These 444 cases of blood clots are after an estimated 24.9 million first [Astrazeneca] doses, and 24.2 million second doses of the vaccine in the UK. Of the 444 people who developed blood clots, 80 died. Six of these deaths occurred after the second dose.
Source: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... Up to 23 November 2022, there were 554 suspected cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported in the 18 to 29 age group following the vaccine. This is an average rate of 31 reports per million doses.
In the 30 to 39 age group, there were 470 cases suspected cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported in the same time period. This is an average rate of 27 reports per million doses.
Studies looking at myocarditis and pericarditis after the vaccine have not found any increased risk of death or cardiac arrest, compared with being unvaccinated. A large study of 4 million vaccinated people in Denmark, published in the BMJ found there were no deaths or diagnoses of heart failure in people who were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after being vaccinated.
Source: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... 0 0 59 231 205 206 206 208 219 210 210
1 59 0 205 215 207 207 209 209 210 210
2 231 205 0 40 42 43 180 222 224 213
3 205 215 40 0 43 43 212 222 213 213
4 206 207 42 43 0 44 182 227 217 217
5 206 207 43 43 44 0 215 215 217 217
6 208 209 180 212 182 215 0 40 43 45
7 219 209 222 222 227 215 40 0 43 43
8 210 210 224 213 217 217 43 43 0 44
9 210 210 213 213 217 217 45 43 44 0
To drop the sarcastic frame - the article either argues something that could be incorrect or it makes a meaningless argument. If it’s arguing something that could be otherwise then it needs to give evidence for the things it’s saying. It doesn’t and treats everything it’s saying as completely self-evident. But these are empirical assertions that need evidence to be proven true or false, and the article stands out in using zero evidence. Personally, I think that this inadvertently reveals the disdain for news is really part of a broader undervaluing of evidence in general, but I don’t think that’s provable really.