[HN Gopher] Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after ...
___________________________________________________________________
Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-
CoV-2-vaccination
Author : Octokiddie
Score : 285 points
Date : 2022-12-15 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (link.springer.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (link.springer.com)
| puffoflogic wrote:
| colechristensen wrote:
| I don't know if you're joking or not.
| prvc wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
| chomp wrote:
| Based on their comment history, they are trolling.
| tux3 wrote:
| Assuming the post is irony, is this what you'd call a false
| flag? :)
| echelon wrote:
| Everything should be open for research, and that shouldn't be
| political. I took the vaccine, but I'd like for more research
| to be done.
|
| This journal has an impact factor of 5, too, so they're not
| terrible.
| chedca21 wrote:
| But wait 15 minutes to see if your child gets anaphylaxis from
| them. We could have tested for allergy before giving the
| vaccine but its more convenient to have you wait around after.
|
| Don't worry if you experience allergic shock we have
| epinephrine on standby. It might not work and its use is
| associated with Alzheimer's onset but don't worry! Safe and
| effective!
| thewizardofaus wrote:
| "But wait 15 minutes to see if your child gets anaphylaxis
| from them. We could have tested for allergy before giving the
| vaccine but its more convenient to have you wait around
| after."
|
| The waiting period of 15 minutes after a vaccine has always
| been recommended. It's standard medical recommendation and
| safety.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| These type of complaints has actually been really
| enlightening for me regarding how many people can't even be
| bothered to get the flu vaccine or their tetanus shots.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I got a tetanus shot a year ago and they didn't ask me to
| wait around afterwards. They just handed me the paperwork
| and showed me the door (this was after they had already
| stitched me up.)
|
| I see the CDC website says that a 15 minute wait after
| getting a tetanus shot is recommended due to a fainting
| risk. But I bet this is not widely observed. I surmise
| they had already judged me to not be a fainting risk,
| since I didn't faint when they were sewing me.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The CDC discusses anaphylaxis as a possible side effect
| of the tetanus shot too[1]. It would seem the difference
| between the two is an adherence to protocol as opposed to
| risk profiles.
|
| According to the CDC the rate of anaphylaxis is
| incredibly low with the COVID shot[2].
|
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-
| recs/adve... [2]
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm
| [deleted]
| moralestapia wrote:
| >6 researchers from an established medical institution in
| Germany, publishing a study on a reputable journal
|
| >a bunch of stochastic terrorists
|
| What an interesting way to see the world. /s
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| Remember that time when everyone called you a conspiracy theorist
| if you mentioned that mRNA vaccines were inducing myocarditis in
| some individuals.
|
| Remember how they've been wrong about everything. Trust your
| instincts. Ignore propagandabots.
| estewart wrote:
| The last paragraph in the article literally indicates there is no
| causal relationship or proof of any direct link between the
| vaccination and myocarditis.
|
| > "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a
| direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."
| jerkstate wrote:
| But we know for certain that they were all very safe drivers /s
| manwe150 wrote:
| Just curious, but are you referring to the recent Canadian
| study that showed people who self-selected for vaccination
| may also be associated with being safer drivers? https://www.
| amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltex...
| sfusato wrote:
| There's a good take on this study here:
| https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-had-
| more-...
| puffoflogic wrote:
| TL;DR: The study is fraudulent as it didn't normalize for
| distance or time driving, which has a extremely strong
| correlation to traffic fatalities. What the study
| actually found is that the unvaccinated drive more, and
| reporting it the other way was intentional fraud.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It's also important to note that although they looked at 35
| autopsies for people who died in the period after vaccination,
| only 4 of them had signs of myocarditis. 10 of them had very
| clearly unrelated causes of death (e.g. pre-existing
| conditions, easily identifiable external causes). I don't think
| people realize just how frequent death, including unexplained
| death, can be when you're looking at population-level sample
| sizes:
|
| > In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we
| identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another
| significant disease or health constellation that may have
| caused an unexpected death.
|
| They found some interesting clues that suggest it _might_ be
| related to accidental intravascular injection:
|
| > Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in
| the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream
| derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at
| least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular
| vaccine injection may be contributive.
| jamespo wrote:
| Very few of the instant commenters read the study first it
| seems.
| ada1981 wrote:
| Haters will say it's GPT-3ed.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| It states that _they cannot provide_ a definitive proof or a
| causal link, not that there isn 't one.
| giarc wrote:
| As we say in epidemiology (and other fields), absence of
| evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
| ngvrnd wrote:
| but it is somewhat suggestive of absence.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| No, it really doesn't suggest anything either way.
