[HN Gopher] Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on pos...
___________________________________________________________________
Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term
risks begins
Author : gjsman-1000
Score : 288 points
Date : 2022-11-14 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
| not_good_coder wrote:
| The developer of the vaccine should not sponsor this adverse
| effects trial.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Careful, the news told me that's what conspiracy theorists
| would say.
| nradov wrote:
| One mouse study found that vaccine injection without aspiration
| did significantly increase the risk of adverse cardiac events
| such as myocarditis. That research hasn't been reproduced in
| humans but this area deserves further investigation. As per CDC
| guidelines, US healthcare providers don't routinely aspirate
| prior to intramuscular injection.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab941
|
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-022-00361-4
|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-141119
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/admi...
| ambicapter wrote:
| aspiration here means?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| It means after inserting the needle you draw back on the
| plunger to see if any blood is drawn into the syringe. If so
| it means you hit a vein and should reposition the needle
| because the shot is meant to go into the muscle rather than
| directly into a vein.
| chedca21 wrote:
| And young male athletes with the greatest development of blood
| supply in the deltoid represent the most common demographic
| affected by acute cardiovascular injury post vaccine.
| Coincidence?
|
| The vaccines were not built to be aspirated, once the plunger
| is up they can not be reset. It represents a fundamental lapse
| in standard harm reduction.
|
| Also "wait 15 mins to see if emergency care is needed" could
| well have been replaced by allergy screening given before the
| injection. Many thousands of cases of anaphylaxis from the shot
| have been documented some of which were fatal, all avoidable
| with allergy screening which is practically free.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| I have asked for aspiration when I was vaccinated, all four
| times. I've had Pfizer and Moderna. It was no problem.
|
| There exist syringes which the injection cannot be aspirated
| with, but those weren't used when I was being vaccinated.
|
| --
|
| Strong agreement on the concern about deltoid vasculature.
|
| (I have direct, lived experience with someone at risk of
| death from a substance going into a capillary which was
| supposed to stay under the skin on injection. It happens.
| It's real. Some doctors will claim it's "impossible", which
| is obviously false when you look into it. The datasheet that
| came with the injector needles even state that they're "over
| 99.5 accurate in delivering a subcutaneous injection". I
| forget the exact phrasing. It means that statistically, 1 in
| 200 injections tends to go into a capillary.)
|
| --
|
| Also, it's interesting to look into the reasons why
| aspiration was removed from standard practice. In a nutshell,
| it's because of two things:
|
| 1: Some syringes exist which cannot be aspirated with.
|
| 2: Aspiration can be painful for infants and is tricky to
| perform because they are small and they struggle.
|
| These are the reasons why aspiration was essentially removed
| from clinical practice. Really. Those are the reasons. It
| doesn't make any sense. It's obviously harmful that
| aspiration was stopped.
|
| The papers the grandparent post links to are good.
| pandeiro wrote:
| dayvid wrote:
| My main question is if the vaccine side effects are just a much
| milder version of what would happen if you got COVID as opposed
| to something vaccine specific.
|
| If that's the case, then there would be more myocarditis issues
| from people not vaccinating. I haven't received a straight answer
| on this.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| > _...then there would be more myocarditis issues from people
| not vaccinating..._
|
| Yes.
|
| Myocarditis seven times more likely with COVID-19 than vaccines
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/967801
|
| Myocarditis Risk 17 Times Higher for Unvaccinated Patients Ages
| 12-30 Who Get COVID-19 Than COVID-Vaccinated Patients
|
| https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-ti...
|
| Myocarditis risk significantly higher after COVID-19 infection
| vs. after a COVID-19 vaccine | American Heart Association
|
| https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
| [deleted]
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I wonder why those studies differ from this one, that did not
| find a higher incidence in myocarditis in COVID patients.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
| russdill wrote:
| The numbers in this study end up being relatively small as
| there are only 200k people involved. "Nine post-COVID-19
| patients developed myocarditis".
| russdill wrote:
| https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....
|
| "Myocarditis is more common after severe acute respiratory
| syndrome coronavirus 2 infection than after COVID-19
| vaccination, but the risks in younger people and after
| sequential vaccine doses are less certain."
|
| The study size is 43M people.
| sfusato wrote:
| _" Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID-19
| infection in Israel between March 2020 and January 2021. [...]
| We did not observe an increased incidence of neither
| pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from
| COVID-19 infection."_
|
| Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
| coinbasetwwa wrote:
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Polio - people have forgotten rows of kids in iron lungs -
| perhaps you should read some history books and forget the
| crypto.
| sfusato wrote:
| I highly recommend "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines,
| and The Forgotten History".
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Smallpox and other random stuff exists too what does that
| have to do with this conversation?
| nomel wrote:
| How is polio related to covid?
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| Seems like this should have been a requirement before any
| emergency use authorization, and certainly before any mandates.
|
| The fact that this research is just now being done ought to be
| enough to immediately revoke the FDA emergency use authorizations
| and pull the product from the shelves.
|
| The covid vaccines have been a complete and utter disaster at
| every level. The erosion of trust in the institutions that are
| supposed to protect consumers has alone done exponentially more
| damage than the virus it self.
|
| We now have victims of vaccine injury so scared of societal
| backlash they don't speak out, and doctors so scared of losing
| their license/job they ignore the evidence in front of them.
| yucky wrote:
| The actual FDA approval letter[0] calls out in the document
| that all long term testing will not be completed until May
| 2027. Pointing that out has always gotten one branded as an
| antivaxx conspiracy nutter, rather than a person who might want
| to ensure that, well, long term testing data is actually in
| before injecting something into their bodies.
|
| [0] https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
| bluGill wrote:
| > long term testing data is actually in before injecting
| something into their bodies.
|
| You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body,
| and that is far worse than whatever possible long term
| effects of the vaccine might be.
|
| There may be concerning long term effects, but keep
| persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the
| known case of COVID. And of course long term studies on COVID
| are also still in progress with all signs pointing to even
| more bad effects of COVID coming out in the coming years.
| cragfar wrote:
| >There may be concerning long term effects, but keep
| persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than
| the known case of COVID.
|
| The most common outcome of Covid is feeling bad for a
| couple of days (up to a week), and then moving on with life
| across all age groups. This has always been the case.
| hedora wrote:
| Yes, but the bad outcomes of Covid are > 10x more common
| than those of the vaccine, and they're also much worse.
| cragfar wrote:
| That really depends on the age group. The chances of
| someone under 30 having any real negative effects to
| Covid is virtually 0, while there is some evidence
| pointing to males under the age of 30 having issues with
| the vaccine.
| bluGill wrote:
| The chance of a male under 30 having issues is also
| virtually zero.
| yucky wrote:
| Sounds like there never was a reasonable case for
| mandates then :)
| adamsb6 wrote:
| > You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your
| body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long
| term effects of the vaccine might be.
|
| You seem certain of this, but the vaccines are new enough
| that we can't possibly have long term data to even
| evaluate.
|
| Bodies are complicated, even more than software systems.
| I've been in enough SEV reviews where the root cause was
| seemingly innocuous to know that I can't anticipate with
| much confidence that any particular change won't result in
| some cascading failure scenario. This is why we have test
| environments. Luckily in software it's extremely rare for a
| change to take years to manifest bad behavior, but not so
| in medicine.
|
| I'm no biologist, but an obvious question to ask is if the
| spike protein by itself, which the vaccine will produce,
| has different impacts than the spike protein coupled to the
| virus envelope. It's certainly smaller, will it be able to
| pass through areas where the whole virus package wouldn't?
| What about the end of the spike that would otherwise be
| attached to the envelope, will it have an effect?
|
| You can't naively draw a Venn diagram of virus and vaccine
| impacts where the vaccine impacts are fully a subset of the
| virus impacts.
| yucky wrote:
| You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body,
| and that is far worse than whatever possible long term
| effects of the vaccine might be.
|
| That is actually yet to be determined, which is the point.
|
| And I only mean that as it relates to specific demographic
| cohorts, not overall. If I were elderly, diabetic,
| immunocompromised etc. I don't think I'd hesitate. But the
| data I've seen on my demographic cohort is a toss-up at
| best, or even shows the vaccine to be riskier.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your
| body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long
| term effects of the vaccine might be.
|
| You don't know that, because we don't know what the "long
| term effects of the vaccine" actually are.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's true in _both_ directions.
| wrycoder wrote:
| As soon as the EUAs were issued, the vaccine manufacturers shut
| down clinical trial followup and, in many cases, allowed
| vaccination of the control branch of the trials. Same for
| Paxlovid, where support for independent trials was refused.
| oezi wrote:
| Citation?
| throwaway049 wrote:
| 'allowed vaccination of the control branch'
|
| People in the control branch were told they were controls so
| that they had the option to get the newly-authorized vaccine
| for real. Standard practice for trials that go well.
| wrycoder wrote:
| And so the long term effects of the treatment are
| uncontrolled.
|
| I think it's standard practice for therapeutics, but not
| for vaccines?
| pieter_mj wrote:
| I, probably with many others, didn't realize this could be
| the consequence of an EUA until you mentioned it here. Thank
| you.
| oezi wrote:
| No, that gets it totally backwards. The miniscule risks of the
| vaccine are blown out of proportion by bad reporting and people
| reading the statistics wrong.
|
| In converse: we should have skipped phase 3 trials
| (effectivity) and should have started vaccination after safety
| was approved.
|
| If anything the vaccination campaign has shown that sometimes
| acting fast can be tremendously helpful.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Isn't he risk of myocarditis actually higher if you get
| infected with covid compared with getting a covid vaccine?
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
| jsight wrote:
| The problem seems to be that the vaccine isn't decreasing
| infection risk all that much. Is it also decreasing
| myocarditis risk among the infected? I've seen mixed results,
| so it isn't clear to me.
| hedora wrote:
| Yes. In particular, the contents of the mRNA vaccines are a
| subset of what a covid infection produces.
|
| The anti-vax stance is similar to the claims that tightly
| regulated nicotine vapes are worse than high tar cigarettes.
| (Except that you can just choose to not smoke, of course.)
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I hear a lot of anti-vaxy stuff about how the spike protein
| is damaging in itself (implying that you shouldn't get the
| vaccine because you'll have spike proteins flowing around
| in your blood), but they seem to ignore the fact that when
| you get actual covid the virus is multiplying in your cells
| and spike proteins are more widespread and more numerous.
|
| I see the argument here in this thread that the vaccine
| isn't really preventing you from getting covid at this
| point (which is probably largely true) but shouldn't being
| vaccinated mean that you'll have a lower viral load and
| shorter duration of illness?
| dudeofea wrote:
| catching covid always involves an infection of a
| respiratory tract (nose, mouth, etc) but not necessarily
| an infection in the bloodstream
|
| covid vaccines are always present in the bloodstream
| after injection, even if injected intra-muscularly
|
| an early study in japan showed only ~25% of the vaccine
| stays at the injection site
| puffoflogic wrote:
| > the virus is multiplying in your cells
|
| The mRNA vaccines work by causing the spike protein to
| multiply in your cells. Yes, the mechanism is different -
| the virus copies _itself_ and the spike protein just
| happens to be part of the virus, whereas the vaccine mRNA
| just causes the spike protein itself to be copied. Note
| that with the vaccine, you 're getting a massive number
| of cells "infected" all at once, equivalent to quite a
| bit of virus self-replication. So the result is the same,
| a lot of spike protein floating around and doing damage.
| The main difference in result is that with the mRNA,
| there is an upper bound to the number of cells which can
| be infected (and which therefore have to be eliminated by
| your immune system), whereas with the virus there is
| effectively no upper bound. But that doesn't translate at
| all into a difference of how much damage the spike
| protein produced by X infected cells produces, and it
| doesn't mean that the number of infected cells with mRNA
| is significantly less than the number of infected cells
| you would have gotten with a successfully-fought-off
| infection. So it _could_ do just as much damage.
| Izkata wrote:
| > The main difference in result is that with the mRNA,
| there is an upper bound to the number of cells which can
| be infected
|
| Reverse-transcriptase enzyme in liver cells in a lab has
| been shown to convert the mRNA vaccines into DNA. While
| it's unclear if it would actually be a permanent change
| to cells, DNA is a lot more stable than RNA and could
| hang around a lot longer than expected, and result in a
| lot more spike protein than expected.
|
| https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
| Izkata wrote:
| You're missing part of the argument: Vaccine-generated
| spike protein is free-floating, while virus-generated
| spike protein is attached to the virus. The free-floating
| spike protein is a lot smaller than the virus, so it can
| get a lot more places, and while some will break off of
| the virus and become free-floating it wouldn't be in
| anywhere near as large amounts as vaccine-generated spike
| protein.
| weberer wrote:
| Why did you ask that as a question if you have the answer
| right there?
| nomel wrote:
| Understanding of this stuff can change, as evident by the
| fact that this post exists and research is just starting.
| [deleted]
| dbsights wrote:
| > Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for
| all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of
| excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after
| a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2
| test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18]).
|
| > The risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is consistently
| higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of
| mRNA-1273, where the number of additional events during 28
| days was estimated to be 97 per million people exposed. An
| important consideration for this group is that the risk of
| myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher than
| the risk after infection.
|
| That's from the study you linked; for the group most at risk
| of vaccine myocarditis, the vaccine was associated with a
| higher risk than the virus. In this study, this was true for
| Moderna, with Pfizer being about equivalent risk to the virus
| (albeit without considering that the risk of infection
| remains after vaccination). However, there have been other
| studies that found this to be true for all mrna vaccines.
|
| So to answer your question, its technically true, but only if
| you dilute the at-risk group by including the entire
| population.
| halfjoking wrote:
| That's what the CDC claims now.
|
| Earlier in pandemic 196k post Covid patients were monitored a
| year... "We did not observe an increased incidence of neither
| pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering
| from COVID-19 infection."
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
| robocat wrote:
| No, not for younger men: the risk of myocarditis from the
| vaccine does not appear to offset the benefit. So if you only
| care about _that one single dimension_ , younger men
| shouldn't have the vaccine. That said, other costs and
| benefits matter far far more I think.
|
| Absolutely terrible reporting in that link - instead look at
| the paper: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCU
| LATIONAHA.... In men younger than 40 years,
| we estimate an additional 4 and 14 myocarditis events per
| million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2
| and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 14 , 11 and 97
| myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2,
| and mRNA-1273, respectively. These estimates compare with an
| additional 16 myocarditis events per million men younger than
| 40 years in the 1 to 28 days after a SARS-CoV-2-positive test
| before vaccination. [ChAdOx1 == AstraZeneca, BNT162b2 ==
| Pfizer, and mRNA-1273 == Moderna] The risk of
| vaccine-associated myocarditis is consistently higher in
| younger men, particularly after a second dose of mRNA-1273,
| where the number of additional events during 28 days was
| estimated to be 97 per million people exposed. An important
| consideration for this group is that the risk of myocarditis
| after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher than the risk
| after infection.
|
| Disclaimer: I try to be apolitical however there is a strong
| aura of bullshit around this topic so double check
| everything!
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| That is such a biased study. They aren't comparing Covid
| postive + no vaccine with covid negative + vaccine. If that
| was the comparison 1st group fares better as they did not
| find any covid positive + non vaccinated being diagnosed with
| myocarditis.
|
| Also their dataset had 13% covid positive rate. So ideally we
| should multiply the non vaccinated risk by 13%.
|
| [0] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONA
| HA....
| xracy wrote:
| I don't know about the rest of your methodology and I'm
| suspicious of the concept of "Oh they forgot to multiply by
| 13%" cause you just don't multiply percentages (with very
| few exceptions). But more to the point, the group "Covid
| Positive + No Vaccine" has a high sampling bias built into
| it. Because you're sampling "People who _lived_ through
| covid without the vaccine ".
| alerighi wrote:
| Except you can get infected even if you get the vaccine. In
| fact it seems to me that people got it despite the fact that
| they were vaccinated or not, without a particular logic.
| Fomite wrote:
| It is. With the exception of a very narrow age range of young
| men, the COVID vaccine is protective against heart disease
| alone, even ignoring all other outcomes.
| wiredearp wrote:
| Young men on the other hand appear to face the biggest
| increase in COVID related heart attacks according to
| https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/covid-19-surges-
| linked..., so perhaps the vaccine remains their best
| option.
| Fomite wrote:
| Indeed. In that group, it's merely...murky...rather than
| "This is definitively a bad idea".
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| > the COVID vaccine is protective against heart disease
| alone
|
| Wait, what? As in people should just take it as a
| prophylactic for heart disease, without even taking covid
| into consideration? It seems like this would be shouted
| from the rooftops if it were true.
| Fomite wrote:
| No - it's protective against negative COVID-19 outcomes
| _just_ if you consider cardiovascular outcomes, ignoring
| all the others.
| dempseye wrote:
| The erosion of trust is actually a good thing, because those
| institutions are undeserving of trust.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > The covid vaccines have been a complete and utter disaster at
| every level.
|
| Sure, except for the 20+ million lives they saved:
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
| https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/06/covid-19...
|
| > The erosion of trust in the institutions that are supposed to
| protect consumers has alone done exponentially more damage than
| the virus it self.
|
| Source needed. Reading these comments, one would think nobody
| ever died of COVID. One would think we didn't have hospitals
| crammed to the gills with them.
| anon291 wrote:
| > Sure, except for the 20+ million lives they saved:
|
| There is no reason to expect 20 million people in the United
| States would have died if we had taken a european approach to
| vaccination approvals.
| frant-hartm wrote:
| What was different in EU? Didn't we approve the same
| vaccines few weeks later?
| anon291 wrote:
| In certain countries of the EU, boosters are not approved
| for younger people.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| It's 20+ million worldwide, not in the US.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Still glad I took my chances with the vaccine:
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/brie...
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Seeing how family who got infected prior to vaccine
| availability are still suffering brain fog and lack of energy
| even now, I am too. The long term effects of covid concern me
| far more than those of the vaccine do.
| twerkmonsta wrote:
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I'm glad the emergency use authorization allowed people
| who are interested to get the vaccine. I don't think
| mandates were ever appropriate, and I think people should
| also have had a right to NOT get the vaccine.
|
| The emergency use authorization seemed absolutely like
| the appropriate course of action given the circumstances.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Remember the right comparison regarding apparent long-
| Covid: What proportion of people would self-report brain
| fog and lack of energy anyway, with nothing to do with
| Covid?
