论文标题
部分可观测时空混沌系统的无模型预测
Adverse effects of vaccinations against the Corona-virus SARS-CoV-2: insights and hindsights from a statistical perspective
论文作者
论文摘要
事实证明,针对病毒SARS-COV-2的病毒SARS-COV-2接种疫苗对严重的电晕疾病是最有效的。但是,少数人仍然对这种疫苗接种,甚至严格拒绝这种疫苗。一个但肯定不是唯一的原因是对不希望的不良影响的恐惧。仅在2021年,仅在德国就使用了约1.5亿次疫苗接种剂量。这应该是评估电晕疫苗不利影响风险的扎实基础。基于公开可用的数据,尤其是来自德国联邦疫苗和生物医学研究所(Paul-Ehrlich-Institut),以及来自欧洲,以色列和美国的进一步的科学出版物,本文试图对(严重)不良影响(例如,心肌,剧-肌动症和刺激性刺激性症状,刺激性症状,诸如严重的)不良影响的风险进行良好的定量陈述。基于各种疫苗接种类型的死亡人数,即Comirnaty,Vaxzevria,Janssen和Spikevax Covid-19疫苗。本文还描述了有关公开数据中缺乏细节以及主要来源的报告结构中缺乏细节的一些严重问题,这些差异甚至禁止简单的时间序列比较。但是,从总体视图中,所有提供的疫苗都非常安全,并且相对于各种不希望的并发症簇,大多属于相同的频率类别。然而,在四种疫苗之间存在统计学上的显着差异,表明Vaxzevria是根据某些重要方面仅是第二好的选择。 该论文旨在通过以公正的方式对不良反应的数量进行纯粹统计研究来支持关于对广泛可用的SARS-COV-2疫苗信心的合理方法。
Vaccinations against the virus SARS-CoV-2 have proven to be most effective against a severe corona disease. However, a significant minority of people is still critical of such a vaccination or even strictly reject it. One but surely not the only reason for this is the fear of undesired adverse effects. During the year 2021 in Germany alone approximately 150 million vaccination doses have been applied. This should be a solid basis to assess the risk of adverse effects of corona vaccinations. Based on publicly available data, especially from the German Federal Institute of Vaccines and Biomedicines (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) and further scientific publications from Europe, Israel and the United States, this paper tries to give sound quantitative statements on the risk of (severe) adverse effects (e.g. myocarditis, thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, venous thrombosis, including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and fatalities based thereon) of the various vaccination types, i.e. Comirnaty, Vaxzevria, Janssen and the Spikevax Covid-19 vaccine. The paper also describes some quite serious concerns about the lack of details in the publicly available data and the variations in the structure of reports from the primary source that prohibit even simple time series comparisons. However, from an overarching view all provided vaccines are pretty safe and fall mostly into the same frequency categories with respect to various clusters of undesired complications. Nevertheless there are statistically significant differences amongst the four vaccines which indicate that Vaxzevria is according to some important aspects only the second best preferable choice. The paper aims to support a rational approach regarding the confidence in the widely available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through a purely statistical investigation of the number of adverse effects in an unbiased manner.