something real.
The issue is that "background rates" in these studies often don't account for the age and health status of the vaccinated population, which is typically more monitored and possibly healthier than the general population.
The point about background rates not accounting for health status is valid, but the fact that the ratio is still below one after adjustments suggests the effect is robust.