| nulld3v wrote:
| The study does suggest there might be a causal relationship. It
| is not able to provide definitive proof however.
| hammock wrote:
| The study also states:
|
| > In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-SARS-
| CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several considerations: (A) a
| close temporal relation to vaccination; all cases were found
| dead within one week after vaccination, (B) absence of any
| other significant pre-existing heart disease, especially
| ischaemic heart disease or cardiomyopathy, (C) negative testing
| for potential myocarditis-causing infectious agents, (D)
| presence of a peculiar CD4 predominant T-cell infiltrate,
| suggesting an immune mediated mechanism
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > In general, a causal link between myocarditis and anti-
| SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is supported by several
| considerations: (A) a close temporal relation to vaccination;
| all cases were found dead within one week after
| vaccination...
|
| > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had
| died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2
| vaccination.
|
| This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked them
| specifically for that, it can't be evidence of something. If
| they selected 25 people who died of myocarditis _regardless_
| of vaccination status or recency, and all 25 turned out to
| have been recently vaccinated, _that_ would be scary data.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| The two things that stand out to me.
|
| From published articles in the JAMA; vaccination related
| myocarditis in young men has much lower mortality and
| morbidity than from other causes. So were really talking
| about two different things here.
|
| The second is rates of myocarditis after vaccination and
| the population base rate aren't the same thing either. The
| base rate one assumes includes cases triggered by
| something. So the base rate incorporates the rate of
| triggering events. So these rates are also not the same
| thing.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >This is a weird way of demonstrating a link. They picked
| them specifically for that, it can't be evidence of
| something. If they selected 25 people who died of
| myocarditis regardless of vaccination status or recency,
| and all 25 turned out to have been recently vaccinated,
| that would be scary data.
|
| It's perfectly valid as an idea, although a lot of
| statistical work would need to be done to show that it
| wasn't just happenstance and/or rule out other causes. But
| a link, sure.
|
| Consider a depoliticized example: you do 30 autopsies on
| people who had recently been to a particular location,
| let's say a certain grocery store in town. Enough people go
| to this grocery store that it's not uncommon for way more
| than 30 recent visitors to be dead unexpectedly by random
| chance. Further, let's say in the general population, a
| tiny fraction of people die of a certain food-borne
| illness. You have a pretty good guess what that fraction
| is.
|
| You do these autopsies and you find that 5 of the people
| died of this food-borne illness. Much higher than the
| proportion in the population. Now, you have a lot of
| additional work to do before you prove that something at
| the store is causing high rates of the illness: check on
| comorbidities, other correlated factors, plenty still to be
| done. But, have you established a potential link? Sure. And
| you picked them specifically because they died after going
| to this store.
|
| Also, your idea can work too, also with appropriate
| statistical work, experimental design, all that. Yours is
| perhaps a bit better suited to answering a question like:
| of those who die of myocarditis, what proportion have been
| recently vaccinated? While a proper study the way the
| authors did is more like: of those who are recently
| vaccinated and die unexpectedly, what proportion have
| myocarditis? Both are valid questions and both certainly
| get at aspects of the link between the vaccine and
| myocarditis.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Consider a depoliticized example: you do 30 autopsies
| on people who had recently been to a particular location,
| let's say a certain grocery store in town. Enough people
| go to this grocery store that it's not uncommon for way
| more than 30 recent visitors to be dead unexpectedly by
| random chance. Further, let's say in the general
| population, a tiny fraction of people die of a certain
| food-borne illness. You have a pretty good guess what
| that fraction is.
|
| It's not just "pick 30 recently dead who went to the
| store", though.
|
| You've picked 30 people who died after eating at the
| grocery store's salad bar, and used that as evidence that
| the salad bar is dangerous, without checking how many
| _skipped_ the salad bar and died anyways.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >You've picked 30 people who died after eating at the
| grocery store's salad bar, and used that as evidence that
| the salad bar is dangerous, without checking how many
| skipped the salad bar and died anyways.
|
| The answer to this question would also be socially and
| politically relevant and warrant its own study. But that
| doesn't make the author's study unsound or unable to
| serve as evidence, like you said.
| krona wrote:
| The causal link (direct or otherwise, does it really matter to
| most people) between vaccination and myocarditis has been
| established elsewhere and acknowledged by the CDC.
| colechristensen wrote:
| "we cannot provide" is very different from "there is no"
|
| It is extremely important, the distinction between these two.
|
| Claiming something doesn't exist requires careful extensive
| statistics, this study didn't do that, they're saying it out
| loud.
| phkahler wrote:
| But in the intro: >> Thus, myocarditis can be a potentially
| lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2
| vaccination.
