That's substantial but that doesn't support the sentence in the conclusion. Say, e.g. that in pre-Covid times you had 1,000 people dying suddenly every year due to a known disease, and you have them all vaxxed in Covid times because of this known weakness. And assume that they all die suddenly. You will correctly conclude that there are …
That's substantial but that doesn't support the sentence in the conclusion. Say, e.g. that in pre-Covid times you had 1,000 people dying suddenly every year due to a known disease, and you have them all vaxxed in Covid times because of this known weakness. And assume that they all die suddenly. You will correctly conclude that there are far more vaxxed than unvaxxed people dying suddenly. That's why we usually want age-normalised data (because younger people barely die suddenly) and, to prove the sentence in the conclusion, probably a bit more reflection and data. Hence my question.
That's substantial but that doesn't support the sentence in the conclusion. Say, e.g. that in pre-Covid times you had 1,000 people dying suddenly every year due to a known disease, and you have them all vaxxed in Covid times because of this known weakness. And assume that they all die suddenly. You will correctly conclude that there are far more vaxxed than unvaxxed people dying suddenly. That's why we usually want age-normalised data (because younger people barely die suddenly) and, to prove the sentence in the conclusion, probably a bit more reflection and data. Hence my question.
Dying suddenly precludes "known weakness."