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| This sort of claim has been made after a study was
| released that took the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
| as the source of thruth for whether people had gotten
| COVID-19.
|
| This sort of claim can't be made on that basis because a
| lot of people _do not produce antibodies after
| infection_.
|
| Paper: "Predictors of Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2
| Infection" -
| https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
|
| Abstract: _"Not all persons recovering from severe acute
| respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection
| develop SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We show that
| nonseroconversion is associated with younger age and
| higher reverse transcription PCR cycle threshold values
| and identify SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx as
| a major correlate of the systemic antibody response."_
|
| Please note that this was already known when the study
| which is taken to show that people are imagining long
| COVID was published.
|
| It's not a good study.
|
| Quite a bit of research has been done since then which
| further pins down the fact that long COVID is very real
| and how to diagnose it with biomarkers, which turn out to
| correspond very well with people saying that a SARS-CoV-2
| infection messed them up.
|
| Please also consider how harshly judgemental it appears
| when someone accuses a large number of people of
| imagining or making up a severe and disabling condition.
| You have to be _very_ certain.
| dekhn wrote:
| How much of _everything_ can be explained by the brain 's
| bias to ignore the base rate fallacy.
| chedca21 wrote:
| The danger of contracting covid was inflated relatively by
| initial standards of care that later proved harmful;
| https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-some-
| doctors-...
|
| Also using steroids like dexamethasone were a later advent in
| treating covid that helped a lot. (They should have been
| standard of care right away like they would have been for any
| other respiratory illness).
|
| These early follies increased the perceived need for a
| vaccine then and today still; risk : benefit analysis for the
| vaccines consider worst possible scenarios for covid, which
| include defunct practices like high PIP ventilator use and
| forgoing of common first-line treatments
| xracy wrote:
| Did you look at the article?
|
| The time frames for the graphs are _not_ the beginnings of
| covid (EoY 2021). By that time the initial standards of
| care had improved to the steroid treatments (I can 't say
| specifically which ones, because I do not know, but I _do_
| know they were generally the standard of care at that
| time).
|
| The risk benefit analysis of the vaccine vs the disease is
| ultimately something that's impossible to do at this point,
| because it's impossible to be impartial to whatever side
| you think is riskier. In general, I think a disease is just
| always going to be riskier than a vaccine. Anything you say
| about the vaccine could be true of the disease as well
| until we have complete information about the disease.
| thedrbrian wrote:
| Server6 wrote:
| I watched one of my best friends choke on his own lungs and
| die of COVID last year. He'd be alive if he had gotten the
| vaccine.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear that.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| [deleted]
| spfzero wrote:
| It also seems like, in the absence of assurance of long-term
| safety, you would recommend the vaccine for at-risk groups
| only. It's known now that the risk to young people (under 19)
| is minimal: IFR < 3/1,000,000. And that was during the much
| more dangerous early strain of Covid-19, not the ones
| circulating now. Yet here we are in 2022 with a recommendation
| from the CDC to vaccinate ages 5 and up, regardless of health
| condition.
| xracy wrote:
| It is wild to me that people look at a number like
| 3/1,000,000 and don't think wow, that's 1900 Children who
| could die from something we have a vaccine for, that actively
| prevents the cause.
|
| Also, can you imagine losing a child to something that was
| preventable? You can play numbers and statistics all day, but
| we're talking about children's lives.
|
| You're probably not a parent? But for reference, go find
| examples of people who are parents that have lost children to
| some cause, and see what they're doing now? I would bet 9/10
| times they're trying to prevent that from happening to
| others.
| spfzero wrote:
| I am a parent. It's not that I don't think some children
| should be vaccinated; some should. Overweight, diabetic,
| etc. We know where the risk is, and we know the vaccine
| reduces serious outcomes. It's recommending it across-the-
| board that I object to.
|
| Now if your argument is "what's the harm?, why not
| vaccinate everyone?" my answer would be we don't actually
| know what the harm might be to these kids later in life. No
| one does. Probably no harm, I guess? Maybe a 3/1,000,000
| chance of harm? no one knows.
| mach1ne wrote:
| It's not a case where no children die if everyone takes the
| vaccine and 1900 children die if nobody does. There are
| numerous other variables at play, each of which contains
| some unknowns and affects quality of life or even the
| continuity of it. I can't say that I know what the
| currently best course of action for children is, but the
| problem is far from black and white.
| dwmbt wrote:
| same. it's also interesting that many of the folks
| commenting are not likely to be in the most vulnerable
| group at risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine
| [0] -- that unfortunate category is one that i belong to.
| as a young man, i spoke about this risk nearly a year ago
| to the tee [1]. since then, i've also found out i am
| particularly vulnerable, as i had a history of heart issues
| as a young child (heart murmer -> arrhythmia). it will be
| nice to see more data available, but i don't regret any of
| the vaccines in the slightest.
|
| there are plenty of comments here that speak to the general
| age recommendation other countries have provided, but i
| have yet to see people connect the other MAJOR group of
| people that should, by all means, totally, 100% consider
| getting their nth vaccination -> anyone with a comorbidity!
| if you are a young man with diabetes, the risks you face
| from the vaccine vs a covid infection are no longer as
| murky.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480849 [1]
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221924#29223881
| nradov wrote:
| The COVID-19 fatality risk for children is very low overall
| (0.002% estimated by the CDC). Those deaths have almost all
| been in patients with severe pre-existing health conditions
| such as obesity. For pediatric patients without pre-
| existing conditions, the death rate is virtually zero. So
| from a public health perspective it's most important to
| focus vaccination campaigns on those at greatest risk.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052273
|
| https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fijpo.12920
|
| To be clear, I am not telling anyone to avoid vaccination
| for themselves or their children. Vaccination is a good
| option for the vast majority of patients. Talk to your
| doctor.
|
| And ironically, school closures and lockdowns during the
| pandemic actually _increased_ the rate of childhood
| obesity. The purported "cure" was not only worse than the
| disease, it actually made the disease worse by placing
| children at greater risk.
|
| https://www.cureus.com/articles/107920-increased-
| incidence-o...
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| You are ignoring the parents that lost children due to the
| vaccine, or now have children with ongoing medical issues.
|
| Children are not dying from covid. So there is no need to
| vaccinate them unless they are in a high risk category.
|
| The NY Times reported "For children without a serious
| medical condition, the danger of severe Covid is so low as
| to be difficult to quantify."
| xracy wrote:
| "Children are not dying from covid." Is a strong claim.
|
| And it would be just as backed up as if I were to say
| "Children are not dying from covid vaccines."
| dekhn wrote:
| You're trying to do "appeal to emotion" argument, doesn't
| work super well here.
| xracy wrote:
| If you want my "appeal to numbers" argument, you can see
| it all over this thread.
|
| It seems like I'm getting a continual -2 on votes for all
| of my arguments just cause I'm coming off as "pro-
| vaccine". So it doesn't actually seem to matter what
| appeals I make.
|
| Also though, I don't really believe I'm changing anyone's
| mind on this. I'm just inviting people consider the
| humanity of things like "child deaths". Which, is much
| easier to consider as a number than it is as an actual
| concept.
| dekhn wrote:
| I have a couple kids (teens). I'm worried about many
| other things, not COVID; it's just far down on my list of
| things that I consider active risks to my children that I
| have the power to impact.
|
| I don't really have time to cross reference all your
| different comments, but when you post a comment that is
| _just_ appeal to emotion, I tend to mention it.
| xracy wrote:
| Also, brief note, that you might think you're an
| emotionless rational machine, but very few people
| actually respond well to that. So it's important to use
| everything in your rhetorical toolbox including appeals
| to emotion to try and convince the wide range of
| responses people might have.
| ckw wrote:
| There are 5 reports of death following Covid-19 vaccination
| in VAERS for children 0.5-5, and '1.6 million US children
| ages 6 months-4 years have received at least one dose of
| COVID-19 vaccine' as of 11-2-22. This is 3.125 deaths per
| million, and VAERS notoriously undercounts.
|
| There are 31 reports of death following Covid-19
| vaccination for children 5-12, and '10.9 million US
| children ages 5-11 have received at least one dose of
| COVID-19 vaccine' as of 11-2-22. This is 2.84 deaths per
| million. Again, VAERS notoriously undercounts.
|
| https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
|
| https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-
| covid-19...
| xracy wrote:
| EDIT: I wasn't kidding when I said I can play numbers and
| statistics all day.
|
| When you say "VAERS notoriously undercounts", I think
| you're probably referring to the flu vaccine (where we
| would have historical data), but I don't think it's fair
| to say that would be true for the Covid vaccine.
|
| Specifically because at the onset of this new vaccine,
| people are much more likely to report that a death
| happened after a covid vaccine. There is a segment of the
| population that has never trusted the covid vaccine, so
| they are a _lot_ more likely to report a death after
| vaccination of a loved one. Also as the vaccine is new,
| there 's probably a lot more data gathering around it
| because scientists would definitely like to know if the
| vaccine causes death. Lastly, it's an event you're much
| more likely to have talked to with your loved ones before
| you passed away, than with the flu vaccine.
|
| My family knows I got a covid vaccine. My family has no
| idea about my flu vaccine status.
|
| Lastly, and most importantly, the numbers for those are
| not intrinsically linked. There's not actually any
| implied causal link in any of those numbers "VAERS
| Covid/Flu Vaccine Reported Deaths by Days to Onset all
| Ages". They are all just correlated. If you want to look
| for a causal link you'd have to compare against the total
| number of people who got vaccines on that day. And then
| compare against total number of deaths for the whole
| population.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Seems like this should have been a requirement before any
| emergency use authorization
|
| Well... _if_ you think that there 's a case for an emergency
| use authorization, then you kind of _can 't_ wait to determine
| long-term risks. If there's a Covid epidemic threatening to
| kill millions of people in 2019, you can't wait for a study of
| long-term consequences that terminates in 2027. You have to
| decide with the information you have in 2019.
|
| Was there a case for an emergency use authorization? Covid did
| in fact kill millions of people, so arguably yes.
|
| > ... and certainly before any mandates.
|
| Yeah, there I'm with you.
| queuebert wrote:
| Covid has killed millions. How many have died of myocarditis?
| While I agree with your sentiment, it's hyperbolic to claim the
| vaccine has done "exponentially more damage than the virus".
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Millions die every year for we are mortal and numerous.
| Thankfully, the world's population _grew_ during the
| pandemic.
|
| 210,000 to 448,000 Americans die every year to _preventable_
| medical errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_cau
| ses_of_death#An...
|
| This is more people than COVID kills in the same time period,
| but strangely there's no panic about that. No mandates. No
| significant steps from any authorities to do anything about
| it. Perhaps because there's no money in that, unlike pushing
| a remedy for something that's not as significant as people
| feel.
|
| edit: Since HN is ratelimiting me and not letting me reply to
| the below, here's the reply I've tried posting after an hour
| of "slowing down":
|
| Checklists: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/checklists-can-
| reduce-fata...
|
| The same thing NASA uses to prevent human error:
| https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910001641
|
| Mandatory checklists would wipe out most of them, yet there's
| no mandate for them.
| cableshaft wrote:
| What would be the mandate for user error (which is what
| 'preventable medical errors' boils down to), beyond an
| ongoing attempt to improve procedures in hospitals which
| I'm sure they're already doing, especially since the US is
| very litigious and they often get sued for malpractice.
|
| Humans are messy, can't hold all knowledge about everything
| in their heads at all times, and error prone. Unless you
| replace them entirely you're not going to be able to
| eliminate medical errors.
| Fomite wrote:
| There are a staggering number of mandates and regulations
| around preventable medical errors. One that has been
| absolutely defining is CMS not compensating for
| healthcare-associated infections.
|
| Also, many hospitals view things like infection control
| or antimicrobial stewardship as cost centers, and they're
| not doing nearly as much as they can.
| anon291 wrote:
| First do no harm
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Chemo Therapy is literally poisoning you just enough to
| kill the cancer.
|
| The anti-arthritis medications I take cause terrible side
| effects.
|
| These options are still better than the underlying
| problems. Throwing out pithy feel good quotes doesn't
| capture the nuance of the line that doctors walk when
| trying to treat illnesses. "Do no harm" is the ideal. In
| reality it's to do less harm than the disease.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| It reminds me of how Japanese honeybees kill hornets -
| they overheat it by swarming it and flapping their wings
| vigorously to transfer body heat and cook it alive.
|
| They fortunately can tolerate a few degrees higher core
| temperature than the hornet - it can't be good for the
| bees but if your lifespan is 60 days.
| chedca21 wrote:
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Ioannidis was _wrong_ , though. Drastically so. Analyzing
| excess deaths make it very clear it's not the same
| severity as severe flu; see the chart half-way down on ht
| tps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.ht
| m.
|
| At the time, he wrote
| (https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-
| making-a...):
|
| > Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S.
| as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800,
| 68,000, 680,000 ... along with similar catastrophic
| patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario,
| or bad science fiction? How can we tell at what point
| such a curve might stop?
|
| It did exactly that.
| Xylakant wrote:
| This is not a good rule if taken to the extreme. Almost all
| medical procedures have an associated risk, some higher.
| The key question is whether the risk outweighs the
| benefits.
| flir wrote:
| Well that's surgery out the window.
| calculatte wrote:
| With the way the numbers around Covid and Covid deaths were
| cooked, there is no way to determine how many died from
| Covid.
|
| Excess mortality is higher now than during Covid
| https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-excess-deaths-
| hi...
|
| There is evidence of statistical lies perpetuated to benefit
| big pharma. - The extreme false positive rate
| of COVID testing - Blindly combining "of" and "with"
| Covid cases for cause of death based on those same broken
| tests. - Influenza, pneumonia magically took a couple
| of years off during Covid - PCR testing cycles at
| extreme highs
|
| When all of the broken testing was finally admitted and
| discontinued, were the previous misclassified deaths
| reinvestigated or reclassified? Of course not.
|
| The entire pool of data of Covid deaths has been poisoned.
| There is no interest in accuracy. But there does seem to be
| extreme interest in protecting the liability and profits of
| the pharma companies that coerced unproven, untested,
| ineffective "cures" that do not prevent infection, spread, or
| reduce symptoms.
| skyde wrote:
| what do you mean by "than during Covid"? are you trying to
| imply covid have been eradicated ?
| dekhn wrote:
| They mean the period from roughly March 2020 to ... hmm,
| about Omicron.
| AustinDev wrote:
| Just a meta comment. This exact comment 1 year ago would
| have been downvoted until it was dead. However, much of the
| evidence for this was available at that time. I sadly think
| we'll continue to see excess deaths climb over the coming
| years particularly in the US.
|
| I'm glad I only got the J&J shot way back when it came out
| and avoided 3+ rounds of Pfizer or Moderna primary and
| boosters.
| calculatte wrote:
| It seems the only difference between conspiracy theory
| and accepted fact is about 18 months now.
| Izkata wrote:
| Depending on the exact claim it's often more like 12
| months. A few even made it down to 6 months (affecting
| periods, for example) and I think one was as low as 2
| months.
| dzader wrote:
| you need to get off the internet for a few hours a day
| buddy
| hedora wrote:
| Ok, I'll ignore the bit where you implicitly claim that
| 1000's of independent county health offices colluded to
| produce excess corpses before the vaccine came out, and
| then somehow hid exponentially more corpses after it came
| out.
|
| Excess mortality is higher now because we're in the middle
| of a massive rebound of all the other respiratory illnesses
| (that were stopped by widespread masking and record flu
| vaccination last year). Also Covid is still around. Omicron
| has partially "escaped" the updated vaccines (which you
| should take anyway).
|
| Source for the respiratory illness spike:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/southeast-us-has-
| hit...
| calculatte wrote:
| Go ahead and ignore it, because that isn't what I said or
| implied at all.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| The numbers were cooked particularly badly in Russia. There
| are 2 different government agencies reporting Covid deaths
| and excess deaths, and their numbers differ by a factor of
| 7; meanwhile many deaths are reported as caused by "viral
| pneumonia".
|
| Meanwhile for the US and European countries, Covid death
| and excess death numbers are pretty close.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/world/europe/covid-
| russia...
|
| > Excess mortality is higher now than during Covid
|
| When did Covid disappear? This year, every week at least
| 2000 people died of Covid in the US.
|
| > - Influenza, pneumonia magically took a couple of years
| off during Covid
|
| Have you heard of mask mandates? How do you think they
| affect the spread of Influenza?
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| > Excess mortality is higher now than during Covid
|
| Interesting analysis of the UK's excess mortality published
| in the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2524
|
| > Surprisingly, mortality rates in 2022 for most of the 10
| leading "underlying" causes of death such as heart disease,
| stroke, and lung and colorectal cancer have been similar to
| previous years, or lower than expected. An exception is the
| rate for "symptoms, signs, and ill defined conditions"
| (mostly deaths resulting from old age and frailty) which
| has consistently been higher than expected and also caused
| the most excess deaths, but not enough to explain the
| overall excess.4
|
| > However, the Office for Health Improvement and
| Disparities' (OHID) analysis of deaths by "any mention" on
| the death certificate--rather than just the "underlying
| cause" of death--shows a substantial excess, in particular,
| of deaths from cardiovascular diseases and diabetes since
| April,6 prompting an investigation by the Department of
| Health and Social Care. Growing evidence suggests that
| covid-19 increases the risk of cardiovascular problems even
| months after infection,7 which could in part be driving
| excess deaths. Covid-19 itself remains the sixth leading
| cause of death, causing 200-400 deaths weekly--a reminder
| that this virus remains a threat for the foreseeable
| future.
|
| > Another possibility is that people may not be receiving
| the care they need from an NHS that was already
| overstretched pre-pandemic and is now coping with
| unprecedented backlogs of care and pressures on emergency
| services. This "crisis" situation has an adverse impact on
| all patients, but a lack of timely care can be especially
| life threatening for people with acute cardiovascular
| problems.
|
| > ONS analysis shows about 3300 excess deaths occurred
| during the heatwaves experienced in England and Wales
| between June and August, mostly in older people.8
|
| > ONS also notes that excess deaths can occur following
| periods when deaths were lower than average, ie, "mortality
| displacement."5 Could some of the excess deaths since April
| reflect the lower ASMRs in early 2022?
|
| I'm also curious about why there's such a difference in
| relative excess death rates between the US and UK.
| Currently in the US the weekly death rates are far below
| what they were in 2020-2021: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/
| vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
| speeder wrote:
| I think now I can finally write this in public: I didn't take
| COVID vaccine at all, because for coincidental reasons, my dad
| ended taking it first. Despite the fact he is already 50+ he
| had really severe, but thankfully mostly temporary cardiac side
| effects (mostly, because even months later he needed to go to
| his cardiologist and change his cardiac-related medicine,
| because since the vaccine his blood levels changed and he kept
| having weird symptoms).
|
| Since my dad had his health go so poorly after the vaccine, I
| decided to not risk it, specially considering my existing
| conditions.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Fomite wrote:
| Flu shots target several strains of one virus, not several
| viruses.
|
| There is no credible epidemiologist who wouldn't call the
| COVID-19 vaccines a vaccine.
|
| And there are a _number_ of vaccines with limited reduction
| in transmission but effectiveness against more severe
| outcomes.
