> if you read this study as "given someone survived Covid, what are the odds..."
How else are we supposed to read it? I just don't understand what point is being made with "survivorship bias" here. It's not like individuals who have recovered from Covid have gone through some hyperselective winnowing process leaving only those with superheroic immune systems or something.
Obviously the study does not support the conclusion "it's safer to catch Covid than get vaccinated." However, for the millions of people who have had a confirmed infection and recovered, it is absolutely relevant to their risk calculus around whether to take the vaccine, and given that they are survivors, there is no "bias" to speak of.
You're assuming everyone read it the same as you, and now can't imagine differently.
There have been several mentions in this thread alone about how people have been using studies like this to recommend "Covid parties" (like chickenpox parties), or generally use it as further fuel to stay away from the vaccine, because they believe catching Covid is safer.
How else are we supposed to read it? I just don't understand what point is being made with "survivorship bias" here. It's not like individuals who have recovered from Covid have gone through some hyperselective winnowing process leaving only those with superheroic immune systems or something.
Obviously the study does not support the conclusion "it's safer to catch Covid than get vaccinated." However, for the millions of people who have had a confirmed infection and recovered, it is absolutely relevant to their risk calculus around whether to take the vaccine, and given that they are survivors, there is no "bias" to speak of.