[palmer]

That's fine but the 827 completed out of 3928 is only 21%. Subtract 105 losses and get 18% So 82% of pregnancies "did not complete" and 104 of those were considered miscarriages based on timing and 1 was a stillbirth. What about the rest? What happened to the rest?

My 82% is not 104 out of 127 like the LSN source. But it's the same percentage.

[palmer]

From study limitations: "We were unable to evaluate adverse outcomes that might occur in association with exposures earlier in pregnancy, such as congenital anoma- lies, because no pregnant persons who were vac- cinated early in pregnancy have had live births captured in the v-safe pregnancy registry to date; follow-up is ongoing. In addition, the proportion of pregnant persons who reported spontaneous abortion may not reflect true postvaccination proportions because participants might have been vaccinated after the period of greatest risk in the first trimester, and very early pregnancy losses might not be recognized. Whereas some pregnancies with vaccination in the first and early second trimester have been completed, the majority are ongoing, and a direct comparison of outcomes on the basis of timing of vaccina- tion is needed to define the proportion of spontaneous abortions in this cohort. Because of sample-size constraints, both pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were calculated as a proportion instead of a rate."

What I bolded is part of the explanation for "what about the rest?" That's not quantitative though. They say the majority. Do they mean 51% are still awaiting an outcome?

However they acknowledge "very early pregnancy losses might not be recognized" which means they are implying the 104 or 105 is an undercount. Do they mean people didn't know if they were pregnant or not?

[grey_whiskers]

I had to dig into the statistical analysis of the paper.
Man these idiots can’t write.

Descriptive analyses were performed
with the use of v-safe survey data for persons
who identified as pregnant through February 28,
2021 (35,691 persons); persons enrolled in the
v-safe pregnancy registry who were vaccinated
through February 28, 2021 (3958 persons); and
VAERS reports involving pregnant women received through February 28, 2021 (221 persons).

Then go back up to the TOP to the results section.

Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in
a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included
preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal
deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of
adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19
who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies
involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most
frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

So if you were in v-safe, you’re one of 35,691.
If you’re in v-safe, AND jabbed through Feb 28 2021 you’re one of 3958.
If you’re in v-safe, and jabbed through Feb 28 2021, AND YOU STOPPED BEING PREGNANT, you’re one of the 827.

115 of the completed pregnancies were a loss.
Then you have to do the crosstab for those jabbed during the first trimester, yada yada.

NEJM is vastly overrated, from this article.

[palmer]

Let me be clear that part of my post 72 is answered by the study. I assumed that none of the pregnancies were ongoing. So when I asked, what about the rest of the outcomes, the answer is in the study limitations text: "the majority are ongoing".

Without knowing what the exact "ongoing" number is, the rest of the study numbers are useless.