|
| I would assume that means there is something going on.
|
| To your point, medical researchers are IMHO kind of bad at
| accepting reality if they don't have a complete understanding.
| So if data show death by specific cause after vaccination, they
| will reject that conclusion if there is no proven mechanism for
| it. Rather than critique the study, they simply demand more
| information than anyone has.
| layman51 wrote:
| That's not what it says. I will give you an example. Before the
| 1980s or so when the first serious studies on second-hand smoke
| exposure were conducted, anybody could have also written that
| "we cannot provide a definitive causal link between second-hand
| smoke and lung cancer." Today, it is common sense.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| No, it's not common sense. It's science, proven over decades
| and presented to people in an understandable way so that were
| willing to adopt it as a belief they hold.
|
| Common sense nonsense: You can fall off the edge of the world
| You should put ice on burns We only use 10% of our brain
| canadiantim wrote:
| I'm surprised this sort of post is even allowed to be discussed
| dontwearitout wrote:
| whatshisface wrote:
| Myocarditis is rare and has been a part of the discussion from
| even before the vaccines were released, or at least the
| professional discussion. They were why the vaccines were not
| recommended for all ages to begin with.
| gfodor wrote:
| The vaccines were and still are mandated for people not at
| risk of severe disease, and myocarditis has been framed as a
| side effect not worth worrying about despite the fact that it
| literally can kill you. Not to mention without understanding
| the mechanism of action, we cannot estimate the number of
| true deaths that occurred without a myocarditis diagnosis.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > Besides pneumonia, myocarditis is another manifestation
| reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24].
|
| I mean, your point only makes sense if you ignore that
| COVID causes the same myocarditis and ignore that the
| vaccine has been proven to reduce severity and duration of
| symptoms. This study was of 5 autopsies, unless you can
| prove this was incredibly widespread concern I don't
| understand why you think it would be better people get
| COVID.
|
| On a slightly different note I find it incredibly funny how
| the refrain was "they died with COVID, not from", but now
| it's "they died because of the vaccine, not with".
| gfodor wrote:
| The data on myocarditis has been clear and significant
| for quite some time: 1 in approximately 5000 young men
| under 40 by shot two. Without a full understanding of the
| underlying mechanism of action, we can't be that
| confident of number of deaths due to the vaccine, but
| given the size of the deployed population and the
| recurrent nature of the shots it's not unreasonable to
| think we killed tens of thousands of people with them.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > it's not unreasonable to think we killed tens of
| thousands of people with them.
|
| It's not unreasonable to think otherwise as well given
| that it was a rare occurrence and typically mild. Also,
| there were no young men in this study. "Median age at
| death was 58 years (range 46-75 years)", so you're
| drawing your own conclusions without data here.
| gfodor wrote:
| I'm not drawing conclusions - you invented that claim.
| The data I'm referring to is available in several other
| studies, with regards to estimated myocarditis rates in
| young men. But if you agree with me that it's not
| unreasonable to think that is the scope of fatalities, I
| would urge you to integrate that new prior into things
| like the ethics of mandating this drug for college.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > it's not unreasonable to think we killed tens of
| thousands of people with them.
|
| I mean, what is this if not a conclusion you're trying to
| draw?
| gfodor wrote:
| Saying it's not unreasonable means there is some
| significant probability that we may ultimately determine
| this to be the case. The conclusion is about the range of
| probabilities, not the actual state of reality. But
| probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like
| mandating kids take this drug to go to college.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > there is some significant probability that we may
| ultimately determine this to be the case
|
| I still don't see proof of that.
|
| > But probabilities matter when you are deploying
| policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to
| college.
|
| Again, this study doesn't involve "kids".
| gfodor wrote:
| You already implies you agree with my claim about it not
| being unreasonable when you said "as well." I guess you
| retract that?
|
| And again: this study is just one of many studies that
| have lead to my prior. The rate of myocarditis is well
| established, the population size is well established, the
| open question is the fatality rate. The unreasonable part
| comes from putting a lower bound on the death rate based
| on some assumptions around these studies which have done
| autopsies and the estimates on subclinical heart
| interactions from the drug. There are several studies on
| all of these things. The back of the napkin math to me is
| on the order of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > You already implies you agree with my claim about it
| not being unreasonable when you said "as well." I guess
| you retract that?
|
| Yes, I was trying to show polite respect for your point
| and not actually endorse it, but to be clear, I don't
| believe there is enough evidence to assume that tens of
| thousands of young people died, especially not with this
| article, and especially when you consider that the
| acknowledged gap in your knowledge is the fatality rate.