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If the risk of myocarditis after covid vaccination is lower than
| the risk of hospitalization due to covid infection, mandating
| vaccination is still good public policy. It ultimately shifts the
| risk around, it is true, but it still improves the odds of
| survival for the people who will contract myocarditis also,
| because there was significant risk of covid crashing the medical
| infrastructure. This is the part of the story people seem to
| forget... It wasn't the primary risk of fatalities due to covid
| that triggered mandatory quarantine and vaccination policies, it
| was the threat of saturating healthcare facilities to the point
| where people would die of myriad preventable conditions.
|
| In the United States, we are still short-handed because nurses
| retired and nobody is stepping up to replace them.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| The question is whether or not you can ever morally coerce
| someone to inject something into their body.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| I would just like us all to stop pretending that any of one's
| fear of COVID or skepticism of vaccines or distrust of whoever or
| whatever is about rational calculated risks. It's about how we
| feel, so let's talk about that.
|
| Look, everyone is scared of doing something until they're scared
| of not doing it. Everyone distrusts government until they trust
| it, and distrusts pharma until they trust it. Some people will
| wear their mask in the grocery store even though it's a cloth
| mask that's as good as doing nothing because now it feels weird
| not to. Some people won't take the COVID vaccine but they'll
| happily take remdesivir and ivermectin. (Who do you think makes
| remdesivir and ivermectin?) Some people will happily go to an
| indoor comic convention that's an hour's drive from them, but not
| to an outdoor wedding, because it would mean getting on a plane
| (this actually happened with a family member of mine and I am not
| over it).
|
| All of which is to say that what people are really doing is going
| with their gut. If your gut instinct is "COVID's not a big deal",
| then of course taking an emergency-use-authorized vaccine for it
| seems risky. If your gut instinct is "COVID is dangerous and
| deadly", you'll take anything you can get. Now that things are
| subsiding, and the fear is waning, I read an article like this
| and I think "hmm, that does seem bad, we should look into it, but
| also I am gonna keep doing what I'm doing and getting my COVID
| vaccine because it seems like it's helping." On the other hand,
| you have people who are _literally dying of COVID_ who are still
| relieved they were able to dodge getting the vaccine because it
| felt scary to get a not-fully-tested drug.
|
| So I'm pro-vaccine because they seem like a good idea and my
| experiences with them (four shots so far) have been positive, in
| that my side effects were limited and I know there were
| situations where I could have gotten COVID and I didn't. (And
| when I did get COVID, it was extremely mild.) Who's to say how
| I'd have felt if I were one of the few cases of myocarditis out
| there? Who's to say how I would've felt if I'd had mild COVID and
| recovered from it pre-vaccine? What if I'd been hospitalized with
| COVID pre-vaccine?
|
| Can we just admit this isn't about logic or statistics, and never
| was? It was always a persuasion game either way.
| jzb wrote:
| "Can we just admit this isn't about logic or statistics, and
| never was? It was always a persuasion game either way."
|
| Kind of? The fact is that we've turned into a society where we
| can't even be unified in trying to prevent disease. If "the
| left" is for vaccines, masking, social distancing, etc. then
| "the right" has to immediately be against it.
|
| I don't recall any of my friends or family needing persuasion
| at all. They believed in the science and were willing to adapt
| as we learned new things about COVID (e.g. around masking and
| social distancing). When vaccines were becoming available I
| know my circle spent time looking over what information we
| could find about which ones were better, side effects, etc.,
| but were onboard with vaccine risk being better than COVID.
|
| The FOX crowd, OTOH, went looking to scare people off vaccines
| and made not masking a point of pride. It was tribalism, pure
| and simple. If it were a persuasion game you might have seen a
| lot more diversity in who was for/against the vaccines.
|
| 30 years ago if we'd faced COVID (at least in the U.S.) and had
| the vaccines available, I think we'd have fared far better.
| People who couldn't agree on much else could've come together
| in the face of a deadly disease. Persuasion, and logic, are out
| the window.
| linuxftw wrote:
| > The fact is that we've turned into a society where we can't
| even be unified in trying to prevent disease
|
| The vaccines weren't trialed and aren't approved to prevent
| the spread of the disease....so? I don't know about you, but
| I actually read the FDA's initial report on the Pfizer
| trials, and it was complete nonsense. They didn't even test
| each participant for covid, only some participants, with no
| clear reasoning as to which.
|
| I'm never going to take experimental gene therapy drugs, it's
| just never going to happen.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > gene therapy drugs
|
| The use of this term to describe an mRNA vaccine suggests
| you do not understand how these vaccines work whatsoever. I
| am not surprised you didn't understand the FDA's report
| given that you don't understand how the vaccines work at
| all.
| linuxftw wrote:
| A vaccine requires an antigen. There's no antigen in the
| mRNA or Adeno-vector vaccines. I'm not willing to pretend
| that these new medical products are in any way similar to
| the previous technology.
|
| Gene therapy accurately describes the drug's effect. It
| injects instructions into your cells to replicate a
| protein, that's gene therapy. In this case, rather than
| treating some disease, it's designed to provoke an immune
| response. Hard pass.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > "A vaccine requires an antigen. There's no antigen in
| the mRNA or Adeno-vector vaccines."
|
| That's not what a vaccine is. Vaccines do not "require"
| an antigen, they "act as" an antigen. Whether they
| include the antigen directly or a mechanism for producing
| it doesn't matter. Live-virus vaccines are just a more
| imprecise version of the technology that powers mRNA
| vaccines. They're doing the same thing, but more
| sloppily.
|
| > It injects instructions into your cells to replicate a
| protein, that's gene therapy.
|
| Again, you don't understand the term. "Gene therapy"
| involves actually changing the DNA housed in the nucleus
| in your cells. mRNA vaccines can't do that.
|
| This is also how every virus, including COVID works.
| "Injected into cells" is imprecise terminology that makes
| it sound like it's doing something novel that will
| persist in your cell after the mRNA decays. That isn't
| true. The mRNA doesn't become part of your DNA. It
| eventually decays and becomes useless. Until then,
| mechanisms within the cell use it to produce the protein
| - one of the _same proteins_ COVID produces when you are
| sick with it.
|
| If you are scared of this mechanism of action, you should
| be _downright terrified_ of ever getting a viral
| infection, or any vaccine at all, or really just living
| in the world. Real viruses do the exact same thing,
| except some of them (like retroviruses) also alter your
| DNA. The human genome is littered with the genes for
| viruses that wormed their way in over time.
|
| mRNA vaccines are just doing the same thing the virus
| already does, but in a more controlled, less dangerous
| way, and obviously without viral replication in the host.
|
| But, again, the whole point of my original comment is
| that _none of this_ will matter to you, most likely. I
| suspect you will keep believing false things about these
| vaccines which justify your position that you don 't want
| to take them. Hopefully this information makes some
| difference to someone else.
|
| Anyway, I think this is enough back-and-forth with you;
| between this and the "Marxist-level thinking" comment
| it's pretty clear there's nothing to gain by this
| anymore.
| ohiovr wrote:
| I don't watch TV. I hate TV. I am a programmer. I will never
| be programmed. People who fear, they do so because they were
| programmed.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| > I don't recall any of my friends or family needing
| persuasion at all. They believed in the science and were
| willing to adapt as we learned new things about COVID (e.g.
| around masking and social distancing).
|
| And now that science shows the vaccines have risks that
| weren't clear before, will this change how they feel about
| them, or are they going to stick to their preconceived ideas?
| Did they believe the science because they understood it, or
| because they chose to trust people who were ideologically
| aligned with them?
| ohiovr wrote:
| Its useless at this point. You can't unvaccinate someone
| and there is no antidote. So I don't go around saying I
| told you so. I am really sorry this all happened. The best
| thing would be to dismantle gain of function and figure out
| the intention of a company that called themselves ecohealth
| aliance. The answer is in the name.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| I'm against social distancing because there is no scientific
| basis or justification for it. Scientists just went on TV and
| talked about an idea they pulled out from their behinds. I
| guess that makes me on the right for not believing everything
| that was presented to me on television, unlike my family, who
| are on the left.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| If "stay away from people who might be sick" is an idea you
| think scientists made up just now, I'm not sure what to
| tell you. It's not that big a stretch to "anyone could be
| sick because we don't know how this disease works yet, so
| stay away from everyone."
|
| Not advocating for social distancing as a policy at this
| point in time, just saying, it made a lot of sense from a
| risk-prevention perspective at the time.
|
| But again, this is my point. It's trivially easy for me to
| provide a logical explanation for why social distancing was
| a sensible tactic. You are (probably) not going to be
| persuaded. You (probably) like your evidence because it
| matches how you feel, and I like mine because it matches
| how I feel.
|
| To be clear, I don't mean this in an aggressive way - I
| don't think it is bad that you don't agree with me on this
| in some kind of a moral way, at this point. I just don't
| think any sort of evidence-based argumentation will bridge
| the gap between us.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| >If "stay away from people who might be sick" is an idea
| you think scientists made up just now, I'm not sure what
| to tell you. It's not that big a stretch to "anyone could
| be sick because we don't know how this disease works yet,
| so stay away from everyone."
|
| that wasn't the guidance. It was stand 2 meters from
| anyone, even if no one is sick.
|
| [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-
| shows/572926-gottli...
| Bhilai wrote:
| Quite a bit of vaccine drama is not political but either
| mistrust of the system or alternate beliefs. Here is an
| anecdote - My family has a bunch of anti-vaxers who have not
| had a single dose of COVID vaccine yet and claim they have
| never gotten COVID. These are highly educated (masters in
| engineering) and hard left leaning (Bernie/AOC supporters.)
| They also mostly reject modern medicine and believe in
| Homeopathy. So much so that their toddler had a pretty bad
| fall that almost cut his tongue in half but they refused to
| take the kid to emergency room and treated him with some
| homeopathy chart of medicines they keep in their home. Their
| family doctor convinced their elderly mom to get the vaccine
| and now the mom claims to have gotten nut allergy from the
| vaccine. Their mom is pretty left leaning too.
| linuxftw wrote:
| So, people losing their jobs for not taking an experimental
| medical product was just a persuasion game? What?
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Yes, "do this or you're fired" is a coercive tactic. People
| who are pro-vaccine want everyone to get the vaccine. They
| believe it is a matter of life or death (frankly, I agree
| with them, but I am trying to present this neutrally). So
| that level of coercion, "fear losing your job if you don't do
| this" is exactly what I'm talking about.
|
| If people could be persuaded to do things that are in their
| interest via rational discourse, and evidence favored
| vaccines, it wouldn't be necessary to do that kind of
| coercion. (Nor would it be necessary to so strenuously resist
| getting them, you'd just say "here is the evidence I don't
| need to get this," and everyone would accept it and let you
| live your life.) That's my whole point.
| linuxftw wrote:
| > it wouldn't be necessary to do that kind of coercion
|
| This is Marxist-level thinking.
| WookieRushing wrote:
| When risk to society becomes high enough then it becomes
| necessary.
|
| See paying taxes, conscription, jury duty
|
| Though judging the level of risk is very hard and there
| is often not a clear line of when force is needed.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >If people could be persuaded to do things that are in
| their interest via rational discourse, and evidence favored
| vaccines, it wouldn't be necessary to do that kind of
| coercion.
|
| Interesting. Of course, in this particular case that
| coercion happens to coincide with a position you agree
| with, but not in every instance that apparently justifiable
| coercion will agree with you. I assume, for the sake of
| consistency, you'll defend them in that case too.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Having some uncertainty around novel things seems reasonable.
| We were all uncertain around COVID and around new vaccines
| using a novel mechanism. People balanced those uncertainties
| differently. I took the course of asking people I generally
| trusted for their opinion and concluded that taking the
| vaccines (3 for me so far, plus a bout of naturally-acquired
| resistance via infection) was indicated. There were other
| doctors whom I knew before COVID was a thing who were
| recommending ivermectin. If that was your doctor, why wouldn't
| you believe them just like I believed the doctors that I had
| more association with?
|
| My gut tells me "be skeptical of novel things, but balance that
| skepticism a bit by asking people whom you trust to have
| greater knowledge on the topic, ultimately making the best
| decision you can".
| phtrivier wrote:
| Except when the only thing that can inform a good decision is
| _time_ ; and when you can ask every trustworthy people you
| know, and they will simply not have a clue _yet_, because no
| one does and we're in the middle of the fog of war.
|
| But I suppose we all preferred pretending we knew
| _somethings_.
|
| How about we get some empathy for the people who just ended
| up on the many bad sides of the many bets ?
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm not sure where the lack of empathy is above. I
| have/wrote about empathy for people whose doctors gave them
| advice that when followed will turn out, in retrospect, to
| be wrong. Maybe that will be mine; maybe that will be the
| others.
| phtrivier wrote:
| It was nowhere in your writing, sorry if that got
| confused.
|
| I meant basically: "maybe give the few young people who
| suffered from some unforeseen side effects a break, and
| the right to keep their job without a next round of jabs"
| ? As far as I can tell, "having suffered side effects
| from the first 1/2/3 injection" is still not a valid
| exemption cause for vaccine mandates.
| dpedu wrote:
| Sure there was and still is uncertainty, but we need to talk
| about the other side of that coin. You used the term novel,
| which means: "new and not resembling something formerly known
| or used" and that's just not the case here.
|
| We didn't just invent a completely new vaccine mechanism for
| covid, the mRNA technology has been known and in development
| for half a century. This is just the first time it was
| effective. Likewise with the disease itself, we know that it
| shares a significant portion of its DNA with the disease
| behind the 2002 SARS-CoV pandemic and has many other similar
| parameters.
|
| https://www.news-medical.net/health/How-does-SARS-
| CoV-2-Comp...
| sokoloff wrote:
| Was there a previous vaccine widely deployed using mRNA
| tech? If not, it seems like "novel" is entirely appropriate
| concerning certain uncertainties of using such a vaccine.
| dpedu wrote:
| This seems like a setup for a gotcha, or did you label it
| as novel in your comment without knowing the answer to
| this question?
|
| Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines targeting
| infectious diseases including HIV-1, rabies, Zika and
| influenza were already in clinical trials, as were mRNA
| vaccines targeting multiple hematologic and solid organ
| malignancies (Pardi, 2018).
| robomartin wrote:
| One of my kids, 15 at the time, was one of the reported cases of
| myocarditis. At the time of his hospitalization he was one out of
| 700 cases. He was in the hospital for two weeks. While under
| observation after his release, we have not seen indications of
| lasting damage. No way to know what the future holds. So far, so
| good.
|
| We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my next
| booster today.
|
| The one thing that angers me is that this incident cost us $10K.
| Obamacare, which was forced upon us and costs us $2,400 PER
| MONTH, did not cover it. We have no recourse whatsoever for this
| incident and any future care requirements.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Well COVID also causes myocarditis, so it's not surprising
| there were a lot of cases at the hospital. The question is
| whether the vaccines cause myocarditis at a higher rate than
| unvaccinated/unboosted COVID infections. They _might_ for young
| men. For every other group, unvaccinated /unboosted infection
| is way more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccine.
| z7 wrote:
| "Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID-19
| infection in Israel between March 2020 and January 2021.
| [...] We did not observe an increased incidence of neither
| pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering
| from COVID-19 infection."
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
| giantdude wrote:
| >One of my kids, 15 at the time, ...
|
| You had 15 kids at the time? How many kids do you have now? My
| hat is off!
| jrumbut wrote:
| Although it wasn't vaccine related, my wife had a similar bill
| for a similar reason and I learned a couple things:
|
| They may be saying the hospital or some provider within it was
| out of network, challenge this on the grounds it was an
| emergency. Challenge everything on the grounds that it was an
| emergency.
|
| We had excellent grounds to challenge a few of the charges from
| the hospital (clear billing mistakes), but it never got to the
| point of evidence. We just called to argue and they instantly
| dropped them. I would strongly advise just calling and
| complaining and seeing what that gets you.
|
| Many hospitals offer interest/fee free installment plans, you
| just have to ask.
|
| I am, by nature, a mild mannered (perhaps even meek) person,
| but let me tell you that just doesn't work with hospitals and
| insurers. Their process requires you to take an
| adversarial/demanding role with them otherwise you will not
| just get billed unnecessarily but also not receive all the care
| you are entitled to.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I have an uninsured friend who just gives them a fake name.
| Seems very non-confrontational to me.
| sneak wrote:
| Fraud is, of course, a criminal offense, which, if
| prosecuted, can result in jail time and seizure of assets
| as restitution.
| thrwy_918 wrote:
| > Obamacare, which was forced upon us and costs us $2,400 PER
| MONTH, did not cover it
|
| Can you expand on this please? I find it extremely hard to
| understand how an ACA-compliant health care plan could "not
| cover" a hospital stay for myocarditis. Unless you're on a
| high-deductible plan and the entire stay was less than your
| deductible?
