Steve, I fully support what you are doing, but calculating UFR on anaphylaxis, may not transfer to UFR for death. There are lots of arguments why one may report one to VAERS and not the other. Also, for death I think it will be age dependent. For elderly a doctor may just assume it is natural, while for health 10 year old's it is more li…
Steve, I fully support what you are doing, but calculating UFR on anaphylaxis, may not transfer to UFR for death. There are lots of arguments why one may report one to VAERS and not the other. Also, for death I think it will be age dependent. For elderly a doctor may just assume it is natural, while for health 10 year old's it is more likely to be reported. I think you need to at least mention this, because the whole argument of how many deaths you had depend on the UFR.
It also matters because the higher the death count, the more clearly one should see this in excess death. But we don't always see this directly, which means large amounts of deaths must be misclassified. We should then be able to prove that too, proving the argument from two sides.
Steve, I fully support what you are doing, but calculating UFR on anaphylaxis, may not transfer to UFR for death. There are lots of arguments why one may report one to VAERS and not the other. Also, for death I think it will be age dependent. For elderly a doctor may just assume it is natural, while for health 10 year old's it is more likely to be reported. I think you need to at least mention this, because the whole argument of how many deaths you had depend on the UFR.
It also matters because the higher the death count, the more clearly one should see this in excess death. But we don't always see this directly, which means large amounts of deaths must be misclassified. We should then be able to prove that too, proving the argument from two sides.
Urf is just an estimate
Unless u have data supporting your argument, it is not actionable