NYT takes a stab at jab risk

Covid vaccines are safe and effective,
except maybe not always

The New York Times unveils a bit of truth about covid vaccines — thousands harmed — but cloaks the disclosure in simple probabilities taken from official data. No worries, the paper assures, the jabs are safe and effective.

Children's Health Defense report on NYT articles

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/new-york-times-investigation-people-injured-covid-vaccines-being-ignored/

In economics, utility is a measure of how satisfied a person is with a particular state of the world. It can also refer to the value or worth of a service or good, or the total satisfaction or benefit gained from consuming it. 

The concept of value, positive or negative, must be taken into account in risk assessment. For example, suppose you stand to gain $100K if you have “only” one chance in a hundred of losing a leg? Would you do it? After all, your risk is a smallish 1 percent.

It would seem reasonable that the greater the potential for harm, the lower you want the risk to be.

But we don't get much in the way of cost-benefit analysis from the press, government or big pharma. So when they talk about low risk have they factored in such a calculation? Rarely, and those who do so face a conspiracy of silence or public bashing.

A point that is often overlooked is that if you are a healthy young person, you face very low risk of severe covid effects. So what is the point of getting the jab even with supposed low risks of dangerous reactions? You never needed to take that jab risk at all.

If there is a small risk to your child of jab-induced heart damage, brain injury or autism, but there is near zero risk that a case of covid would do much to her or him, what is the better decision? Jab or no jab?

Suppose you are told that the chance of a life-threatening vaccine injury for your child is about one in 10,000.

Yet you would not like it if your child was one of the more than 1,000 American children who would have, by these figures, been tragically injured by the substance (which, in a side effect, injects foreign DNA into human cells).

[That is, of 73 million Americans 17 years old or younger, about 14.1 percent were vaccinated, according to not terribly reliable figures. That yields 10,293,000 kids who got the jab. Divide that by 10,000 and you have more than 1,000 children very likely to have been grievously afflicted from vaccination.]

But the chance of your child contracting life-threatening covid is so low that it is difficult to find hard percentages on the internet, even when bypassing Google's information control gateway. So was the shot worth the "low" risk?

Shown below is an answer by Perplexity AI to demonstrate how sparse are the data available to the public.

Certainly the Japanese people are not impressed that the probability of a meltdown disaster at Fukushima was very low. That is because, with hindsight, they can see that the scale of the potential consequences should have been taken into account when building a nuclear reactor in a quake-prone region.​