Paper detail

Adverse effects of vaccinations against the Corona-virus SARS-CoV-2: insights and hindsights from a statistical perspective

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.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.