| chomp wrote:
| I know of a few people who have opted to not get the
| vaccine. One lost his wife. Still not vaccinated. You might
| need some more qualifiers for the word "mandated."
|
| Myocarditis is a side effect not worrying about because you
| have the same or greater chance of getting it if you get
| infected with COVID: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/1
| 0.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....
|
| It's also really really rare in both cases.
| gfodor wrote:
| The US executive branch attempted to make it so that your
| unvaccinated friend had to choose between taking the
| vaccine or being able to work at most companies.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > about despite the fact that it literally can kill you.
|
| There are many many things that can literally kill you.
| Heck, even anosmia can literally kill you under the right
| circumstances.
|
| What matters is the total number of vaccine-related
| myocarditis cases, and the total number of vaccine-related
| myocarditis death balanced with the number of covid
| related-death (including Covid-induced fatal myocarditis,
| because the virus itself has this effect), that's how you
| get a cost-benefit analysis.
| gfodor wrote:
| False, the idea that pure net deaths is the only way to
| think about all that happened is the common thread that
| people have been clinging to for far too long. It is time
| to wake up, and remember principles of bioethics, the
| risk of authoritarian coercive forces, and the nature of
| dehumanization campaigns. You do not mandate rapidly
| formulated, under-tested, frontier technology emergency
| drugs for all humans to work and live _especially_ once
| there is evidence they may have a consistent mechanism of
| action that can cause sudden death, and especially once
| you learn the risk from the disease is highly dependent
| upon demographics and other comorbitities in a way risk
| from this side effect isn't.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Sorry to annoy you with the basics of public health
| policy.
|
| And the cost-benefit analysis being different for
| different age classes and comorbidity is exactly the
| reason why the vaccines was slowly expanded to larger
| demographics after starting with the most vulnerable
| people.
|
| In fact, the side effects of the vaccine have been much
| more thoroughly tracked than many pollutants that are
| routinely introduced in everybody's life and which
| somehow never trigger such a reaction from you others who
| care so much about all this when it comes to vaccines.
| The amount of hazardous material that are being put in
| everything from food to cosmetics or kids' toys is
| appalling, but all you guys have to complain about is
| vaccines... You claim to care about under-tested frontier
| technology, but somehow aren't bothered with sunscreen or
| bisphenol S, why is that?
| manwe150 wrote:
| We can estimate from excess death statistics that this is
| basically a non-risk for most people. Unlike getting ill
| with COVID, which we can also estimate from excess death
| statistics is a notable risk factor for most people.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Young people were at extremely low risk from covid. It is
| entirely possible that the vaccine killed more people
| than it saved under a certain age. It is not certain but
| it is plausible as the covid deaths for young people were
| so low.
| gfodor wrote:
| I agree with my sibling here is that your confidence is
| misplaced that we did not kill many teenagers
| unnecessarily.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Anything that gets your immune system going can trigger an
| autoimmune crisis, including, you guessed it viruses -
| which also use RNA to cause your cells to produce spike
| proteins, by the way.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Very true. And it's probably impossible to get an
| accurate count of the young people who fall into the
| following groups.
|
| unvaccinated and got COVID-induced myocarditis
|
| vaccinated and got COVID-induced myocarditis
|
| vaccinated and got vaccine-induced myocarditis
|
| vaccinated and no myocarditis
|
| unvaccinated and no myocarditis
|
| Am I missing any groups?
| devmunchies wrote:
| > Myocarditis is rare
|
| In absolute terms, yes. But relative to other vaccines, it's
| much more common.
|
| I also read that the chances are like 1 in a million per dose
| (not the right number, you get the point) but since its _per
| dose_ your chances are actually like 1 in 40,000 after 3-4
| doses.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Eventually there aren't enough fingers to plug all the holes in
| the dike.
| anotheraccount9 wrote:
| N is too small (but that's fine). The study is surely opening up
| an interesting window for future research.
|
| Could it be a side effect of (accidental) intravenous injections,
| leading to a more pronounced immune reaction?
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| _Overall, autopsy findings indicated death due to acute
| arrhythmogenic cardiac failure._
|
| Arrhythmia can be an indicator you need zinc.
|
| _Proatherogenic factors, released during Zn deficiency, increase
| the incidence of arrhythmias, strokes, CM, and many other CV
| system pathologies_
|
| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.68607...
|
| Prior discussion with a researcher points to zinc as significant
| wrt covid.
| seydor wrote:
| Regardless of any possible danger of vaccination, one has to also
| consider that vaccination doesnt prevent infection, which is
| important. As more studies come to light it s becoming evident
| that Covid damages our bodies in many ways, even with mild
| infections, it weakens our immune systems and the damage is
| cumulative every time we catch it. We should be preventing
| infections , with measures that are appropriate, instead of
| trying to mitigate the symptoms as we do with vaccines.
| librish wrote:
| A question for vaccine skeptics:
|
| For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine
| wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death / complications
| from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from
| covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid?
|
| There seems to be a lot of "aha I knew it" whenever any side-
| effect of the vaccine is found, but aren't the side-effects of
| covid well established, on average more severe, and much more
| common?
