I’m not drawing conclusions - you invented that claim. The data I’m referring to is available in several other studies, with regards to estimated myocarditis rates in young men. But if you agree with me that it’s not unreasonable to think that is the scope of fatalities, I would urge you to integrate that new prior into things like the ethics of mandating this drug for college.
Saying it’s not unreasonable means there is some significant probability that we may ultimately determine this to be the case. The conclusion is about the range of probabilities, not the actual state of reality. But probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to college.
You already implies you agree with my claim about it not being unreasonable when you said “as well.” I guess you retract that?
And again: this study is just one of many studies that have lead to my prior. The rate of myocarditis is well established, the population size is well established, the open question is the fatality rate. The unreasonable part comes from putting a lower bound on the death rate based on some assumptions around these studies which have done autopsies and the estimates on subclinical heart interactions from the drug. There are several studies on all of these things. The back of the napkin math to me is on the order of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> You already implies you agree with my claim about it not being unreasonable when you said “as well.” I guess you retract that?
Yes, I was trying to show polite respect for your point and not actually endorse it, but to be clear, I don't believe there is enough evidence to assume that tens of thousands of young people died, especially not with this article, and especially when you consider that the acknowledged gap in your knowledge is the fatality rate.
