Skip to main content
VaccineWatch
VaccinesSymptomsStatesAnalysisToolsDashboardCompare

VaccineWatch

Transparent access to VAERS data for informed decision-making. We present the data as-is, with appropriate context and disclaimers.

Explore Data

  • Vaccines
  • Symptoms
  • Manufacturers
  • States
  • Dashboard
  • Compare Tool
  • Search

Deep Dives

  • The Denominator Problem
  • Onset Timing
  • Lot Number Analysis
  • COVID Impact
  • Myocarditis
  • Death Reports
  • Interactive Tools
  • Reporting Rate Calculator
  • Signal Detection
  • All 23 Articles →

Resources

  • About
  • Methodology
  • FAQ
  • Glossary
  • Side Effects Guide
  • Vaccine Schedule
  • Vaccine Safety
  • Safety Timeline
  • Adverse Events
  • Is VAERS Reliable?
  • Myocarditis
  • Guillain-Barré
  • Allergic Reactions
  • Report an Event
  • Disclaimer
  • VAERS Official Site ↗

Sister Sites

  • OpenMedicaid
  • OpenFeds
  • OpenImmigration
  • OpenCrime
  • OpenSpending
  • OpenMedicare
  • OpenLobby
  • WarCosts
  • OpenPrescriber
  • GiveScope
  • SPACGraveyard
  • AI Exposure
  • AutoPilotWatch
  • TariffTax
  • ShelterScope
  • PermitCore
  • OpenPrices
  • TheDataProject.ai

Data source: VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

Data through 2026 · Updated quarterly

Built by TheDataProject.ai · © 2026 VaccineWatch

Important: VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination. For any given report, there is no certainty that the reported event was caused by the vaccine. Reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This data cannot be used to determine if vaccines cause or contribute to adverse events.

⚠️

Important: VAERS reports alone cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. Reports may contain incomplete, inaccurate, or unverified information. Correlation does not equal causation.

  1. Home
  2. Analysis
  3. Serious vs Non-Serious Outcomes
7 min read
Share

Serious vs Non-Serious Outcomes

Not all VAERS reports are created equal. Understanding the spectrum of outcomes — from mild reactions to serious events — provides essential context for interpreting the data.

1.4%
Death rate
7.2%
Hosp. rate
18.0%
ER visit rate
1.9%
Disability rate

The Outcome Spectrum

Of 1,983,260 total VAERS reports, the outcomes break down as:

  • 27,732 death reports (1.4%)
  • 143,653 hospitalizations (7.2%)
  • 356,123 ER visits (18.0%)
  • 37,185 disability reports (1.9%)

Note that categories are not mutually exclusive — a single report may mention death, hospitalization, and disability. The majority of VAERS reports describe non-serious events like injection site reactions, headaches, and fatigue.

Which Vaccines Have Higher Severity?

Some vaccines have higher serious outcome rates than others, but this must be interpreted carefully. Vaccines given to sicker populations (e.g., pneumococcal vaccines given to elderly with comorbidities) will naturally have higher serious outcome rates due to the underlying health of recipients.

COVID-19 vaccines, despite their large total numbers, have severity rates in line with many other widely-administered vaccines when adjusted for the demographics of their recipients.

Non-Serious Reports

The vast majority of VAERS reports describe expected, mild reactions: injection site pain, fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches. These are signs of the immune system responding to vaccination and are generally self-limiting. VAERS captures these alongside serious events, which can make the database appear more alarming than warranted when viewed without context.

Key Takeaways

  • 1.Only 1.4% of VAERS reports mention death — the majority describe non-serious events
  • 2.Outcome categories overlap — a single report can be counted in multiple categories
  • 3.Higher severity rates for some vaccines reflect recipient demographics, not inherent danger
  • 4.Reporting a death in VAERS means it occurred after vaccination, not that the vaccine caused it

2026 Data Context

As VAERS reporting normalizes following the COVID-19 pandemic surge, the data landscape for serious outcome patterns is shifting. Annual VAERS reports in 2025-2026 have returned to the 35,000-45,000 range typical of the pre-pandemic era (2015-2019), making year-over-year comparisons more meaningful again.

