Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do VAERS death reports compare to deaths from COVID-19 itself?
Executive Summary
VAERS death reports are an imperfect tally of reports submitted after vaccination and do not equal confirmed vaccine-caused deaths; they are numerically tiny compared with US COVID-19 fatalities but can appear large compared with other vaccine reports because of the unprecedented scale of COVID-19 vaccination and heightened reporting attention [1] [2] [3]. Multiple analyses conclude that reported deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are lower than expected background all-cause deaths, that VAERS cannot establish causality, and that COVID-19 vaccines prevented millions of deaths while VAERS reports remain a small fraction of total pandemic mortality [4] [5] [6].
1. Why VAERS raw counts can mislead: the passive system that amplifies signals without proving cause
VAERS is a passive surveillance database that collects voluntary reports of health events occurring after vaccination, and that structure means counts are signals, not proof of causation; reports can be incomplete, duplicated, or unrelated to the vaccine and may be subject to both underreporting and stimulated overreporting during high public attention [3] [7]. Analyses credited by public-health agencies emphasize that passive-report totals should be interpreted with caution because they lack adjudicated medical review in many entries; the system is designed to flag patterns for follow-up, not to provide definitive mortality estimates attributable to vaccination [3]. This limitation explains why comparing raw VAERS death numbers directly with certified COVID-19 deaths is methodologically unsound without additional epidemiologic linkage, review of medical records, and background-rate adjustments [4] [3].
2. How VAERS counts for COVID-19 vaccines compare to other vaccines — scale and timing matter
Several analyses report tens of thousands of VAERS death reports after COVID-19 vaccination—numbers far higher than historical vaccine reports because COVID-19 vaccines were administered to hundreds of millions in a compressed timeframe, producing more reports simply by scale [1]. One analysis found 38,068 reported VAERS deaths through late 2024 and subsequent tallies into 2025 show continued increases in reports as doses continued, but those raw counts do not adjust for the much larger exposed population or for the age and health profile of vaccinees [1] [2]. Comparing per-dose or age-adjusted reporting rates, and comparing observed vs expected all-cause deaths in matched time windows, shows no signal of overall increased mortality due to vaccination and highlights that numerical supremacy of VAERS entries does not equal excess risk [4].
3. Placing VAERS reports alongside COVID-19 fatalities: orders of magnitude and prevented deaths
COVID-19 caused well over hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US and an estimated millions globally, while VAERS contains far fewer death reports tied in time to vaccination; VAERS-reported deaths represent a tiny fraction of pandemic mortality and of the lives vaccines prevented, with modeling studies estimating millions of deaths averted by vaccination in the first years of rollout [2] [5] [6]. The public-health literature emphasizes that the benefits of vaccination—reduced hospitalizations, deaths, and life-years lost—far outweigh the risks identified through passive surveillance; this is consistent with reporting-rate studies showing no excess all-cause mortality signal after vaccination when compared with expected background death rates [5] [4]. Thus, the numerical comparison should account for lives saved and for the fact that reported temporal associations in VAERS are not confirmed causal events.
4. Contrasting interpretations: activists, media and regulators see different narratives
Advocates emphasizing VAERS counts often highlight the raw numbers to argue for vaccine harm, pointing to the higher absolute VAERS death totals for COVID-19 vaccines versus historical vaccines as evidence of elevated danger, but that perspective risks conflating temporal association with causation and overlooks scale and reporting bias [1]. Media and fact‑checking outlets counter that population-adjusted mortality rates are higher among the unvaccinated and that simple counts ignore age, exposure, and baseline mortality; public-health agencies therefore use VAERS as an early-warning tool and rely on active surveillance and epidemiologic studies to adjudicate causality [8] [3]. Each camp has incentives: harm-focused groups seek signals to challenge mandates, while public-health institutions emphasize context to avoid misattributing deaths that would have occurred absent vaccination.
5. Bottom line: what the evidence supports and what it leaves unresolved
Evidence supports three clear points: VAERS reports are signals requiring follow-up, VAERS raw death counts are not proof of vaccine-caused deaths, and COVID-19 vaccination prevented large numbers of deaths [3] [4] [5]. Unresolved questions that require careful epidemiologic work include any rare causal links for specific subgroups or time windows and precise quantification of risk vs benefit at the individual level; these require medical record review, active surveillance, and controlled studies rather than raw passive-report tallies [3] [4]. Policymakers and the public should therefore weigh VAERS data as an important but incomplete part of safety monitoring, interpret raw counts with caution, and rely on adjudicated studies and population-level outcomes when comparing vaccine-associated reports to deaths caused by COVID-19 itself [7] [6].