I don't want to be harsh on you, but I think that this graph is a bit misleading. It can lead people to think, for example, that there is a 1/107 chance of dying from a car crash "each time you travel by car", which is not true.
The problem is that you are mixing "strongly conditioned probabilities" with "non-conditioned probabilities" (maybe these are not the right words). What I mean is, some "causes", like 'motor-vehicle accident', 'firearm', have pre-conditions like 'being involved in a car accident' and 'being involved in a firearm incident', which have a low probability that it's invisible to the viewer. However, clotting from J&J vaccine has one pre-condition only: 'getting the vaccine', which is easily inferred by the viewer.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's important to put the risk of the vaccines in perspective, and I know that's what you're trying to do, but I don't agree that this is the right way to do it.
![image showing [OC] Should you be too worried after taking the J&J vaccine despite it being paused (out of an abundance of caution)?](e757166e-5e7b-5da7-abcb-5fe5ba6ff9c8.jpg)
Champiovies on April 14th, 2021 at 06:30 UTC »
You hate to see a bar graph that doesn't display a ten fold difference at the bottom.
cinico on April 14th, 2021 at 07:21 UTC »
I don't want to be harsh on you, but I think that this graph is a bit misleading. It can lead people to think, for example, that there is a 1/107 chance of dying from a car crash "each time you travel by car", which is not true.
The problem is that you are mixing "strongly conditioned probabilities" with "non-conditioned probabilities" (maybe these are not the right words). What I mean is, some "causes", like 'motor-vehicle accident', 'firearm', have pre-conditions like 'being involved in a car accident' and 'being involved in a firearm incident', which have a low probability that it's invisible to the viewer. However, clotting from J&J vaccine has one pre-condition only: 'getting the vaccine', which is easily inferred by the viewer.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's important to put the risk of the vaccines in perspective, and I know that's what you're trying to do, but I don't agree that this is the right way to do it.
SleepylaReef on April 14th, 2021 at 08:01 UTC »
So from the Comments it seems the consensus is that this is crappy information.