The HHS administration has signaled increased focus on vaccine safety data analysis, including the development of AI-powered tools for pattern detection in VAERS reports. While these tools are still under development, they represent a potential evolution in how adverse event data is analyzed and interpreted.

New vaccines entering the market — including RSV vaccines for older adults and pregnant women, updated COVID-19 formulations, and potential H5N1 avian flu vaccines — continue to add new data streams to VAERS. Each new vaccine type provides additional context for understanding serious outcome patterns across the full spectrum of vaccine safety surveillance.

Limitations of This Analysis

This analysis is based entirely on VAERS passive surveillance data, which carries important limitations that must be understood:

  • Underreporting: Studies estimate that only 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. This means the true number of events is likely much higher than what appears in the data.
  • Stimulated reporting: Media coverage and public awareness can temporarily increase reporting rates for specific vaccines, independent of any change in actual safety.
  • No control group: VAERS does not include a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals, making it impossible to determine whether reported events occurred at a higher rate than expected.
  • Variable data quality: VAERS reports range from detailed medical records submitted by healthcare providers to brief descriptions from patients. Not all reports are verified for medical accuracy.
  • Duplicate reports: The same event may be reported by multiple people (patient, doctor, manufacturer), and some duplicates may remain in the data.

For these reasons, VAERS data is best used for signal detection — identifying potential safety concerns that warrant further investigation — rather than for definitive risk assessment. When VAERS surfaces a potential signal, it is investigated using more rigorous systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and controlled epidemiological studies.

About This Data

All data on VaccineWatch comes from the official VAERS public-use datasets published by the CDC and FDA. Our current dataset covers reports from 1990 through early 2026. We process the raw data without filtering or editorializing — every metric is a transparent aggregation of official government data.

Our Methodology →FAQ →Disclaimer →

2026 Data Context

As VAERS reporting normalizes following the COVID-19 pandemic surge, the data landscape for serious outcome patterns is shifting. Annual VAERS reports in 2025-2026 have returned to the 35,000-45,000 range typical of the pre-pandemic era (2015-2019), making year-over-year comparisons more meaningful again.

The HHS administration has signaled increased focus on vaccine safety data analysis, including the development of AI-powered tools for pattern detection in VAERS reports. While these tools are still under development, they represent a potential evolution in how adverse event data is analyzed and interpreted.

New vaccines entering the market — including RSV vaccines for older adults and pregnant women, updated COVID-19 formulations, and potential H5N1 avian flu vaccines — continue to add new data streams to VAERS. Each new vaccine type provides additional context for understanding serious outcome patterns across the full spectrum of vaccine safety surveillance.

Limitations of This Analysis

This analysis is based entirely on VAERS passive surveillance data, which carries important limitations that must be understood:

  • Underreporting: Studies estimate that only 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. This means the true number of events is likely much higher than what appears in the data.
  • Stimulated reporting: Media coverage and public awareness can temporarily increase reporting rates for specific vaccines, independent of any change in actual safety.
  • No control group: VAERS does not include a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals, making it impossible to determine whether reported events occurred at a higher rate than expected.
  • Variable data quality: VAERS reports range from detailed medical records submitted by healthcare providers to brief descriptions from patients. Not all reports are verified for medical accuracy.
  • Duplicate reports: The same event may be reported by multiple people (patient, doctor, manufacturer), and some duplicates may remain in the data.

For these reasons, VAERS data is best used for signal detection — identifying potential safety concerns that warrant further investigation — rather than for definitive risk assessment. When VAERS surfaces a potential signal, it is investigated using more rigorous systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and controlled epidemiological studies.

About This Data

All data on VaccineWatch comes from the official VAERS public-use datasets published by the CDC and FDA. Our current dataset covers reports from 1990 through early 2026. We process the raw data without filtering or editorializing — every metric is a transparent aggregation of official government data.

Our Methodology →FAQ →Disclaimer →

Related Analysis

Understanding Death Reports
What death reports mean
Elderly Analysis
65+ outcomes deep dive
Hospitalization Duration
How long serious cases last