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| Deductibles often run $5,000 to $10,000 and usually only 80%
| is covered after that.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I have the same question here. What part of it wasn't
| covered? Could you share part of the EoB with sensitive
| information removed?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| A two week hospital stay is orders of magnitude more than
| $10k, so presumably the $10k representes the out of pocket
| portion of the care.
|
| I suspect the maximum annual out of pocket.
| robomartin wrote:
| >A two week hospital stay is orders of magnitude more than
| $10k, so presumably the $10k representes the out of pocket
| portion of the care.
|
| No, that's not the case at all. We had to negotiate with
| the hospital and settled for this amount. The ACA covered
| none of it or a very small portion. I don't remember the
| actual bill, my wife dealt with all of it (she is a doctor
| and knows how to discuss such things with hospitals).
| thrwy_918 wrote:
| > The ACA covered none of it or a very small portion
|
| The ACA is not an insurance plan, so I assume you are
| using "ACA" as shorthand for "ACA-compliant insurance
| coverage".
|
| It is simply not plausible that an ACA-compliant plan
| would wholesale "not cover" a hospital stay for
| myocarditis, absent extremely niche and bizarre
| circumstances.
|
| Given that you don't seem very familiar with the
| specifics, I have to assume that your information is
| either missing some very important details, or incorrect.
| threatofrain wrote:
| A two week stay at the hospital may have amounted to over
| $170k at the optimistically low end.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| How?! Did they have to build an extra annex to the
| building just for that?
| finder83 wrote:
| And there lies the issue with propping up the demand side
| of the equation with unlimited money from the government
| rather than regulating the supply side with affordable
| charges.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| So it sounds like Obamacare did cover the vast majority of
| the cost?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes. People just don't understand what their plan's
| deductibles mean, and the protections the ACA offers.
|
| The parent poster likely benefits from the following
| items on
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act:
|
| > Annual and lifetime coverage caps on essential benefits
| were banned.
|
| > Insurers are forbidden from dropping policyholders when
| they become ill.
|
| > All policies must provide an annual maximum out-of-
| pocket (MOOP) payment cap for an individual's or family's
| medical expenses (excluding premiums). After the MOOP
| payment is reached, all remaining costs must be paid by
| the insurer.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| The problem field is slighty different: if your income is
| constrained and you are generally in good health you are
| going to choose a low premium plan with consequent higher
| deductible. When it's your turn to end up in hospital you
| get to pay up to the (substantial for you) out-of-pocket
| limit, even though you belong to the demographic that
| cannot afford it and Obamacare was sold to you as making
| healthcare affordable and accessible.
|
| Obama was a sellout.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| All of this was true pre-ACA, but worse (in my family's
| case, _much_ worse; we went bankrupt over $90k in medical
| bills back in the 2000s). As it was, the thing barely
| passed.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Ezekiel 4:12-15 applies:
|
| _'Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake
| it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for
| fuel.' ... I said, 'Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never
| defiled myself.' 'Very well,' he said, 'I will let you
| bake your bread over cow dung instead of human
| excrement.'_
|
| We could be dealing with worse shit, however shit remains
| shit.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Cow dung is actually a great biofuel.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Isn't this a take on fuels for the sacrificial/temple
| fire?
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| No, it's not. The prophet is with the Jewish exiles in
| Babylon and is enacting the siege of Jerusalem. Food,
| water and fuel are running short in Jerusalem, and he
| plays out what it looks like.
| MajimasEyepatch wrote:
| No, Joe Lieberman was a sellout, and Senate Dems refused
| to kill the filibuster, so we got the best we could get
| at the time. And even those insufficient changes were
| considered such an affront to "personal liberty" or
| whatever that it resulted in a historic midterm
| "shellacking."
| beebmam wrote:
| Exactly right. People with insurance have zero idea how
| much medical care actually costs because it's really hard
| to keep up with all the health insurance documents one
| receives.
|
| Try being hospitalized without insurance. You'll find out
| really fast. (I was, twice, circa 2010. I was unemployed
| and uninsured)
| munk-a wrote:
| I would suggest a slight shift in wording from "how much
| medical care actually costs" to "how much medical care
| actually bills" since as we've seen both by examining the
| meteoric raise in healthcare billing from 1930s-today and
| by comparing the US health system to single payer systems
| abroad it's pretty clear that the billing for US
| medications, procedures, therapies and other healthcare
| items is completely fabricated and arbitrary when
| compared to the costs.
|
| I think Obama-care (as much as I still support it in
| contrast to just letting private healthcare continue as-
| is) actually made things worse in the US by letting
| insurers and providers use the government involvement as
| a justification for their BS.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| People who get their insurance through their employer
| also typically have no idea how much their insurance
| premium costs because the average employer pays 70-80% of
| the actual monthly premium and what gets deducted from
| your paycheck every month is just the remainder.
| nightski wrote:
| I'm guessing you are correct, seeing as in a similar
| fashion I'd imagine there are a lot of people who have no
| idea what their 401(k) is even invested in.
|
| However when going through the annual election process it
| generally makes it very clear how much you are paying out
| of each paycheck and what the employer contributes. Now
| whether people pay attention at all I can't say.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _Try being hospitalized without insurance. You 'll find
| out really fast_
|
| Actually no, you still won't. Because the hospitals send
| out fraudulently inflated bills to increase their
| negotiating leverage.
|
| To know how much medical care actually costs, you need to
| have "insurance" _and_ read through the itemized bills
| and explanations of benefits. The top line large number
| is the fraudulent amount that has no basis in reality,
| there is an "adjustment" based on the rates the
| "insurance" company has actually agreed to pay, there is
| the amount the "insurance" company pays them, and then
| there is your portion. Adding the last two, or taking the
| first minus the second, is as close to knowing how much
| something costs as you can get in this fucked up system.
|
| Also it bears repeating, never pay a medical bill unless
| you're damn sure you're responsible for the amount [0].
| Even if you have "insurance", often you'll get sent the
| fraudulent bill right away, and it will take a month or
| two for "insurance" to bother doing their job. Also
| billing departments have no problem blatantly lying to
| you if it might get them more money.
|
| [0] Of course some times they have you over a barrel like
| ongoing care getting denied if you have an unpaid
| balance. In which case you just have to eat it and then
| hassle your "insurance" company for half a year to get
| your money back.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| You're not angered that you were advised to give this to a 15
| year old with no upside even after he was hospitalized for 2
| weeks as a result?!
| [deleted]
| RONROC wrote:
| robomartin wrote:
| > You're not angered that you were advised to give this to a
| 15 year old with no upside even after he was hospitalized for
| 2 weeks as a result?!
|
| I am being as honest as I can be with regards to our feelings
| on this. I can't say we are angry about that incident at all.
| I think I can say we are not happy about not having been
| provided with all of the information before he got his shot.
| Frankly, I don't even remember if the data was available (I
| do think it was, BTW). Remember, at the time, only about 700
| cases.
|
| Of course, the outcome might have had something to do with
| the lack of negative emotions. I can probably admit our
| position today would be massively different had we had to
| face a range of negative outcomes post-hospitalization. These
| can range from life-long afflictions to death.
| [deleted]
| stronglikedan wrote:
| hnrodey wrote:
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| OP didn't say they're giving their child another booster.
| hnrodey wrote:
| It was abuse at the first attempt.
| oezi wrote:
| The risk from myocarditis from getting Covid-19 is higher
| than getting it from the vaccine. The decision to vaccinate
| even young people made sense during the height of the
| pandemic and it doesn't make so much sense now anymore.
| cerradokids wrote:
| Where did you get that data?
|
| According to this study
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ there is no
| increase in Myocarditis cases among unvaccinated people who
| have contracted Covid-19. This study tracked 196,992 people
| which is a huge number, so the data here is quite good and
| clear. Contracting Covid-19 does not put you at increased
| risk for Myocarditis, the same cannot be said when
| evaluating a population that simply received the
| vaccination.
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| Of note is that this study is based on PCR tests. We
| would need a blood tests for more accuracy to ensure no
| historical infection took place. This also doesn't
| compare vaccinated infected vs unvaccinated infections.
|
| It's a decent data point but not conclusive.
| lamontcg wrote:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0)
|
| > We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1
| and 10 per million persons in the month following
| vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40
| extra events per million persons observed following SARS-
| CoV-2 infection.
|
| and they include a brief literature review:
|
| > Our findings are consistent with those from a case-
| control study of 884,828 persons receiving the BNT162b2
| vaccine in Israel21. That study observed an association
| with myocarditis in the 42 days following vaccination
| (risk ratio of 3.24), but no association with
| pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia. Two further studies
| from Israel add to our observations by providing clinical
| review to ensure robust case ascertainment22 and
| reporting investigations and outcomes in individual
| patients with myocarditis following the BNT162b2
| vaccine23. Witberg et al.21,22 observed a small excess in
| events 3-5 days following the second dose of BNT162b2
| vaccine, but most were mild presentations and just one
| classified as fulminant22. Mevorach et al. observed an
| incidence ratio of 5.34 for myocarditis in 5,442,696
| persons following BNT162b2, although this was attenuated
| when restricted to the 136 definite and probable cases of
| myocarditis23. Risk of myocarditis was restricted to
| males under the age of 40 years and only observed
| following the second dose. Similarly, two studies from
| the United States have reported an incident rate ratio of
| 2.7 for myocarditis in the 10 days following the second
| dose of both mRNA vaccines24 and an estimated 6.3 and
| 10.1 extra cases per million doses in the 1- to 21-day
| period following the first and second dose of both mRNA
| vaccines, respectively, in those younger than 40 years25.
|
| And conclude:
|
| > In summary, this population-based study quantifies for
| the first time the risk of several rare cardiac adverse
| events associated with three COVID-19 vaccines as well as
| SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in
| adults was associated with a small increase in the risk
| of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose
| of both adenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and after the
| second dose of both mRNA vaccines. By contrast, SARS-
| CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial
| increase in the risk of hospitalization or death from
| myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This study is, actually, irrelevant to disproving the
| claim above.
|
| It checks for the myocarditis infection from COVID-19,
| but it doesn't actually control for vaccination status.
| The people studied either are believed to have been
| COVID-19 infected, or had been vaccinated, but there was
| no designated unvaccinated control group.
|
| In which case, you are potentially using "breakthrough
| cases" of COVID-19 causing Myocarditis to make your point
| (assuming they would be the same pre- and post-
| vaccination), rather than a definitive look at people who
| did not get the vaccine and how they fared. All the study
| proves is that COVID-19 infections cause increased
| Myocarditis... in vaccinated people. If you assume that
| COVID-19 has the same Myocarditis effect in vaccinated
| and unvaccinated people, it works; but if you accept that
| maybe the effects of COVID-19 are different in vaccinated
| people, it could fall apart, which is why the study about
| how Myocarditis doesn't seem to effect the 160,000+
| unvaccinated people studied still has value.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| "No upside" is not accurate. Hospitalizations from COVID are
| quite rare in 15 year olds, but not remotely as rare as these
| cases of myocarditis.
| incrudible wrote:
| What data do you base this on? According to QCovid.org, a
| 19yo old white male had annualized odds of hospitalization
| of less than 1 in 10,000 given the prevalence of the third
| and second COVID waves in the UK. That is less than the
| incidence of Myocarditis from the vaccine in that age
| group.
| blacksqr wrote:
| >Obamacare, which was forced upon us
|
| The ACA individual mandate penalty was eliminated in 2017.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| wiredearp wrote:
| Well it hasn't been proven that it isn't either, in fact
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/us/politics/moderna-
| boost...
| pasquinelli wrote:
| > The one thing that angers me is that this incident cost us
| $10K. Obamacare, which was forced upon us and costs us $2,400
| PER MONTH, did not cover it. We have no recourse whatsoever for
| this incident and any future care requirements.
|
| that angers me too. america bumbled its way through the
| pandemic, and we're no closer to getting single payer
| healthcare. not even for medical care related to the pandemic,
| which is collectively beneficial.
| elevenoh wrote:
| >We are still not anti-vax at all
|
| deciding not to get a covid-19 mrna vaccine != anti-vax
| robomartin wrote:
| > deciding not to get a covid-19 mrna vaccine != anti-vax
|
| Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. I just wanted to make it
| clear that, despite this incident, we have not changed our
| position with regards to vaccines of any kind. That's not to
| say we might exercise more caution in the future.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The one thing that angers me is that this incident cost us
| $10K. Obamacare, which was forced upon us and costs us $2,400
| PER MONTH, did not cover it. We have no recourse whatsoever for
| this incident and any future care requirements.
|
| Seriously? That's shitty. What's the insurance company's
| rationale for denying the claim?
|
| Isn't there some kind of government fund to compensate people
| for vaccine side effects? Seems like you'd have a strong claim
| to get reimbursed from them.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes there is a government compensation program:
| Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
|
| https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Keep in mind the CICP has both lower payout rates and
| payout amounts than the VICP. Side effects from the covid
| shots can only be compensated out of the CICP
| dahfizz wrote:
| www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/04/feds-pay-
| zero-claims-for-covid-19-vaccine-injuriesdeaths/amp/
| valarauko wrote:
| Naive q: why are the mRNA COVID vaccines still covered by
| CICP & not VICP if they're now fully authorized by the FDA?
| I assumed the initial coverage under CICP was due to the
| emergency authorization.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > What's the insurance company's rationale for denying the
| claim?
|
| They didn't, if the parent poster only got billed $10k. Two
| weeks in the hospital costs more than $10k; that amount is
| likely their insurance plan's annual deductible, coinsurance,
| and copays.
|
| These expenses were a thing pre-ACA, to be clear;
| deductibles, coinsurance, and copays existed before it. The
| ACA _capped_ the amount you can be charged.
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| > We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my
| next booster today.
|
| I'm curious about this. In my world COVID is over now. I live
| in San Francisco. Nobody I know is getting boosters or is
| worried about it anymore.
|
| Where do you live and what are the circumstances like there
| that you're considering getting your "next" one? (you've been
| boosted before?).
| jsight wrote:
| TBH, I tend to agree. Vaccines are readily available and most
| of us have been exposed to COVID at some point. By this
| point, there is little reason for behavior modification.
|
| The boosters likely make sense for some people, but there's
| little real data on their effectiveness. Outside of the more
| vulnerable, I'd avoid them personally. The proof just isn't
| readily available of continuous boosters being worth it to
| me.
| robomartin wrote:
| > Where do you live and what are the circumstances like there
| that you're considering getting your "next" one? (you've been
| boosted before?).
|
| Los Angeles.
|
| I know lots of vaccinated people who are getting infected.
| Just last week I went to a conference here in LA. I was going
| to meet-up this week with on of the people I saw there. He
| told me he got COVID at the conference.
|
| Yes, I've had one booster. I travel a lot for business. I
| think it might be prudent to take further precautions. I have
| no reason to believe this is unsafe for me.
| ipqk wrote:
| People aren't talking about it anymore, but that doesn't mean
| that they aren't getting boosters. Like, I just got my flu
| shot, but haven't mentioned it to anyone.
| gravelc wrote:
| Circumstances change - super super glad I got my booster.
|
| When I got it, I was a healthy, fit person without any of the
| comorbidities that go along with COVID.
|
| Last week I had a mountain biking accident and broke half my
| ribs and punctured a lung. Then I got COVID in hospital.
| Fortunately it was quite mild, and even that was a bit of a
| nightmare as coughing was hell and I had quite low blood
| oxygen.
|
| Given the risks of a booster are so low (though non-zero) and
| the risk that your health can change before you manage to
| contract COVID, it seems like the smart proposition to me to
| get the booster.
| gizmo686 wrote:
| Or maybe no one you know is talking about it. A few weeks
| ago, I went for my annual Flu vaccine and saw that I was
| eligible for the bivalent Covid booster as well. I didn't go
| around telling people I got either vaccine. At this point, as
| far as I am concerned, covid is jtst another vaccine to be
| taken routinely as directed. Maybe that will settle down to
| be anually like the flu, once or twice a lifetime like
| chicken pox, or something in between like TDAP (once per
| decade)
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| My world is split.
|
| In my family sphere, covid is over. Though, to them covid was
| always overblown with the response being worse than the
| illness.
|
| In my main friend group, most still feel we are still in the
| middle of covid. Though, from my perspective, their
| words/fears seem to differ from their actions.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Not the OP but:
|
| Covid definitely isn't over, it's just that we've gotten
| better at treating it and people have decided that they are
| over it. It is still killing almost 2000 people a week in the
| US and it's very possible that we will see a huge spike in
| that as we get further into winter.
|
| the "next" booster is referring to the updated vaccine that
| more effectively targets the dominant "Omicron" variant.
| sharken wrote:
| At least provide some facts to the 2000 people a week
| claim.
| greenyoda wrote:
| The CDC is reporting 2344 COVID deaths per week:
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-
| home
| origin_path wrote:
| Be aware that since Omicron virtually all of those are
| dying "with" COVID, not of it. Examples collected from
| the Milwaukee coroner's office:
|
| https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/six-recent-covid-
| deaths-...
|
| That's why the age skew is so high.
| Avshalom wrote:
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-
| tracker/#trends_weeklydeath...
|
| The last time it was _under_ 2000 was july '21
| cmh89 wrote:
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-
| home
| MaysonL wrote:
| https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/11/covid-
| nov-11-2022...
| NeutronStar wrote:
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| > the "next" booster is referring to the updated vaccine
| that more effectively targets the dominant "Omicron"
| variant.
|
| Ah thanks for the context.
|
| I've only gotten the J&J vax (the worst one?) back in April
| of 2021, no boosters. I considered getting one but by then
| they were recommending boosters every few months and I
| decided to just "risk" it by not getting them? (I'm in my
| 30s and in good shape/health so don't feel vulnerable, but
| I understand that could be hubris and back-fire).
| [deleted]
| Izkata wrote:
| > I've only gotten the J&J vax (the worst one?)
|
| Back in those first few months I was keeping an eye on
| reports of side-effects, and J&J actually looked like the
| safest of the 4 available in the US. But it and
| AstraZeneca got absolutely vilified while any claims
| against Pfizer and Moderna got ignored as crazy
| conspiracies.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I've also only got the J&J, once, only because my
| employer was threatening me with termination if I didn't
| get vaccinated. They actually never followed through on
| that threat for those that held out. I wish I hadn't.
| Lesson learned, never again.
| mikysco wrote:
| Always worth pointing out COVID (very) disproportionately
| kills the elderly (75+)
|
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-
| tracker/#demographicsoverti...
|
| These stats don't indicate whether other confounding
| factors led to an individual's death.
| eftychis wrote:
| People I know are getting COVID in the Bay Area -- multiple
| weeks sick (I can count at least 6 -- in the moment -- for
| the span of middle of October until now). We are still in the
| pandemic.
|
| The problem is it has to stop everywhere for us to get
| complacent. Especially, given that _everyone_ wants to travel
| -- and travel abroad.
|
| Pandemic is here. Nothing is over. We are distracted with
| other things. Things are "good" in San Francisco and the Bay
| now. No guarantee it will be so tomorrow.
| chroma wrote:
| It should be clear by now that covid is never going away.
| No country managed to stop it, no matter how strict their
| policies were. Unless you plan to be a hermit for the rest
| of your life, expect to get covid every few years.
| daliusd wrote:
| It is endemic not pandemic anymore.
| Fomite wrote:
| Endemic has a specific meaning - that there is an
| expected number of cases in a given population.
|
| That's not really established for COVID-19.
|
| Also, endemic doesn't mean something doesn't matter. In
| much of Africa, malaria is endemic.
|
| What you mean is "As a society we stopped caring."
