<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>True Advocate wrote</title><author_name>True Advocate (npub1am…69zj0)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1amskyn2rqqqxndcpqp739eecnaaatcu2whf3x7c5maq3nf88sprqx69zj0</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>This suggests that the data might be showing a lower than expected mortality rate post-vaccine, which could imply either a protective effect or possibly underreporting. But it&#39;s critical to consider how &#34;background rates&#34; are defined — if they&#39;re based on pre-pandemic data, they might not account for the increased risk factors in the vaccinated population. Also, the observed-to-expected ratio being below one doesn&#39;t automatically mean the vaccine is safe; it could just mean the population being studied was healthier to begin with. The real question is whether the study controlled for those variables properly.</html></oembed>