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Everyone got the vaccine and everyone still got covid. you have
| to get the vaccine and then covid and then more vaccine and
| then more Covid and you're saying it's clear to you what the
| benefit risk is in this jumble of vaccinations and Covid
| vaccines really you know what it is you're sure you read the
| paper of the research it's out there for everyone to just look
| at?
| ren_engineer wrote:
| >For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the
| vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death /
| complications from the vaccine against the risk of death /
| complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting
| covid?
|
| a huge chunk of the population already got covid during the
| entire year no vaccine existed and have natural immunity, so
| that's not really a factor at this point. The risk of getting
| covid for them is already baked into the calculation because
| they got it when there was no other option. They can now decide
| whether the additional risk of the vaccine is worth it
|
| you can't even make the case for mandates based on "stopping
| the spread" anymore because the vaccines failed at that as
| well, so it's no longer a public health issue and becomes a
| personal health decision. Or at least it should be
| acdha wrote:
| > a huge chunk of the population already got covid during the
| entire year no vaccine existed and have natural immunity, so
| that's not really a factor at this point.
|
| The new variants are effective at evading immunity from
| earlier variants so, no, that's not moot. Even without
| evasion you'd still need to consider how quickly immunity
| wanes, too. The vaccines are holding up well for avoiding
| hospitalization but you're still looking at multiple per year
| given how much COVID has been mutating.
|
| https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-new-covid-wave
| seydor wrote:
| > during the entire year no vaccine existed and have natural
| immunity,
|
| That's not true anymore. Recent variants dont induce a lot of
| immunity that s why reinfections are common. In fact the
| opposite is true in some cases
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841
|
| That said, the vaccines don't prevent infection either
| gfodor wrote:
| Depends on who and when. The idea of vaccinating my young kids
| in late 2022 is an absurd proposition to me personally - and if
| the state mandated it, we would leave. This will change once we
| understand what is happening with these fatalities and correct
| it.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| According to my governments stats, the COVID-19 hospitalization
| rate for my age + health cohort, when modestly adjusted for
| their known undercount of cases, is less than 1 in 3000.
|
| Also by their stats, more than 1 in 2000 4-dose mRNA vaccine
| series have resulted in a serious adverse event reported by a
| health professional.
|
| Then, factoring in the additional risk of acquiescing bodily
| autonomy to an opaque bureaucracy -- considering what herding
| behaviors have been blatantly manufactured over the last few
| years, and the conflicting interests involved.
|
| I think declining is a very reasonable choice.
| librish wrote:
| What constitutes a 'serious adverse event' in this data? Do
| you mind linking the source? Having a 1 in 3000 chance of
| getting so sick you need to be hospitalized seems quite bad.
| manwe150 wrote:
| In case they don't answer, I would guess they are referring
| to VAERS data, and some random guy who once claimed it
| underreports everything by 40x. This is not logistically
| plausible (where would you hide 40x more patients than
| expected arriving at hospitals?), and I have seen some
| recent studies suggest that the underreporting factor is
| actually <1x (meaning it is overreported) when doing
| statistically random sampling. But that does not stop
| people from repeating the claim ad nauseam.
| ejb999 wrote:
| the 40x is possible, and even likely - but that is often
| twisted to suggest that if there were (for example)
| 10,000 reported deaths in vaers, then it must mean there
| were 400,000 actual deaths from the vaccine - yes, there
| is a lot of under-reporting, and maybe even a 40x factor,
| but those unreported events are usually of the trivial
| kind - i.e. 'I had a sore arm after getting the shot' -
| likely trivial symptoms are under-reported by quite a bit
| - not plausible that there are 40 deaths for every
| reported one.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| In Canada, all reports to our Public Health Infobase must
| be made by a health care professional. I do suspect
| underreporting, given social and collegial pressure on
| practitioners to not undermine vaccination efforts, but I
| accept the given stats linked above at face value for the
| purposes of my model.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| The true hospitalization risk from COVID could be 1/4th to
| 1/10th that given that cases are widely estimated to be
| 4-10X what was reported.