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Not necessarily, endemic might mean that it matters, but
| those who are especially at risk are taking more
| precautions.
|
| E.g. I see lots of young not wearing masks to protect
| themselves, and I see more older people protecting
| themselves with masks. Seems like a reasonable balance.
| eftychis wrote:
| Pandemic means it is endemic "everywhere."
|
| https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/pandemic-vs-
| endemi...
|
| It does not describe severity. Ebola is endemic in parts
| of Africa. I still hope nobody gets it.
|
| We can change the meanings of words for political reasons
| but who do we do a disservice too?
|
| Given that it is a word from my mother language I find it
| a bit insulting when politicians decide to change my
| language though to benefit for a year or two.
|
| Tl;Dr: Saying that covid is "endemic" to the whole world,
| is an insult to my ears, logic, and a whole language and
| people. They should pick a different word if they want to
| disagree with doctors worldwide.
| peterbell_nyc wrote:
| Same here. I live just north of NYC and it seems like
| pretty much everyone is getting covid. Luckily, mortality
| attributed to covid is continuing to decrease suggesting
| it's becoming less of an issue (in terms of deaths), but
| even with ~320 deaths a day, we're still looking at over
| 100k dying in the US every year of covid - despite the fact
| that a lot of the most vulnerable already died.
|
| I think we just have a new normal in terms of life
| expectancy and mortality :(
| Grim-444 wrote:
| Weren't we already in that same situation every
| year/decade prior to covid when between 20,000 and 50,000
| would die from the flu each year?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_influenza_sta
| tis...
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I think 20k/50k + an additional 100k from covid is pretty
| nasty, so I don't think it's the same at all. It's not
| like flu and covid are the same disease. I'm thinking
| covid will just add tens of thousands (or up to 100k like
| GP said). Sucks.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, it's not even remotely over. People are bored of it,
| and it makes them sad, so a lot of them stopped taking
| precautions, but it's not over. It just ripped through my
| family in Florida (again) since nobody is masking there and
| everyone is just carrying on as if it were 2019. My kid's
| school seems to perpetually has a case or two. I take it
| seriously by getting boosted, masking, continuing to avoid
| crowds and public places that are indoors, and I intend to
| keep doing so. People act like it's a TV show that got
| cancelled or something. Nuts.
| pandeiro wrote:
| Nuts is that on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence,
| your ascribing an efficacy in disease prevention to an
| intervention (wearing masks) that was widely understood
| to do no such thing prior to 2020.
|
| Furthermore, respiratory disease avoidance on a society-
| wide scale has never and almost certainly will never be
| achieved. The assumption that it is an attainable goal is
| truly nuts.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| You didn't have any luck making a CICP claim? It says they have
| approved five myocarditis claims in principle, but it seems a
| lot less well documented than the corresponding VICP ("vaccine
| court") for regular vaccines. It's a bit disconcerting that the
| CICP is not overseen by a court the way the VICP is.
| toast0 wrote:
| > did not cover it
|
| As in you paid the whole cost, and it was $10K, and it didn't
| count on your deductables / out of pocket max? Or the patient
| paid portion was $10K, the insurance paid portion was $0, but
| now you're a lot closer to your maximums?
|
| Did you file with the CICP? https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
| robomartin wrote:
| > Did you file with the CICP? https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
|
| Yes, we did. It's worse than dealing with the DMV. I don't
| know where we are in the process other than my wife (she is a
| doctor) telling me not to hold my breath.
| vanattab wrote:
| I don't know if this is still the case but as of Nov 21 the
| feds had paid zero covid cicp claims.
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrze.
| ..
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You wouldn't file a CICP claim for a bout of myocarditis in
| which "we have not seen indications of lasting damage".
| That's not what it's for.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well... according to CICP themselves, as of October 1st
| 2022, they have only paid out 6 claims for COVID-9
| vaccines - ever. Which, even by this NBC News article
| standard, is low. However, 5 of them were for
| myocarditis, 1 for anaphylaxis.
|
| https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data
| coinbasetwwa wrote:
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| rrauenza wrote:
| Did anyone point you to this? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-
| compensation. ...does it apply at all?
|
| Edit: ah, yes, found the sub thread on cicp.
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| arein3 wrote:
| sfusato wrote:
| There's plenty of would-do-it-again testimonials from a
| hospital bed caused by a vaccine injury/side effect. There's
| a famous Mark Twain quote that comes to mind.
| floor2 wrote:
| Making the statistically best choice is still the best
| choice even if you get an undesired outcome.
|
| Good poker players can lose all their chips at the table to
| an unlucky draw and walk away knowing that they made the
| right play and that they'd do it again, even if they got
| unlucky on the river card. Good basketball coaches will
| still draw up plays to get the ball into the hands of their
| best shooter at the end of the game even if they miss
| sometimes.
|
| If you're choosing between option A that has a 0.0001%
| chance of hurting you and option B that has a 10% chance of
| hurting you, and you choose A and still get hurt, that
| doesn't mean you made the wrong choice or that if you have
| it to do over again you should choose B.
| arein3 wrote:
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| Except the issue is how certain we are of these
| percentages. In poker, the win rate of AA against 72
| heads up is well known.
|
| In reality, we don't have that. We get whatever ideas
| have the largest marketing budget behind them, and we
| just have to trust them. It's more like "nobody gets
| fired for buying IBM (or pick your favorite pundit)" than
| running a poker scenario through a solver. And that's
| fine, I don't think you can expect much more than that
| out of people.
| arein3 wrote:
| A theory proposed by Charles Darwin comes to mind.
| lob_it wrote:
| Was that "empathy equals manufactured crisis cubed"?
|
| Science is hard :p
| mberning wrote:
| arein3 wrote:
| Doubling down on a choice that proved to be bad for them.
|
| I don't understand why anyone would do that, perhaps only
| because they understood that it was a mistake and they want
| others to make the same mistake.
| AmVess wrote:
| Boggles my mind that parents are willingly exposing their
| kids to something they absolutely do not need.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Schools required it. No exemptions.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Then the school should pay for the known side effects
| thepasswordis wrote:
| No amount of money can replace my child.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Then schools should not be mandating experimental
| therapies
| thepasswordis wrote:
| You'll find no argument about that from me.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| Malice or stupidity? Collusion or conspiracy? I think
| it's all of the above.
| arein3 wrote:
| The kid might even have had natural antibodies, since when
| the vaccines were approved for kids a very big percent of
| them already had covid.
| nomel wrote:
| With the media black out of anything anti-pro-vaccine,
| it's not surprising that natural immunity provides better
| protection isn't more well known:
| https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-
| cov-2-on...
| floor2 wrote:
| This argument has never made any sense. It's literal
| survivorship bias
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
|
| You're saying "If you survive getting covid without
| serious injuries once, then you'll be less likely to get
| serious injuries on a re-infection later". The vaccine is
| to make it less likely that you get serious injuries from
| that first exposure.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| Are there any people left that haven't had their first
| exposure?
|
| The argument makes more sense when you take into account
| that the interesting case is actually "given that you've
| already had covid, should you get vaccinated?" rather
| than "given no exposures yet, should I make out with
| someone that has it or should I get vaccinated". I've
| seen a lot of noise about the latter case, and a lot of
| overlooking the former.
| nomel wrote:
| Please read the context of what you're responding to.
| This context isn't about survivorship bias.
|
| COVID was around before the vaccines, and before the
| boosters, and between the boosters. Some of us got it
| before the boosters were available, and before the next
| booster was due. This is the context you're responding
| to.
|
| For a stupid real world example, my college friend had
| COVID was required to get the booster _while he was
| recovering from COVID_ , so that he could continue school
| after. There's plenty of nonsense still going around.
| Natural infection usually doesn't count in the school
| system, from what I've seen. Surprisingly it does, where
| I work.
| coinbasetwwa wrote:
| I like the term "anti-pro-vaccine", the media would
| simply refer to it as "anti-vax"
| selectodude wrote:
| https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA..
| ..
|
| Pick your poison, then.
| busymom0 wrote:
| 1. Risk of Myocarditis is higher for males under 40 from
| the vax than from infection. Only if you look at the entire
| population and dilute that risk do you see risk being
| higher from infection.
|
| 2. The vax doesn't prevent infection anyway, so whatever
| the point they are making is moot.
|
| 3. The risk is being compounded each time- first from vax,
| then from infection, then from boosters.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Btw, this was all known with increasing confidence by
| July '21 (Israeli data showed increased myocarditis risk
| after second shot), and December '21 (Nature paper
| stratified myocarditis risk by vaccination status and
| age).
| nmilo wrote:
| > Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-
| CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains
| modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of
| BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. _However, the risk of myocarditis
| after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly
| after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine._
| ckw wrote:
| And the peak age/sex related risk is almost certainly
| understated in the paper, because 'younger men' refers to
| the entire under 40 population.
| vixen99 wrote:
| An Israeli study reported here:
| https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/08/no-increase-
| myocarditi... ['The Incidence of Myocarditis and
| Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients--A
| Large Population-Based Study'.] finds "no increase in
| incidence of myocarditis" after Covid infection in
| unvaccinated adults.
| kgwxd wrote:
| ACA isn't an insurance plan. What was or wasn't covered, and
| what your out-of-pocket costs were, have nothing to do with
| ACA. ACA forced you to pick a plan or face tax penalties,
| that's all, the rest is on the plan you chose. If you had
| chosen to not have insurance at all, you'd have paid way more
| that 10k and maybe even more than what you've put into your
| premiums already. I pay $1640 a month for full family coverage
| with a $600 deductible per person, per year, the second best
| plan I could find. I think you got a pretty bad plan at
| 2400/month with a 10k deductible.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Wife for a booster. Arm swelled up. Been a year. No
| improvement. We had already had Covid. Current time in school
| boosters. All the teachers kept getting covid anyway. Hard to
| be anything then hostile toward anyone that is on the forcing
| people to get shots or to cut them from services train.
| megous wrote:
| Same here. Since 1 day post vaccination pain in elbow for
| almost a year (if she was doing physical job, she'd not be
| able to work for amlost a year) On top of that constant
| unending headache for first ~6 months.
|
| Doctors help basically just "we don't know, there's no
| research, it will hopefully get better". It did after a year.
| Great. Govt pushed people to vaccinate to prevent the spread
| (despite individual's risk being very low) with promise to
| compensate in case of issues. lol, they didn't even
| compensate people who were paralyzed after vaccination with
| response "You can't prove it's from vaccination, sorry."
|
| Zero benefit from the vaccination itself, since she didn't go
| for a second shot after this.
|
| Cost/benefit very negative, since she likely didn't need the
| vaccination in the first place since she's not in the risk
| group and this was just "for the society" thing. And turns
| out it doesn't work againt spread much either.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| A good thing he is so young - seems like a good indicator for
| no lasting damage.
|
| We really don't know much about this virus and by association
| it's vaccine - it does not behave like the flu - lost a
| colleague to Beta who was way fitter and way healthier than me
| (he did Murtai and BMI) - he ended on a ventilator and died,
| and I was just man down for week and a half at home.
|
| It still took me weeks to recover back to myself again - still
| got the booster shot afterwards.
| coinbasetwwa wrote:
| cmh89 wrote:
| People are liable to drop dead the same day they drink
| water! They must be connected!
| chasd00 wrote:
| my sister ended up with endocarditis and nearly died. She went
| from "i feel bad, i should go to the doctor" to emergency heart
| valve replacement surgery in about 8 days.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Natasha Leone (famous actress) talks about getting
| endocarditis and it was serious as well. She was very
| vulnerable to it because of some behavioral factors. My
| impression is that myocarditis is not as serious as
| endocarditis though.
| cryptonector wrote:
| You don't have to be anti-vax to look at the facts you listed
| and decide "maybe not for a while".
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| alerighi wrote:
| I think that all this COVID stuff was everything opposite than
| using science, starting from the people, including government,
| taking of "trusting science".
|
| Science is not a religion, and we don't have to believe in it.
| Instead we need to be critic, conduct experiments, evaluate our
| thesis, put everything into discussion. Something we didn't,
| because you are a fool if you have doubts about vaccines, if you
| talk about negative effects, they are 100% safe and you are an
| ignorant.
|
| This is the contrary of doing science. We didn't studied these
| vaccines enough, we didn't take for serious people lamenting
| adverse reactions, we did hide the news about that because we
| feared people not taking the vaccine. Is this science? It's not.
|
| If you look at the news, vaccines are 100% safe and doesn't have
| any side effect. You ask people that got that, you get another
| opinion. Me too after the third dose (that I wouldn't had got if
| I wasn't forced to do so by our "democratic" government, no
| wonder here in Italy last elections won the "fascists", if these
| are the democratic people) I had serious side effects, I was
| basically not feeling well for a week. To take into prospective,
| when I got COVID in March 2020 when it was still a new thing I
| only got a slight fever for two days, nothing compared of the
| effect of the vaccine itself...
| megous wrote:
| Also classification of seriousness of side effects was kinda
| skewed, too. If you didn't read into details of studies, you'd
| think that claims like "serious side effects are rare", as
| something that is a meaningful input to your decisionmaking
| about getting vaccinated. But if it was defined as conditions
| requiring hospitalizations or urgent care, then there are other
| very comon side effects that don't require it and can still
| upend your life if they last long time.
|
| Being unable to work properly for longish time (say months to a
| year), without needing hospitalization is quite serious to
| anyone in working age. There was no way to judge how long
| particular side effects can last (and likelihoods) from vaccine
| studies, because data for judging this were not published,
| despite for sure being available from the original trials to
| the researchers.
|
| There's apparently a lot of research about how to push people
| to vaccinate and about vaccination hessitancy, though. :) But
| providing some useful data about side effects, like how likely
| they'll last 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for a
| vaccination that was intended to quickly give to almost
| everyone... No, can't have that. That was almost impossible to
| find. And if you did find something, it was some independent
| research with small sample size.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| Correct, political science displaced science so quickly. Dark
| days are ahead unless the public is informed and able to
| resist. How did they force you to take a booster? Was it in
| order to keep your job?
| leetrout wrote:
| > I had serious side effects, I was basically not feeling well
| for a week
|
| Would you care to elaborate? I had really bad brain fog.
| nomel wrote:
| Not him, but I had arm pain for over a year, under the
| injection, along with extreme weakness in a particular
| muscle/motion, from the first shot. I couldn't sleep on that
| side at all, and could barely sleep on the other. It
| eventually went away, but I was terrified it was permanent.
|
| I did not get the boosters. I've had people say I'm anti-vax,
| from this.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Even though they still believe it is thankfully rare, this quote
| is a little frightening:
|
| "We don't understand yet and there's no good mechanism to explain
| it."
|
| Edit: I hate to make aspersions, but I suspect this article was
| blocked from front page or similar. 13 votes in 20 minutes, and
| yet a 14 point article over the course of an hour is sitting at
| #19 while this is #74. Also #75 had just one more point over a
| period of many hours. Huh.
|
| Edit 2: Again, 23 points in 56 minutes versus 12 points in 10
| hours (we are below that).
|
| @dang I do not see how this is possible.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This was fixed, thank you!
| specto wrote:
| This is anecdotal, and I still plan to get the latest booster
| soon, but I have had pain in my left chest since the first covid
| vaccine. I went to a doctor who ran an EKG but they said
| everything was functioning correctly. Maybe someone knows if I
| should get a second opinion? I can no longer sleep on my left
| side since then as it causes the pain to increase, so I don't
| believe it is related to myocarditis.
| esperent wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear that and I hope it turns out to be nothing.
|
| It's important to remember that you are n=1 and the timing
| could be a coincidence. It could be the vaccine. It could be
| stress from the pandemic causing angina. It could be lifestyle
| (do you exercise every day, eat healthily, sleep well, manage
| stress? - if not then angina in your 30s/40s is common).
|
| It could even, as happened to a friend of mine, be a nerve
| issue in your chest muscles that's completely unrelated to your
| heart (aside: my friend was extremely relieved by this
| diagnosis which took quite a while to come by).
| oifjsidjf wrote:
| Well it's a good thing there is no important organ in your
| chest.
| Guthur wrote:
| taolegal wrote:
| The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are
| bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals.
|
| Exxon has an interest in minimizing (disregarding) the harmful
| effects of their products and same goes for Pfizer & friends
| who's got every govt funneling money to them seemingly without
| limit.
| wwweston wrote:
| At a first approximation, _everybody_ is charitable with Exxon,
| as demonstrated by continued popular uptake of their products
| across at least two spectra of political beliefs. Some may also
| embrace critical beliefs about exactly how much oversight
| /restraint Exxon should have and/or what forms of public
| support alternatives should receive, but it's about as rare or
| rarer to have Exxon's products treated with the suspicion that
| vaccinations are more dangerous than the diseases they treat.
| sn0w_crash wrote:
| Remember Exxon has duped those same people into thinking they
| are a "good" company
|
| They rank higher than Tesla on ESG ratings.
|
| Yes, Exxon.
| taolegal wrote:
| mberning wrote:
| It's incredible how they managed to rehab their image almost
| overnight. Anybody remember the bextra scandal? Yeah, these are
| the same corrupt corporations.
| lispisok wrote:
| We went from finding out pharma companies exploded the opiate
| epidemic to people getting tattoos of the brand of covid
| vaccine they got in a few years. Just because pharma
| companies make some useful products does not make them good
| actors. Of course Pfizer is going to say everybody needs
| another covid booster shot. Every time they convince people
| they need another it's billions in revenue.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| do you have a link? google just leads to stuff about how
| long to wait with a tattoo after vaccination.
| incrudible wrote:
| https://twitter.com/senadaruc/status/1398599697934303232
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| Searching booster tattoo on Twitter has a few hits. But I
| think they are all photoshop.
