There was some news, possibly based on this paper, that the risk of thrombosis caused by COVID-19 is supposedly 10 times higher than that of "vaccination". To me this conclusion seems flawed in two ways:

  • The paper talks only about mRNA vaccines while the one that is mainly suspected of causing blood clots (AstraZeneca) is not an mRNA vaccine as far as I know.
  • The paper compares the risk in confirmed COVID-19 cases with the risk in the general population (because everyone gets the vaccine). Isn't that a huge Bayesian fallacy? The probability of getting a blood clot from the vaccine should be compared to the probability of getting a blood clot from COVID-19 times the probability of getting COVID-19.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.