|
| The serious adverse event definition and rates are defined
| here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-
| safety/ut...
|
| 1 in 9000 doses reportedly results in a SAE, so if you are
| mandated to take 4 doses, your risk becomes ~0.04% or
| ~1/2500.
|
| This also does not factor in the risk of "adverse events of
| special interest", which can be serious or non-serious
| (though neither seems great for the end user).
|
| And looking at how this page has been updated since the
| last time I saw it, another red flag is how they separate
| those out - with a dead link to boot. In my opinion a
| continuation of efforts that seem intent on obfuscating the
| ability to make individual risk calculations through this
| pandemic.
| librish wrote:
| I'm looking at your link but I can't find anything about
| serious events controlled for age group (to make it a
| fair comparison to your covid hostpitalisation number).
| Is the data in there somewhere?
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| Would be nice, but all they volunteer is that the adverse
| event rate is highest in the 30-50 year olds. Given that,
| I don't think it makes a material difference
| librish wrote:
| What makes you think that? Serious events for regular
| covid was _heavily_ skewed towards the elderly.
| pexabit wrote:
| Since the vaccine does not work the analysis is actually much
| simpler. Vaccinated people can and do get COVID and get all
| kinds of sick from COVID. Maybe they don't die as much (though
| looking at the graph of COVID deaths you wouldn't actually be
| able to detect when vaccinations began). But all the other bad
| stuff? No evidence of any protection.
| Daishiman wrote:
| You are so astoundingly wrong that I'm just glad people like
| you get coerced into getting vaccinated so society doesn't
| have to live your terrible risk assessments.
| pexabit wrote:
| What is your back of the envelope math here? Clearly, the
| vaccine does not prevent infection. There is no evidence it
| reduces the incidence of harmful sequelae following
| infection. So how does this add up to support mandatory
| vaccination for young men?
| seydor wrote:
| I took 3 doses of vaccine but it is no longer effective at
| preventing infections. Studies that keep coming out show that
| Covid can have a lot of damaging consequences every time you
| get infected and they accumulate
| (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3). I have a
| job and lifestyle that allows me to limit crowded spaces by a
| lot during wintertime. I will try to avoid getting covid ever
| again as much as possible, and the vaccine doesn't help much in
| that. I think the danger from vaccine is very small, but , as
| in everything, i want to wait a few years before i can trust
| it.
|
| But to those that plan to get immunized by simply getting Covid
| again I 'd say "good luck" because they are going to need it
| bakoo wrote:
| > Aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average
| more severe, and much more common?
|
| There is no doubt that we'd have a lot more deaths without the
| vaccines. I suspect that is true for at least some of the
| lockdowns too.
|
| In my experience, people aren't very good at assessing risks.
| Actively doing something that comes with a certain risk is
| often perceived as being more dangerous than passively hoping
| to avoid what is objectively known to be the greater risk.
|
| If those risks are then contested or associated with a high
| degree of uncertainty, making an active choice often becomes a
| question of deferring the decision to someone you really trust.
| If you don't trust anyone, you're not likely to do anything.
|
| An anecdote - I know a few people who didn't get the vaccine,
| or got it a lot later than everyone else, and more often than
| not they have had bad health care experiences in the past. When
| you've been on the receiving end of one or more mistakes of
| that kind, it isn't difficult to understand how waiting to see
| what happens seems like the smarter choice.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| > For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the
| vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death /
| complications from the vaccine against the risk of death /
| complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting
| covid?
|
| That would not be a correct comparison, because the vaccine
| does not prevent you from getting covid. The risks to balance
| are:
|
| A) The risk of myocarditis and other fatal and non-fatal side-
| effects from the vaccine, TIMES how many times you get the
| vaccine, PLUS the cumulative risks of COVID infections over
| time (which you can get despite being "vaccinated"). B) Just
| the risks of COVID infections over time.
|
| A is strictly more dangerous than B no matter what the risks of
| COVID are. Every comment saying, "oh but COVID can cause X risk
| of death and Y risk of myocarditis and blah blah blah" is
| completely irrelevant, because all of these risks accrue just
| as much to the vaccinated. Even if the vaccine is, say, 15%
| effective, which is very generous given the evidence, then that
| means that if the risks of the vaccine are 15% as much as the
| risks of COVID, then (A) is still more dangerous. The risks of
| the vaccine are more than 15% the risks of COVID, as the
| evidence is piling up.
|
| Then there's the little fact that the vaccinated are slightly
| more likely to be reinfected with COVID than the unvaccinated.
| But the studies on this are still being suppressed, so you can
| do the math without it and still come up with vaccination being
| more dangerous for much of the population.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on
| average more severe, and much more common?
|
| You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you
| choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the
| probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1.
|
| For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications *
| probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk
| of complications from COVID * the probability of getting it
| (let's say 0.25 or so).
|
| Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous
| to young people...