| lob_it wrote:
| Being a natural in the 21st century is the new status symbol
| in the 1st world :)
|
| 70% prescription medication useage makes being on (0) meds
| very cool nowadays.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619132352.h.
| ..
| busymom0 wrote:
| Not just bextra. The asbestos in baby powder and opioids
| scandal is still ongoing too.
| mertd wrote:
| Oil consumption creates negative externalities for everyone.
| Mass vaccination creates positive externalities. It's not that
| hard.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Does oil consumption not have any positive externalities?
| Have mass vaccinations never had a negative externality?
| Remember, the first world is not the entirety of humanity
| before answering.
| matrix_overload wrote:
| Because the Big Pharma played the centuries-old trick from a
| conqueror's handbook: give your vassals a tiny bit of power
| over their peers, while pillaging the land for profit. So the
| activists now enjoy the newly given power to bash, shame and
| deplatform anyone who could be labeled as "antivaxxers", while
| predictably turning a blind eye towards the hand that gave them
| that power.
| xracy wrote:
| Nah, Pfizer is a terrible company. Pharmaceutical companies can
| rot in hell.
|
| But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives.
|
| It's not that I am bending over backwards to defend Pharma.
| It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty
| things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of
| just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the
| rest of us.
|
| Corporations are big. Companies can be capable of doing shitty
| things and good things at the same time. If you wanna complain
| about Opioids, I'm happy to have a conversation about how
| terrible pharma is.
| drcross wrote:
| >But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines save lives.
|
| Yeah, all fine and good when you have informed consent. I
| _took my life in my own hands_ by not getting vaccinated for
| covid after I looked at the mortality age graph, and knew I
| was fit and healthy and didn 't need to worry.
|
| Society at large, however, castigated me, threw me in the
| same box as a conspiracy theorist, denied me my rights.
| People acted goddamn stupidly about this subject. I'm angry
| about this and I won't forgive and I won't forget.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > It's that people are bending over backwards to find shitty
| things in the silver linings of these companies, instead of
| just complaining about the thunderclouds themselves like the
| rest of us.
|
| I'm sorry.. but wasn't it the US Government make significant
| investments in both companies producing this therapy? Wasn't
| the the US Military that drove much of the initial interest
| into mRNA therapies in the first place?
|
| Why do we continue to consider these companies as anything
| other than conduits of government research and funding? When
| then is it a surprise when these companies don't recognize
| this that people become offended?
| xracy wrote:
| If I'm reading your response correctly you're basically
| saying "The silver lining that you're talking about wasn't
| even initiated by these companies, but instead a function
| of gov't interest/investment."
|
| That sounds about right. I could believe that the only good
| thing to come out of these companies is the result of the
| Gov't makes them do things for the people. Profit is not a
| good motive for a company investing in making people
| healthy.
| guelo wrote:
| Any time we figure out something new related to COVID19 it is
| used to justify everybody's political axe grinding and conspiracy
| theories. Science takes awhile and it will keep trudging on no
| matter what our cocksure overreactions are.
| vaxitgood wrote:
| scohesc wrote:
| coinbasetwwa wrote:
| Kalanos wrote:
| my heart has hurt since the vaccine
| bobsmooth wrote:
| I've also had chest pains.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| Well, case closed then.
| marsven_422 wrote:
| entwife wrote:
| It is possible to get a COVID antibody test to determine whether
| you personally have sufficient remaining antibodies, or would
| benefit from another vaccine. In Barcelona, it is possible for
| under 100 euros.
| nradov wrote:
| There is no evidence-based clinical standard to determine what
| level of antibodies is "sufficient". Such tests are not useful
| for most patients and fail to account for cellular immunity. I
| am not discouraging anyone from getting a booster but the
| timing should be based on other criteria.
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
| midislack wrote:
| Conspiracy theorists keep being proved correct. Experts say,
| that's dangerous.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Some added information: Some might wonder, won't the US
| government pay me if I am injured (as unlikely as that is)? For
| example, the young man the article talks about as having been
| injured?
|
| Yes - there is a fund, the CICP (Countermeasures Injury
| Compensation Program). However, your odds of getting paid are
| basically nil, as an adult; due to an extremely high standard for
| proving causation, lack of awareness, and limited claim time (1
| year from date of vaccination). So if you have a long-term effect
| after, say, 3 years needing compensation, you won't be paid.
|
| "As of October 1, 2022, the CICP has partially compensated one
| COVID-19 countermeasure claim. There are potentially additional
| expenses to be calculated for this claim, therefore, the claim is
| still in the "Pending" compensation status. Forty-seven COVID-19
| countermeasure claims have been denied compensation because the
| standard of proof for causation was not met and/or a covered
| injury was not sustained. Six COVID-19 countermeasure claims, all
| of which are COVID-19 vaccine claims, have been determined
| eligible for compensation and are pending a review of eligible
| expenses. One eligible claim is the result of anaphylaxis, and
| five claims are the result of myocarditis."
|
| _Six_ payouts as of October 1st, 2022.
| https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| chedca21 wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| This is from a year ago. Please provide some context to your
| reply.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Why bother with expensive research when the HN comment section
| has it all figured out? The vaccines don't cause myocarditis, and
| if they do then it's not as bad as what COVID causes, and if it
| is well COVID also causes it anyways so who cares, and if it
| doesn't then at least the vaccines stop transmission, and if they
| don't then at least they save your life, and if they don't then
| at least we believe The Science!
|
| Just a waste of money. The Science is settled.
| phtrivier wrote:
| Just so we now for next time: what is the proper way to express
| concerns about _this_ kind of things with enough nuance and
| moderation so as not to be automatically considered an anti-
| scientist tin foil hat ?
|
| What is the scientifically acceptable way to phrase "I'm not
| concerned about BigPharma planting 5G chips in my future
| children's eyeballs to turn them into communist ; but I'm very
| concerned about blind spots during testing and biases in protocol
| and just plain bad luck that made us miss something ?"
|
| Maybe I just write too much software for a living, but my only
| certitude was that something, somewhere, was going to break. At
| least I can TDD the hell out of my paranoia. Don't let me write
| health policy, ever.
|
| Sidenode: if this kid had chosen the wrong profession in the
| wrong country, he would now be facing either "getting a couple of
| other shot" or "loosing its job".
|
| If he had made a tiktok video about his problems, or a facebook
| post, or a twitter thread, etc... at some point it would have
| been flagged, and it would have only garnered the attention of
| the worst possible scammers.
|
| And, worst of all, I'm pretty sure his grandmother would now
| refuse to get boosted.
|
| Talk about loose-loose :/
| scop wrote:
| Eric Weinstein had a great segment on his Portal podcast about
| this very thing. I can't recall the interview (maybe with
| Balaji?), but if it comes to me I'll comment it. The gist was
| that he was talking about Covid and he observed that the guest
| had to spend an inordinate amount of time saying what he was
| _not_ saying, to the point of being absurd. He had to
| constantly preface his comments with a long series of
| statements of disassociation. "Now I'm not saying X, or Y, and
| I'm definitely not a P, and I don't agree with everything Z
| said but..." How can you have a conversation if so much time is
| spent _not_ saying things?
| phtrivier wrote:
| > How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent
| not saying things?
|
| Slowly, in carefully written form reviewed by people with the
| right training.
|
| Unfortunately, in the middle of an emergency with the bodies
| of voting-aged people piling up... Not at all.
|
| (Although, I guess not going to the other extreme of "having
| this conversation in bits of 140 characters among strangers
| with advertisers at each corner" did not help much.)
| savryn wrote:
| watching eric go through his arc of disillusionment in
| public, despite all his sincerity and hopefulness and
| intelligence was really sobering for me.
|
| A lot of us have this inner "oh if only I was a better
| speaker / smarter / worked on my persuasion skills ..."
|
| It's just not how power works. It's not how society works. I
| get that now, and it was amazing anthropology to see it
| unfold.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Mind explaining what you mean by his arc of
| disillusionment? I don't follow the guy, my only
| recollection of him is from listening to him on a podcast
| about some wild "physics theory of everything" a while
| back. I recall it being one of those "I'm not sure if I'm
| an idiot, or he's crazy, but this sure is a fun ride" kinds
| of experiences.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _what is the proper way to express concerns about _this_ kind
| of things with enough nuance and moderation so as not to be
| automatically considered an anti-scientist tin foil hat ?_
|
| The nuance is key. Frankly, I don't recall much in the way of
| nuance, I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed
| as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party.
| phtrivier wrote:
| Well, if you're scared of something, and it becomes
| mandatory, even when the decision comes from the most
| democratically elected government, you'll feel attacked.
|
| Which raises a lot of questions (is "being scared" enough of
| a justification for refusing a law ? On the other hands, do
| democraticaly elected officials automatically get the right
| do decide what people should be "scared" about, without
| having any more evidence than anyone else - given that the
| only thing that can give evidence is time, time, and more
| time ?)
|
| Questions that, unfortunately, had to be answered hastly and
| withouth much concerns for the unlucky ones - which, to be
| honest, is pretty much the theme of history, and we have been
| among the lucky one until now, so maybe we don't have that
| much to complain about.
| daliz wrote:
| You are completely right.
|
| People who expressed concerns or some doubts just a few months
| ago were attacked, downvoted, silenced and socially outcast.
|
| This is not science. This is the opposite of science.
| phtrivier wrote:
| Well, at the peak of the epidemics, there was a whole
| industry devoted to claiming the most bogus things and
| preventing the people with the highest risk / benefit ratio
| from taking their shots. I made fun of the most hilarious of
| them too.
|
| That did not make me any less scared of the "oooops" moment.
|
| This will get worse (myocarditis today, menstural cycles
| tomorrow, maybe strokes and cancer later ?), then worse (vast
| number of people completely loosing faith into their docs and
| letting a much worse epidemy settle), then worse, before it
| gets... well, before life goes on and we mostly forget, as it
| has ever done and as we ever did, I suppose ?
| 6nf wrote:
| We knew this 18 months ago when Israel first released their
| results after vaccinating 7 million of their people. But talking
| about it on Facebook or Youtube got you yeeted.
| shingle wrote:
| I can add my experience to this thread, as I was diagnosed with
| "atypical" pericarditis a little over a week after my first
| Pfizer shot.
|
| This started with chest pains, gradually increasing over the
| course of a day or two before I went to the hospital. I had to
| ask them to test for myopericarditis, because they were pretty
| much only considering an embolism or a panic attack. In that
| sense I was lucky that I had read a paper a month or so before,
| indicating young men (such as myself) as having an increased risk
| after Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccination. After diagnosis I
| had to go through a 3-month medication regimen which, I'll be
| honest, wasn't all that fun for my intestinal tract.
|
| Thankfully I was deemed healthy after half a year, with low
| probability of lasting damage. Yet, the psychological weight of
| being confronted with heart disease in your mid-twenties is
| heavy. My opinions on vaccinations haven't really changed, though
| I think the legal and societal pressure to get everyone
| vaccinated was out of line and that opinion has gotten stronger.
| Especially after knowing that vaccination doesn't affects
| transmission as much as they hoped, I expected them to focus much
| more heavily on the at-risk groups, but that didn't happen.
|
| The worst part about all of this though is the obstinate denial
| my cardiologists had of any possible relation between my Pfizer
| shot and the pericarditis. They'd point to the fact that young
| men can develop myopericarditis without vaccination. This is
| true, though it's almost always the result of an infection, and
| in my region of the world the vast majority of these cases result
| from flu infections. However, when I had my diagnosis there were
| barely any flu cases in the country, it just wasn't the season,
| and most of all I wasn't ill. Pointing to the close proximity to
| the vaccination was met with immediate and absolute denial.
|
| I think that's what bothered me most: I did my part, I tried to
| protect society by getting a shot, but when confronted with
| negative fall-out I had to fight for a diagnosis and was pretty
| much laughed out of the room for suggesting a relation to the
| booster. I don't think I've processed this yet. It really feels
| like I did everything I was told, giving up much of my hobbies,
| social life etc., but when my health was on the line... "Ho pal,
| can't be saying anything that could be contorted into criticism
| of vaccination".
|
| Little of it seemed "fair".
| mach1ne wrote:
| >I think that's what bothered me most: I did my part, I tried
| to protect society by getting a shot, but when confronted with
| negative fall-out I had to fight for a diagnosis and was pretty
| much laughed out of the room for suggesting a relation to the
| booster. I don't think I've processed this yet.
|
| I recently came to believe that it's not accurate to model
| random humans as reflections of self. Situations like this make
| much more sense if you think the humans to be not much more but
| nodes of some greater societal 'meme' (as in infectious
| idea/ideology). Almost everyone is such a node in almost every
| respect. Better to drop the belief that you're operating in a
| world of copies of yourself, and rather embrace the model that
| you're operating in a world of memes, the nodes of which the
| people around you are. At least when it comes to explaining
| behavior which you have trouble understanding.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| That's a complicated way of saying "people are individuals."
| oliv__ wrote:
| shingle wrote:
| I understand where you're coming from, I really do. It's
| rough to give up personal liberties for the "greater good",
| even though we already do on a daily basis. You can't run red
| light, you can't dodge taxes, ...
|
| I don't think there was much malice in these new COVID-
| related laws. Sure there was some cronyism for financial gain
| in their execution, but that's not the point. I think they
| were motivated by an seemingly ever-increasing aversion to
| any form of risk and responsibility, both on governmental as
| well as societal level.
|
| I'd love to understand and internally evaluate every law and
| practice that is put upon me, take my own responsibilities
| based on a thorough understanding of the issue. However, the
| world has grown too complex for any individual to understand
| why we are supposed to do the things that we are told to. It
| has become impossible to even _be aware_ of every law.
|
| I don't know what the "solution" to this extreme risk
| aversion is. I wonder if there is some historical precedent
| of a society undergoing the same tendencies and how that
| eventually got solved. Or didn't.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Cool, now what's the incidence of Myocarditis and similar after
| COVID-19 infection?
|
| It's possible that such a vaccine causes a number of such cases,
| and still prevents a much larger number of them. In fact it also
| seems to be true in this case.
|
| Discussing the vaccines out of this context, is scaremongering.
| You're much better off taking your chances with the COVID-19
| vaccine than taking your chances unvaccinated.
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
|
| https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001957
| fhrow4484 wrote:
| > Cool, now what's the incidence of Myocarditis and similar
| after COVID-19 infection?
|
| Which mechanism would cause myocarditis when you get COVID 19?
|
| The 2nd link in nradov's comment
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33599243) states:
|
| > These findings indicate that introducing the mRNA vaccine
| into the circulatory system can lead to acute cardiac
| inflammation. The mechanism behind this requires further
| elucidation. However, it is speculated that this may be due to
| the pro-inflammatory properties of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)
| used as carriers for mRNA.
|
| The actual COVID-19 infection doesn't have any lipid
| nanoparticles, does it?
|
| Agree with overall sentiment of your comment though: the
| overall real-bad symptoms caused by an infection when fully
| unvaccinated are probably not worth skipping vaccine.
|
| The clinical trials in op's article as well as nradov's comment
| on "aspiration" to reduce myocarditis risk during vaccination
| are both important topics to explore.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| I'm not sure how it causes it but it seems that it does:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
|
| > During March 2020-January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had
| nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with
| patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex
| and age.
|
| > To minimize potential bias from vaccine-associated
| myocarditis (6), 277,892 patients with a COVID-19 vaccination
| record in PHD-SR during December 2020-February 2021 were
| excluded.
| sfusato wrote:
| _" Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults after COVID-19
| infection in Clalit Health Services members in Israel between
| March 2020 and January 2021. [...] We did not observe an
| increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in
| adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection."_
|
| Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
| kyleyeats wrote:
| bluGill wrote:
| > The vaccine doesn't stop transmission
|
| That is utterly false!
|
| If you don't get COVID because of the vaccine, then the
| vaccine stopped the transmission. Even if you get COVID, the
| chance you transmit COVID is reduced becuase the body spreads
| less. If you do get it, but your body will also clear it
| faster which is less time to transmit. Sure the above is 100%
| stop all transmission, but it still stops the majority.
| spfzero wrote:
| It cannot stop transmission, clearly. The country is mostly
| vaccinated and cases continue, no herd immunity ever showed
| up.
|
| The vaccines do reduce transmission in the minority of
| cases where full-blown symptoms last long enough that the
| reduction in infection length conferred by the vaccine is
| significant. But for most cases, they never progress to the
| point that the antibody response would become a factor, so
| most vaccinated people spread it just as much as if they
| were never vaccinated, in the early portion of their
| infection at minimum. So even if everyone got their booster
| today at the same instant, and every 6 months repeated
| that, it would still not stop the free movement of the
| virus among the population.
|
| The only way to stop the spread is to do what China is
| doing, but with air-tight effectiveness, which is
| impossible.
|
| That said, there's a big reason to get vaccinated and
| boosted anyway if you are in a risk group, since it is
| somewhat effective in protecting against serious and deadly
| outcomes.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > It cannot stop transmission, clearly. The country is
| mostly vaccinated and cases continue, no herd immunity
| ever showed up.
|
| This is a miststament.
| bluGill wrote:
| While nobody knows the numbers required, we didn't get
| enough vaccinations for herd immunity.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| abeppu wrote:
| Also, myocarditis can be more or less severe, IIUC. The article
| links to this CDC presentation, and on slide 5 they
| characterize myocarditis associated with mRNA vaccination vs
| myocarditis associated with viral illness. The proportion that
| recover cardiac function, and the time to recover cardiac
| function are better in the mRNA case.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
| adamsb6 wrote:
| Like just about everything, I would expect myocarditis to
| have some distribution such that there's a group of people
| who feel bad, but not bad enough to see a doctor. For the
| vaccines I would expect that people would be less likely to
| see a doctor because the vaccine side effects were so widely
| talked about, and going to the doctor carried a risk of COVID
| exposure.
|
| The second does of vaccine knocked my wife and I on our asses
| for three days. I broke a sweat unloading the dishwasher and
| then had to go take a nap to recover. I figured we were just
| unlucky enough to have an especially strong reaction and
| didn't bother a doctor about it. Was that mild myocarditis?
| I'll probably never know.
| plgonzalezrx8 wrote:
| The data is very unclear on this. Sure you found sources that
| back your claim, but plenty of replies with sources that say
| the contrary (From reputable sources). So in the meantime,
| given the conflicting nature of all the reports, mandating
| vaccines should NOT be a thing.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| According to this study
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ there is no increase
| in Myocarditis cases among unvaccinated people who have
| contracted Covid-19. This study tracked 196,992 people which is
| a huge number, so the data here is quite good and clear.
| Contracting Covid-19 does not put you at increased risk for
| Myocarditis, the same cannot be said when evaluating a
| population that simply received the vaccination.
| selectodude wrote:
| A more recent one disagrees.
|
| https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA..
| ..
