Survivor bias can be erroneously used to argue both for and against vaccine safety

Is attending the cinema deadly?

Or, to express the question statistically, does more frequent attendance increase or decrease mortality?

This sounds like a crazy question because intuitively we know that cinema visits have no impact on your health. But imagine that a study has been done that collected data on people who had died after visiting the cinema and concluded that attending the cinema contributed to an increase in mortality. Should you believe this conclusion?

I show using graphical illustrations that there are two different types of survivor bias which, by suitable manipulation of the statistics, can be used to show both increases or decreases in mortality rates the more cinema visits that are made. If we simply replace ‘cinema visits’ with ‘vaccine doses’ then it is clear that we can create - for a placebo vaccine - exactly the same statistical illusions of either increased safety, the more doses you take, or decreased safety, the more doses you take.

See https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/survivor-bias-cuts-both-ways-and