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| It's been only 3 years and basically everyone I know has had
| COVID, some more than once. I don't think it's significantly
| less than 1.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| https://time.com/6170735/how-many-people-have-had-covid-19/
|
| It's 60%. Probably.
|
| Meanwhile most vaccinated people have had 2-4 shots. Also
| keep in mind immunity doesn't last forever, so you need to
| balance the risk of the shot within a certain timeframe
| versus the risk of Covid times the risk of complications
| within the same timeframe. You also can't compare the
| lifetime risk of Covid versus only 1 shot, both occur
| within a timeframe since immunity from the shot isn't
| forever.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| 60% of the population over a 5 month period had
| detectable levels of antibodies in their blood, so it's
| at least 60%. IIRC they are only detectable for a few
| months (but that maybe also depend on the way of testing
| I don't know) which would means it's closer to 100% than
| to 60%.
|
| The risk comparison is indeed not trivial, but I think
| it's a safe bet that you're going to get covid.
| brianshaler wrote:
| Given there is likely a correlation between behaviors to
| reduce likelihood of infection (avoiding crowds, properly
| wearing effective masks) and willingness to get vaccinated,
| I would wager the odds of catching covid at least once
| would be elevated among people opposed to vaccination.
| Daishiman wrote:
| > Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly
| dangerous to young people...
|
| I have friends in their early 30s who still haven't recovered
| their sense of smell. Knoew a 25-year-old who spent 4 weeks
| with terrible symptoms. I'm a marathon runner and lift and in
| my early 30s and this disease kicked the shit out of me and
| had 4 with reduced physical function.
|
| It is very obviously worse than the worst flus almost
| everyone had and the flu is sufficiently dangerous that it
| has a nontrivial effect in human quality of life.
| brianshaler wrote:
| > let's say 0.25 or so
|
| Where did you get this data?
|
| > Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly
| dangerous to young people...
|
| What are the top 3 leading causes of health-related deaths in
| your choice of demographic (15-24? 25-49?) in your choice of
| 2020 or 2021?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > What are the top 3 leading causes of health-related
| deaths in your choice of demographic (15-24? 25-49?) in
| your choice of 2020 or 2021?
|
| Covid was only #3 for all age groups in the USA during the
| pandemic (and remember, old people are the mostly likely to
| die at any given point, because, well, they're old).
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-
| death.htm
|
| Meanwhile, Covid is far behind accidents, suicide, drug
| overdoses and homicide for young people:
|
| https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/levels-
| and-...
| brianshaler wrote:
| I apologize, when I said your choice of demographic I
| meant your choice of demographic that encompasses "young"
| as per the topic of your original comment.
|
| Yes, when including the elderly, cancer and heart disease
| are greater causes of health-related deaths. Is COVID-19
| not the #1 health-related cause of death for "young"
| people?
|
| > accidents, suicide, drug overdoses and homicide
|
| Not long ago this discussion was about health risks, such
| as infectious diseases or medical complications. But yes,
| young people can be pretty reckless.
|
| We were doing arithmetic, such as multiplying the risk of
| myocarditis and hitherto uncorrelated medical
| complications by 1.0, and then a number that is likely
| several orders of magnitude larger ( _death_ by COVID,
| not even the much, much more likely disablement of "long
| covid") by a number you erroneously claimed was 0.25 and
| was perhaps around 0.6 _almost a year ago_ (anti-body
| study, 9 /2021-2/2022).
| puffoflogic wrote:
| You forgot to add in the risks of getting COVID _and_ being
| vaccinated. Every time anyone "does the math" on this
| somehow they count the vaccine as having 100% efficacy, which
| is an obvious lie.
|
| Also, if you choose to get the vaccine, then the multiplier
| for vaccine risks isn't 1, it's 2, or 4, or 6, however many
| times you get the vaccine.
| aeternum wrote:
| Yes and it shouldn't just be risk of getting the virus, as it
| looks like the ability of the virus to migrate to the heart
| also matters.
|
| With environmental infections, it's possible that most people
| fight the virus within other parts of the body, with the
| vaccine it looks like the immune response occurred in the
| heart for many in this study, specifically right heart,
| possibly due to proximity or accidental intravascular
| injection:
|
| >we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right
| heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived
| dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least
| tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine
| injection may be contributive
| usefulcat wrote:
| > COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to
| young people...