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| From your study:
|
| >In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine,
| 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2
| infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred
| in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after
| vaccination. Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to
| 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate
| ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09-1.62]) and a first, second, and
| booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24-1.85]; 1.57
| [95% CI, 1.28-1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33-2.22],
| respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive
| SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI,
| 8.64-14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54-7.87], respectively).
|
| BEFORE OR AFTER VACCINATION.
|
| Every single person in that study was vaccinated, some of
| them caught covid (either before or after being
| vaccinated), some people did not catch covid at all. The
| people that were vaccinated and contracted covid fared the
| worst. There is no un-vaccinated group that caught covid
| and never took the vaccine at all in this study.
| anon291 wrote:
| When data disagree, then you need better studies. Certainly
| not blanket recommendations and requirements including
| firing people who refuse to comply and making it impossible
| to feed their families.
| russdill wrote:
| You're comparing a study with 200,000 people with a study
| with 43,000,000 people.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| And you're comparing a study that monitored for less than a
| month to one that monitored for 4 months.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Now, to balance between you and the OP: Great, Covid looks
| like it won't give me myocarditis. It can still kill me,
| though. So now we have to balance a "may give me myocarditis"
| vaccine against a "may kill me, but won't give me
| myocarditis" virus.
|
| You can't make the trade-off _solely_ on myocarditis.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Now, to balance between you and the OP
|
| Well, no. That's moving the goalpost. The question was if
| COVID was more likely to result in myocarditis than
| vaccines. "Yes, but" still grants "yes."
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > Great, Covid looks like it won't give me myocarditis. It
| can still kill me,
|
| ... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of
| other long-term health issues. If myocarditis isn't one of
| them, it doesn't really change the risk ratio.
| sfusato wrote:
| Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though?
| "... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number
| of other long-term health issues"
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though?
|
| Not at close to the same rate, no.
|
| "can" would be a technically true but entirely misleading
| word there, as the topic of conversation is the risk
| ratio. "1 in 10 chance" things can happen. "1 in a
| million chance" things can happen, also.
|
| But these two "can" usages are not the same.
|
| You should know this. You should not be playing word
| games. Do you think, falsely, that COVID vaccination it
| totally useless? If not, why imply it?
| sfusato wrote:
| So, what's the risk ratio? I haven't said that it's
| totally useless, you simply excluded that possibility as
| a given. Most countries around the world have stopped
| recommending any further boosters to those under 50/65
| years of age.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > Most countries around that world have stopped
| recommending any further boosters.
|
| What makes you say that? It doesn't sound accurate at
| all, given that Autumn booster programs are underway in
| USA, UK, EU - and those are the only ones that I have
| checked. And what are you attempting to imply?
| sfusato wrote:
| I'm not implying anything. See my earlier comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33595347
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| I also see the _late addition_ of "to those under 50/65
| years of age" in grandparent comment, which changes the
| meaning quite a bit. These countries, for many people,
| _are_ recommending further boosters.
|
| In the UK's case, the NHS "invites people 50 and over for
| autumn boosters" (1) which doesn't rule out any further
| action later for under 50s.
|
| https://www.england.nhs.uk/2022/10/nhs-invites-
| people-50-and...
| sfusato wrote:
| I've later added that "50/65 age" mention. Apologies for
| that. So, you reckon this a not important change in
| policy? I personally find it as a radical change in
| policy, almost short of an apology to be honest.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| >Not at close to the same rate, no.
|
| That is highly debatable, especially with the current
| (weaker) strains. Unless you have comorbidities or are
| otherwise in a high-risk category the chance the Covid
| will kill you is near 0.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Only if your vaxxinated. If you arent then your gonna
| die, pretty much for sure.
| sfusato wrote:
| You forgot the "may give me myocarditis (and covid might
| still kill me)" on one end of the balance though.
| bluGill wrote:
| Then we have to account for the much reduced risk of that
| though. sure it can, but relative risk is important.
| Covid when vaccinated is far more likely to kill you than
| all possible combinations of the vaccine and whatever
| else.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| > Then we have to account for the much reduced risk of
| that though
|
| I fail to see any evidence of "much reduced risk". We
| know before vaccinations existed some people died, some
| people were a-symptomatic. After mass vaccination
| campaigns, same results. Have the deaths gone down? Sure,
| but there are obvious factors, outside of vaccination,
| that are certainly contributing to that, if not wholly
| responsible for it. We know the virus has been getting
| less deadly with each new strain, we know that putting
| people on ventilators and cranking them up was 100% the
| wrong treatment. The media has largely stopped beating
| the fear drum, there are no more death counters up on the
| news stations 24/7 so people aren't freaking-the-fuck-
| out. I highly suspect you could have given out placebos
| instead and would have seen the same results.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > I fail to see any evidence of "much reduced risk".
|
| If you just do a basic per-capita analysis the reduced
| risk of death is in the range of 5-16x depending on age
| group and vaccinated or vaccinated+boosted. There are
| obviously confounding variables (do vaccinated people
| behave differently? are healthier people the ones getting
| the vaccines?) but I would argue that those numbers are a
| pretty big W for vaccines as far as risk reduction goes.
|
| And of course that is just deaths. You could certainly
| look at numbers for severity of infection or long-covid
| outcomes to further measure the efficacy of the vaccines.
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-
| compare-co...
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| >If you just do a basic per-capita analysis the reduced
| risk of death is in the range 5-16x
|
| I am not questioning that, but couldn't that 5-16x be
| contributed to the latest strains being far less deadly
| that the first few strains, much better and accessible
| treatments (monoclonal antibodies), safer hospital
| practices (not putting people on ventilators so
| quickly/easily), etc.? How can we be so sure that the
| majority of that 5-16x was from vaccination?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Because that rate of reduction is in comparison to the
| "control" group of unvaccinated people who are exposed to
| the same strains and have access to all the same
| treatments and hospital practices
| blitz_skull wrote:
| I had COVID twice, never got the vaccine (still haven't), and
| I was diagnosed with Myocarditis. I personally know 2 other
| young (< 30) males that have as well. Not "my buddy's friend"
| but first-circle of separation friends. All 3 of us got
| diagnosed with it. No other heart-related issues.
|
| I might say there's a "statistically insignificant increase",
| but to say there's no increase is just factually wrong. (And
| statistically wrong too).
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Myocarditis existed long before covid. You can get it
| without covid nor the vaccine. Your anecdote is as
| informative as my friend who got it several years before
| Covid.
| origin_path wrote:
| I'm very skeptical about their numbers.
|
| Some time in 2021 there was a story about COVID vaccines and
| heart issues here on HN. The comments filled up with people
| saying that ever since they'd got their shots they were
| experiencing new heart-related symptoms they'd never had
| previously like permanently racing heartbeats,
| palpitations/fluttering, inability to do exercise and more.
| Unfortunately I'm not sure how to re-find that discussion. I also
| have a good friend who works in IT who had a heart attack in the
| weeks after his shots, but he refused to believe that's what
| happened and never went in to get diagnosed (the symptoms were an
| exact match however).
|
| Some rough calculations indicate the numbers affected by this
| kind of (hopefully) low level heart damage seem much higher than
| claimed. They say of the "hundreds of millions" of shots there
| are only 1000 cases of diagnosed heart damage from the vaccines.
| Call it 1000/100,000,000 or one in a million. There are approx 5M
| readers of Hacker News per month, so far less per day. Of those
| only a tiny handful have accounts and post comments. If their
| numbers are right then there should be ~no HN commenters with
| post-vaccine heart problems but this thread filled up with people
| posting their own experiences of such a thing.
|
| Then there's also the other health problems. My gfs friends who
| took it have been complaining that they seem to get sick with
| colds/fluey things way more frequently since the shots, I heard
| similar complaints from a couple of old coworkers. One of those
| girls complaining of frequent sickness also reported disrupted
| menstruation but the doctors have ignored it all because as far
| as they are concerned, the vaccines are 'perfectly safe'.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I, anecdotally, can report the same. Anecdotally, it seems
| doctors are drowning in too much paperwork already to be
| bothered filing reports, as well as suffering from denial that
| this could be an issue (also preventing filing a report).
| [deleted]
| Ario5 wrote:
| As someone who experienced heart attack like symptoms as an
| under 30 year old, did go into the hospital and got a
| pericarditis[1] diagnosis, I think that describing your friends
| unknown heart condition as a heart attack is unnecessary fear
| mongering considering similar symptoms can present themselves
| as a much less severe condition. Both the Vaccine and Covid are
| known have a low chance of causing heart issues.
|
| [1]https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
| conditions/pericarditis/....
| origin_path wrote:
| I'm not a doctor, so maybe there's some deep difference
| between something that has the same symptoms as a heart
| attack and a heart attack. Regardless of what exactly it was,
| it freaked him out, it freaked me out too and I'm glad there
| doesn't seem to have been a recurrence (or if there was he
| chose not to tell me, knowing that I'd tell him again to see
| a specialist).
|
| _" Both the Vaccine and Covid are known have a low chance of
| causing heart issues."_
|
| It is 'known' by people who are deeply conflicted by their
| own pushing of the shots and could thus never admit it, if
| their policies had led to immune or heart damage. Nothing
| much can be said about vaccine safety given that the public
| health and research system are clearly terrified of doing or
| saying anything that might reduce compliance with their
| policies.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Is it possibly this discussion?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27463732
|
| There are people talking about heart palpitations or pains,
| yard to say if that's enough to say they had myocarditis
| though.
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| I posted in that thread - saw a cardiologist and they
| confirmed it. In retrospect, it was probably the worst
| illness I've ever had, being completely out of commission for
| a month at age 29, where even doing simple things like
| rolling over in bed would cause my heart rate to spike and
| cause me to be short of breath. Couldn't do anything but lay
| there. Luckily a scan confirmed no long term damage.
|
| For some reason still decided to get the third booster.. and
| I still ended up getting COVID twice (very mild both times).
| Don't think I'll be getting any more COVID vaccines.
| rozap wrote:
| Me too. A few days after the latest booster I had some really
| weird heart palpitations while resting, and I was feeling dizzy
| with chest/shoulder pain after some moderate exercise. I've
| stopped exercising which sucks, but will ease back into it. But
| there's a history of arrhythmia in my family (heart issue
| killed my dad at a young age), so that's probably a big risk
| factor, and I'm in the "young male" risk group.
|
| I don't know if I should keep getting boosters or risk a
| potentially worse outcome from covid, which I haven't had yet,
| though I've been very exposed to.
| nradov wrote:
| Unless you've been getting weekly PCR tests since the
| beginning of the pandemic, there's no way to reliably know
| that you haven't been infected. Many people experience
| asymptomatic infections.
| yonaguska wrote:
| I wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working
| against me here, but I remember reading from one of Pfizer's
| data dumps that children in the vaccinated group of their
| studies were at an increased risk of other respiratory
| infections compared to the control group.
|
| Anecdotally, some, not all, but some of my triple vaccinated
| friends are getting sick constantly and they've said that every
| time they catch covid, it gets worse. This is just a few people
| out of several that I know, so it doesn't mean much if
| anything.
| nomel wrote:
| > wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working
| against me here
|
| Bing/DuckDuckGo go is much better for anything with a
| negative vaccine sentiment. I stopped using Google
| altogether, because of the pandemic, after repeatedly
| watching news articles and research papers disappear from
| search results. I want a list, not a guided experience.
| CadmiumYellow wrote:
| Do you have any idea if this effect was found for the non-
| mRNA vaccines as well? I had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine
| with no boosters and I've been getting an unusual number of
| colds this year, though I assumed it was due to life
| returning to normal with a backlog of viruses I hadn't been
| exposed to in 2020-2021. I did get covid twice after being
| vaccinated though and both cases were very mild with the
| second being almost asymptomatic. The two days after the
| vaccine were the sickest I've been in a decade but it seems
| it did its job re: making covid milder.
| origin_path wrote:
| Officially the increased sickness effect doesn't exist at
| all. We only have these sorts of anecdotes and vaccines can
| only be discussed occasionally on HN, and not at all on
| most other forums, so notes can only be compared rarely.
|
| Unofficially the effect does exist and goes by various
| names: OAS, Hoskins Effect, immune imprinting. It can be
| seen in some of the vaccine effectiveness data back when it
| was being collected by places like the UK, where vaccinated
| people were getting COVID at 4x the rate of unvaccinated by
| the time they stopped reporting (and the rate was worsening
| with time).
|
| It can also be seen in the boosters trial data where they
| had to switch the definition of success to antibody
| production, because the boosters were not actually reducing
| infection incidence e.g. the bivalent boosters were tested
| on all of 8 mice and all 8 got COVID when exposed so
| effectiveness is zero, but that didn't stop them being
| approved on the basis that they caused production of
| antibodies (to the variant targeted by the OG vaccine, not
| Omicron).
|
| OAS unfortunately can be caused by any vaccine tech. It's
| not mRNA specific. The antibodies you produce are for the
| older extinct variants that the vaccine trained you for,
| not the current variants. The body doesn't recognize that
| there's a difference.
| iceburgcrm wrote:
| What I understand based on a study posted here is the vaccine
| reduces your bodies ability to reactive and after 9 months
| the vaccine's preventive properties disappear making you more
| likely to get sick. The more shots the worse the affect.
| chedca21 wrote:
| Pfizer's clinical trial showed 95% efficacy as a "relative
| risk reduction" when researchers checked the clinical trial
| data (which FDA wanted to withhold for 55 years but a Texas
| judge ordered its release) , for the actual risk reduction it
| was shown to be a negative value. Here is one resource on the
| subject https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-
| reductio... I tried to find a better reference but can not
| find the exact one I'm looking for which came from a Canadian
| university (ryerson I believe)
| annadane wrote:
| Lots of suspiciously downvoted comments here.
| drummer wrote:
| Here are two books everyone should read:
|
| https://archive.org/details/b2136140x
|
| https://archive.org/details/confessions-of-a-medical-heretic...
| loeg wrote:
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| > This thread is, predictably, a complete shit show. Flag and
| move on.
|
| Is there a way to counter-flag?
|
| People who are passionate about discussing some topic may get
| heated but I don't think that's a good reason for a Reddit-
| style "thread locked by mods".
| generalizations wrote:
| You can 'vouch' for the thread (or a comment), but only after
| it's been marked as flagged. Personally I think that's
| unbalanced, since flags accumulate for a longer and more
| visible period than when a thread can be vouched for.
| preordained wrote:
| Nope. Let discussion happen as it will in the cold light of
| day.
| warning26 wrote:
| Well you see, my [insert relative] had [bad thing happen] thus
| proving that [antivax talking point].
|
| I've summarized every comment in this thread to save you some
| time for your busy monday morning.
| generalizations wrote:
| Not really, unless you're only reading the threads that match
| your bias. Most of the higher-voted top-level comments are
| fairly substantial...unlike yours.
| sfusato wrote:
| Norway recommends booster doses for 65+ [0], Denmark for 50+ [1],
| Australia for 50+ [2], Sweeden for 65+ [3], Finland for 65+ [4].
| United States recommends booster does for 5+ [5]. "The (Florida)
| State Surgeon General now recommends against the COVID-19 mRNA
| vaccines for males ages 18-39 years old." [6]
|
| [0] https://www.fhi.no/en/id/vaccines/coronavirus-
| immunisation-p...
|
| [1] https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Vaccination-
| against...
|
| [2]
| https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022...
|
| [3] https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-
| agency...
|
| [4] https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/thl-recommends-
| coronavirus-...
|
| [5] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-
| up-t...
|
| [6] https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/10/...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Worth noting, the Florida Surgeon General's opinion was
| lambasted in the mainstream media as him embracing conspiracy
| theories (and there is some interesting added context there as
| to why they believe so). Which... maybe two things are true at
| once. Perhaps he was - but also, perhaps his stance is not that
| radical. Radical compared to most Surgeon Generals in the
| United States; but on an international level?
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/21/florida-c...
|
| https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2022-10-12...
|
| https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/11/medical-experts-rej...
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-pan-analysis-florid...
|
| https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/10/15/they-are-right-w...
| busymom0 wrote:
| Even the neighbouring country Canada stopped giving Moderna
| to people under 30 a year ago in September 2021. The CDC on
| the other hand is still continuing on. Clearly something is
| wrong in the US.
| justsee wrote:
| In Australia it appears they're changing public messaging
| on vaccination for <30 yrs due to increased risk of
| myocarditis and lack of notable benefits[1]:
|
| "One of the nation's top advisers on vaccination says it is
| unlikely young people under 30 will be approved for fourth
| doses, as Australia turns its attention to antiviral access
| to tackle yet another Omicron wave."
|
| "Former ATAGI co-chair and current member Professor Allen
| Cheng said the increased risk of myocarditis and the lack
| of notable benefit from additional boosters meant it was
| likely the recommended vaccine schedule for younger people
| would remain as is. Some are approaching a year since their
| booster shot."
|
| [1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-you-won-t-get-
| another-co...
| Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote:
| Canada might be our neighbor but it's wildly different from
| a population and care perspective.
| canadiantim wrote:
| Why is that the case? Moderna is good for Americans under
| 30 but not Canadians under 30?
| atlgator wrote:
| Money in politics is the problem in the US.
| serf wrote:
| it's amusing to think that US politics is the only one
| with that problem.
| atlgator wrote:
| Did anyone say that?
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| No, but then we should see more Western countries with
| money problems having the same issues.
| nomel wrote:
| It became political, causing FDA heads to resign [1] after
| threats [2]. And now, the latest booster was approved with
| no human trials at all [3].
|
| 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/2-top-fda-officials-
| resigned...
|
| 2. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/white-house-threatens-
| to-fir...
|
| 3. https://www.health.com/news/new-covid-boosters-human-
| testing...
| jjcon wrote:
| Flu shots don't require human trials either, should covid
| be all that different (genuine question) if so why?
| nomel wrote:
| Clearly, the flu shots are fairly established science
| (1945, 77 years), of a well researched virus. They're not
| a new form of vaccine delivery, pushed through on an
| emergency basis, with exclusions to testing, with legal
| protection against any damages for those exclusions, and
| 70 year trial document release plans.
|
| Could you help me understand why you think the context is
| so similar between the two?
|
| What's your opinion on members of the FDA leaving due to
| widely publicized political pressure to approve the
| vaccine? Do you think they were wrong for pushing back?
| paul wrote:
| It's both a novel virus and a novel vaccine. Without
| clinical trials we really don't know if the boosters are
| helping or hurting.
|
| Also, we should be doing clinical trials on flu shots as
| well. New drugs, even if they are only slightly different
| still require clinical trials. Why is hacking the immune
| system not subject to the same scrutiny?
| walterbell wrote:
| Flu shots were not mandated for work, study or travel.
| belltaco wrote:
| Not true.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-
| regs/vaccina...
|
| https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/most-hospitals-now-require-
| worke...
| kube-system wrote:
| All three of those are wrong in at least some
| circumstances. Several members of my family have been
| getting their mandatory flu shots for decades.
| jjcon wrote:
| Is anyone requiring boosters for work, study or travel?
| Not to my knowledge.
| koolba wrote:
| New York University (NYU) requires boosters for all
| students: https://www.nyu.edu/life/safety-health-
| wellness/coronavirus-...
| sfusato wrote:
| _Harvard requires all students to be up-to-date on their
| COVID-19 vaccinations including the bivalent Omicron-
| specific COVID-19 booster._
|
| https://www.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-
| informa...
|
| _Yale students will be required to get an updated,
| bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster by the start of the
| spring semester._
|
| https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-
| college/office-de...
|
| _Tufts University followed suit on Sept. 16, announcing
| it would require students, staff, and faculty to get the
| omicron vaccine booster by Dec. 2._
|
| https://coronavirus.tufts.edu/healthy-at-
| tufts/covid-19-vacc...
| pandeiro wrote:
| University of California
|
| "With this recommendation, the UC Vaccine policy now
| requires all staff and students to get the bivalent
| booster, when eligible"
|
| [1] https://campusready.ucdavis.edu/covid-vaccination
| Grim-444 wrote:
| Flu shots also use a vaccine mechanism that's been
| known/used for decades and is not a first of its kind in
| history mRNA treatment. I feel like this difference would
| lead towards one requiring more testing than the other,
| at least in a rational society.
|
| [Edit] For anyone that wants to downvote this, please
| explain what I said that was untrue. Flu shots in the US
| have never been mRNA based. Covid shots in the US are
| mRNA based. Before covid, there was never at any point in
| history an mRNA based vaccine rolled out to the public.
| cthalupa wrote:
| It is a rare but known side effect of even regular flu
| vaccines causing myocarditis, e.g.
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786665/
|
| >The true incidence of myocarditis after influenza
| vaccination may be underestimated because of the
| subclinical and nonspecific clinical manifestations of
| myocarditis. A prospective study about the incidence of
| cardiovascular adverse events after smallpox and
| influenza vaccination revealed that the rate of clinical
| or subclinical myocarditis and pericarditis after
| smallpox vaccination was approximately 1:5,500, despite
| the fact that the rate of troponin elevation was 1:200
| [9]. Similarly, 2.6% of the influenza vaccine cohort
| showed new onset cardiac symptoms, such as chest pain,
| dyspnea, and palpitation, but no case of clinical or
| subclinical myocarditis and pericarditis
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I didn't downvote you but if the 12 billion or so COVID
| vaccine doses issued world wide don't convince you that
| the vaccine is statistically safe, at least as safe as
| something as common as paracetamol or aspirin, then what
| amount of testing would convince you?
| yonaguska wrote:
| It doesn't convince me because I do not know anyone
| personally that has had an adverse reaction to aspirin,
| that didn't also overdose on it. Meanwhile, I know
| several people that have had adverse reactions to the
| vaccine ranging from issues with periods, to heart
| problems, to death.
|
| No one is seriously tracking the adverse reactions, we've
| handed that off to the companies that produced the
| vaccines. And doctors are afraid to or don't care to
| raise concerns either. The vaccines are as statistically
| safe for me as COVID is for my age and health profile.
| And the vaccine makes no guarantee that I won't still
| catch COVID. Why would I double my risk when I've caught
| COVID, and it was nothing for me.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| So why are the companies in the article researching the
| risks if according to you there clearly are no risks? Do
| you know better than the manufacturers?
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Please try to keep the level of discussion one step above
| junior school. Otherwise there is no point in us
| communicating further.
|
| I didn't say there are no risks but those risks must
| necessarily be very low, as otherwise with a sample size
| of billions of doses issued even effects in the 1 in a
| million would be readily identifiable.
| pandeiro wrote:
| Re: 'the level of discussion'
|
| What you posted was condescending and demonstrative of a
| large blindspot as to the degree of adverse event
| surveillance actually being carried out.
|
| Hope that helps you achieve the tone of discussion you're
| aiming for, in the future.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Right, so you already have all the answers, it's a big
| mystery why the manufacturers are doing this research. A
| big mystery to you, that is.
|
| Indeed there is no point in communicating further, you
| made up your mind years ago and you will probably never
| progress beyond repeating the old talking points. Luckily
| most of the rest of the world has started to see reality
| is a bit more nuanced than 'COVID is doom, vaccine is
| good'.
| serf wrote:
| >..risks must necessarily be very low, as otherwise with
| a sample size of billions of doses issued even effects in
| the 1 in a million would be readily identifiable.
|
| it's by no means easy to identify trends that are worth
| pursuing for a medical investigation in a varied cohort
| of a billion people, and poll size is only a single
| attribute -- this is made even harder during a vacination
| campaign that is trying to effectively drive the un-
| vaccinated rates to as close to 0% as possible, making
| comparative studies even more difficult to establish.
|
| Time/race/status/age/health all matter. You can't just
| take a look at what conditions that the billions of
| vaccinated share, that's ineffective for any kind of
| impact study.
|
| It's my opinion that any 'precise' data is going to come
| about in years and years once we can establish a
| generational gap between this event and others so that we
| can effectively create a cross-generational comparative
| study.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I agree with you that measuring precisely whether the
| vaccine was beneficial for 15 year olds or not is
| difficult.
|
| However, at the same time we have people in sibling
| comments claiming to know multiple people with conditions
| ranging from changes to their menstrual cycle to death.
| This can't possibly be related to the vaccine at anything
| like the rate people are for some reason inclined to
| believe.
|
| Personally I found the effects from the 3rd booster
| almost as bad as COVID itself so I'm unlikely to get
| another unless there is a compelling reason.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I don't think that's true and it's not that hard to find
| out https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-
| health...
|
| > Approved for:
|
| > Primary series in individuals age 6 months and older, or
| as a booster dose in individuals age 18 years and older
| (Moderna Spikevax(r) COVID-19 vaccine)
|
| > As a booster dose in individuals age 18 years and older
| (Moderna Spikevax(r) Bivalent COVID-19 vaccine
| (Original/Omicron B.1.1.529 (BA.1))
|
| > As a booster dose in individuals age 18 years and older
| (Moderna Spikevax(r) Bivalent COVID-19 vaccine
| (Original/Omicron BA.4/5)
| wwweston wrote:
| There's a lot of daylight between "recommendations for some
| higher age groups, no recommendation for lower age groups"
| and "recommendation against for lower age groups." The
| international recommendations cited above seem to be in the
| former category. Florida's recommendations seem to be in the
| latter. This might make them an outlier.
|
| Whether it makes them conspiracy theorists is another matter.
| If their position is sound, well, sound positions can be
| embraced for sound or unsound reasons. If their position is
| unsound, of course it will be for unsound reasons. So whether
| they're _called_ conspiracy theorists matters much less than
| their reasons.
|
| What are their reasons? They appear to cite a large
| _relative_ increase in myocarditis risk in younger men. A
| statistically literate response would involve asking what the
| absolute increase is... and the proper place to reckon with
| relative comparison would be vs the unvaccinated infected:
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-.
| ..
|
| I would _absolutely_ recommend anyone wondering about a
| specific vaccination consult with a doctor or two (I do this
| and have had a certain class of vaccines contraindicated).
| But no red flags from medical pros on this one for me, and
| personally, even as a man outside the high-risk age groups, I
| can 't remotely see a reason for _assuming_ myocarditis would
| be a reason for avoiding the vaccine. As far as I can tell,
| it 's almost on the order of your lifetime chance of being
| struck by lightning, and the chance of developing myocarditis
| from infection is significantly higher.
| adolph wrote:
| Is someone a conspiracy theorist if they conjecture about
| conspiracies or because they conspire with others to
| promote a theory?
| boppo1 wrote:
| The former. The latter would be a theory conspiracist.
| francisduvivier wrote:
| Have you read this exception in the link you posted:
|
| - "with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second
| dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of
| myocarditis followingvaccination. The Pfizer and Moderna
| mRNA vaccines are available in the U.S." I'd say it's worth
| a mention.
|
| But then it's also quite an unfair comparison if you
| compare the all the vaccinated against a filtered group of
| unvaccinated people.
| jjcon wrote:
| And yet despite that these countries have much much higher
| rates of booster vaccination than the USA does (not to mention
| there are dozens of other countries not listed in your comment
| with similar policies to the USA). I think this has more to do
| with how the health agencies in these countries choose to
| communicate than anything else; that is I don't think the
| wording and nuance of all recommendations can be directly
| compared so easily.
|
| Norway: 70% Boosted
|
| Denmark: 63% Boosted
|
| Australia:56% Boosted
|
| Sweden: 71% Boosted
|
| Finland: 74% Boosted
|
| USA: 34% Boosted
|
| SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-
| vaccina...
| veeti wrote:
| These numbers are wrong for Finland. Source:
| https://yle.fi/news/3-11863045
| jjcon wrote:
| I'm seeing 72.4 from your source (last updated just over a
| month ago) vs 74% from the NYT. I'm guessing your source is
| just slightly older?
|
| +1.6% in the past month seems reasonable to me
| rsj_hn wrote:
| A lot of this has to do with social trust and politicization.
| For a number of reasons, going back to the early days of
| Tuskeegee syphilis studies, public health in the U.S. is
| viewed by large portions of the public as imperious, corrupt,
| unaccountable, beholden to big business and/or utopian
| ideologies, and is generally viewed with suspicion by many on
| the left and on the right. African Americans have the lowest
| vaccination rates by race.
|
| But this is across the board. Prior to covid, for example,
| the ground zero for anti-vaccination movements was Marin
| County, California -- one of the most liberal counties in the
| nation, where only 50% of students in some schools were given
| smallpox/measles vaccines and there were outbreaks as a
| result.
|
| Given this environment, American public health authorities
| should recognize their credibility gaps and embark on a
| program of transparency, consistency, accountability, and
| humility.
|
| Unfortunately this is the exact opposite of their behavior.
| There remains deep ties between public health agencies and
| large pharmaceutical companies, public health officials
| continue to invest in and hold patents owned by companies
| that fall under their purview, there is still a revolving
| door between the two, there is very little transparency, no
| accountability for funding research in foreign labs to skirt
| US safety rules and congressional restrictions, public health
| officials were widely photographed in meetings without
| wearing masks (surrounded by masked servants), and they adopt
| imperious tones demanding draconian punishments for
| deviations from policy as well as calling for censorship of
| their critics. Fauci's declaration that "I am the science" is
| an example of this imperious attitude, which is frankly
| disastrous.
|
| Until there is real reform, the U.S. is going to maintain a
| huge credibility gap vis-a-vis other nations, which will make
| public health efforts that much harder here, and will also
| lower long term public health outcomes.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| It's interesting the narratives you hear with regards to
| antivaxxers.
|
| My sister is vegan and is in many vegan, all-natural, etc
| Facebook groups. She told me there's a lot of overlap of
| people there and people who chose not take the COVID
| vaccine.
|
| One of her best friends is a teacher in Canada from
| Trinidad; she grew up without vaccines and similarly never
| gave her child the COVID vaccine
|
| These two examples just seemed very different than the
| typical "antivaxxer" I hear about. Although it still seems
| premature to call someone who only doesn't take the first
| mainstream mRNA vaccine an antivaxxer.
| detaro wrote:
| At least the former has been a common stereotype with
| other vaccines too. (and people I know who are into yoga
| have generally complained that there's a lot of
| influencers peddling various "natural" cures and
| conspiracy theories there)
| dahfizz wrote:
| Before covid, I think the "hippy dippy" vegan,
| naturepath, yogi stereotype was associated most strongly
| with anti vaxxers.
|
| Covid was politicized, and so it became a right wing
| stereotype to not want the vaccine. But specifically the
| covid vaccine. I don't think most right wing anti-covid-
| vaxxers are anti vax in general.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Although it still seems premature to call someone who
| only doesn't take the first mainstream mRNA vaccine an
| antivaxxer.
|
| Non-mRNA COVID vaccines do exist.
| sfusato wrote:
| Is that counting the 1st booster? These policy changes came
| after the 1st booster.
| jjcon wrote:
| > Is that counting the 1st booster? These policy changes
| came after the 1st booster.
|
| Yes it is counting any booster after primary 2 doses -
| which policy changes specifically? Most of these countries
| have been relatively consistent in their approach to
| boosters.
| sfusato wrote:
| They stopped recommending further boosters to younger
| people after the 1st booster. These 50+ or 65+ only
| recommendations are rather recent. That's all I'm saying.
| You would need to account only from the 2nd booster
| onwards basically.
| jjcon wrote:
| > They stopped recommending further boosters to younger
| people after the 1st booster.
|
| Which country(s) specifically changed their guidance
| about boosters after the 1st booster was released? Again
| I'm not aware of large swings in policy in most of these
| countries. Some aren't recommending 4th doses yet but I
| don't think any have changed policies about boosters
| after the fact.
| bonzini wrote:
| Almost all European countries (perhaps all?) have changed
| policies about _further_ boosters. For example in Italy
| the first booster was recommended to everyone and
| required to prolong the validity of the vaccination
| certificate, but the second (Omicron specific) is only
| recommended to the same categories for which the flu
| vaccine is recommended yearly.
| piva00 wrote:
| At least in Sweden the policy regarding booster after the
| 3rd shot has changed [1]:
|
| > Adults
|
| > For adults aged 18-64, the recommendation for three
| doses of the vaccinate remains in force. But anyone who
| wants to receive an additional booster dose, dose 4, may
| do so in the autumn of 2022. 65 plus and risk groups
|
| > An additional booster dose of the Covid-19 vaccine is
| recommended for the autumn and winter 2022/23 for adults
| aged 65 years or over, as well as people aged 18 or over
| who are in an at-risk group. This recommendation is valid
| from 1 September 2022 and covers everyone who is at an
| increased risk of serious Covid -19 disease.
|
| [1] https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-
| risks/disaster...
| jjcon wrote:
| That is still recommending boosters 18+ though, its only
| clarifying for additional doses beyond 3rd doses - they
| didn't change their recommendation for boosters after the
| fact.
| benevol wrote:
| origin_path wrote:
| In fairness UK conservative media have been reporting on it
| (Spectator, Telegraph). But it's being blamed on lockdowns
| and NHS collapse. That might be true; not all countries have
| excess deaths and it's a bit unclear to what extent the
| effect is real. It depends a lot on how you model the
| baseline.
| hadlock wrote:
| Which countries do not have excess deaths 2020-20201?
| China, Australia, NZ might be on that list as they were
| pretty good about keeping the virus out but I'm curious if
| you know of any others. That's a wide claim, that not all
| countries have excess deaths
| origin_path wrote:
| We were talking about in 2022 but I see now that the
| original comment is flagged, sigh.
| mikysco wrote:
| The obvious explanation for other country's vaccine
| recommendations is based in data. COVID kills the elderly (75+)
| who are more likely to be battling multiple negative health
| conditions beyond COVID.
|
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsoverti...
| thrown_22 wrote:
| > The obvious explanation for other country's vaccine
| recommendations is based in data. COVID kills the elderly
| (75+) who are more likely to be battling multiple negative
| health conditions beyond COVID.
|
| That something so obvious was enough to get you labeled a
| conspiracy theorist and banned off all major social media for
| close to two years has set back trust in science by decades.
| walterbell wrote:
| No, those countries initially gave the Covid injections to
| all adults, then altered their recommendations to exclude
| some young adults, based on post-vaccine adverse events.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-
| mode...
|
| _> Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna 's COVID-19
| vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare
| cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in
| limiting its use._
|
| https://www.fox19.com/2021/10/07/some-european-countries-
| sus...
|
| _> All three countries based their decision on an
| unpublished study with Sweden's Public Health Agency saying
| that it signals "an increased risk of side effects such as
| inflammation of the heart muscle or the pericardium" -- the
| double-walled sac containing the heart and the roots of the
| main vessels. It added: "The risk of being affected is very
| small."_
| nicoburns wrote:
| They haven't changed the advice for the initial 2 doses.
| They have given different advice for additional booster
| doses. Which, per there own guidance seems to be largely
| because people already have immunity (either through
| vaccination or infection), and younger populations are not
| considered to require additional immunity.
|
| For example, from the second link above (Denmark):
|
| > Why are people aged under 50 not to be re-vaccinated?
|
| > The purpose of the vaccination programme is to prevent
| severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Therefore,
| people at the highest risk of becoming severely ill will be
| offered booster vaccination. The purpose of vaccination is
| not to prevent infection with covid-19, and people aged
| under 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster
| vaccination.
|
| > People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly
| higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In
| addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected
| against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very
| large number of them have already been vaccinated and have
| previously been infected with covid-19, and there is
| consequently good immunity among this part of the
| population.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| In the Netherlands the Moderna vaccine is not used for
| younger groups. I think the cutoff is 40.
|
| Anyone over 12 can get vaccinated and get a booster, but it
| will be the Pfizer vaccine.
| [deleted]
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| > He had known something was wrong: Then 22, he...
|
| When you see 22 combined with the themes of coronavirus and heart
| problems, rest assured, you're reading another piece of
| subliminal NLP.
|
| A link for the _really_ openminded:
|
| https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message4808522/pg1
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-14 23:01 UTC)