|
| In the short term yes, in the long term, that is not known.
| putnambr wrote:
| In addition, ask any young person involved in sports how
| catching COVID has affected their training and performance.
| For mostly sedentary people it might feel like catching a
| bad cold and then recovering. If you're actually
| consistently pushing your lungs to their max there's
| definitely long-lasting (maybe not long-term) damage there.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Covid hasnt infected the lower respiratory tract since
| what Delta? come on keep up with the strains.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Where is the long-term research that being vaccinated X
| number of times reduces the long-term damage of getting
| Covid X number of times you guys are just guessing I mean
| go for it but please no more fucking vaccine passports you
| fascist fucks
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>In the short term yes, in the long term, that is not
| known.
|
| Same can be said about the vaccine. The full story has not
| been written yet.
|
| Investigate everything, make it available to the public,
| let people decide for themselves what to put in their body.
| librish wrote:
| COVID is much less dangerous to younger people but there are
| still very real risks involved, especially non-lethal ones.
| Assuming a 25% probability of catching it, how are you coming
| to the conclusion that the risk of the vaccine is higher?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > risk of the vaccine is higher?
|
| I said within a certain demographic... For old people, the
| vaccine is obviously worth it. Boys/men from age 10-30,
| probably not. Hell, a bunch of EU countries literally
| stopped giving young people the Moderna vaccine:
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-
| f...
| librish wrote:
| Yes, I'm asking within the demographic of say 20-50 how
| are you coming to the conclusion that the risk is not
| worth it?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly
| dangerous to young people...
|
| Having seen the impact of covid on young family members and
| others in my extended social circles, I believe that there's
| a long tail of effects that we won't be able to see the full
| picture of for years to come. There's a lot more that should
| be considered in the decision than just risk of death.
| seydor wrote:
| But the vaccine does not help with those effects, and
| importantly it doesnt prevent infection.
| mikem170 wrote:
| I'm a numbers guy. I happened to just stumble onto this
| article [0], summarizing a study on the vaccines and long
| covid:
|
| > Compared to an unvaccinated individual, the risk of long
| Covid in a fully vaccinated individual was cut by only
| about 15 percent, the study found.
|
| > Dr. Greg Vanichkachorn, director of the Mayo Clinic's
| Covid Activity Rehabilitation Program in Rochester,
| Minnesota, who was not involved with the new study, said
| the results were not "too surprising."
|
| > "We know that the majority of folks with long Covid have
| not had severe infections," he said.
|
| Not very much help against long covid on average, nothing
| like the protection against hospitalizations in vulnerable
| populations.
|
| [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccines-
| offer-li...
| CadmiumYellow wrote:
| Something I've been wondering about: has anybody tried to
| separate out the effects of the pandemic itself from the
| symptoms of long covid? So many of the symptoms of long
| covid are incredibly nonspecific. I believe there was a
| study on long covid patients that found that the only long
| covid symptom that had a significant correlation with
| actually having tested positive for covid was loss of smell
| and taste. There is a lot of evidence that social isolation
| and sedentary lifestyles are detrimental to our health and
| we now live in a world where loads of people barely left
| the house or spoke to anyone other than their immediate
| family members for the better part of two years. We're
| seeing widespread effects throughout society in everything
| from education to crime to the amount of violent incidents
| on airplanes. It's likely that millions of people who do
| not have long covid are currently in some form of mental
| health crisis related to the pandemic. Overdose deaths and
| suicides are up.
|
| I'm not suggesting that long covid doesn't exist, but I
| wonder how much of that long tail of effects can actually
| be causally linked to covid infection (obviously not
| talking about things like lung damage, though I do wonder
| if stress and isolation could have affected previously
| healthy people's immune systems). My personal experience
| with mental health issues suggests that they can have
| severe and wide-ranging physical effects that are as bad as
| any disease.
| geraneum wrote:
| > If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1
|
| Curiously, probability of what specifically is 1 in that
| case? I am assuming by 1 you mean 100%, right?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| SMH
| putnambr wrote:
| From OC:
|
| > wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death /
| complications from the vaccine against the risk of death /
| complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting
| covid?
|
| For certain demographics the probability of getting infected
| might be that low, but at least in every social young adult I
| know, the risk is averaged to well over 1.0. I've been
| infected twice, before and after the jab, and in both cases
| the infection was worse (months of recovery, VO2Max
| reduction) than the acute vaccine side effects (weekend of
| feeling shitty). Pre-vaccine I'd say it took around 5 months
| to fully feel recovered, e.g. able to run a 4-miler without
| feeling like passing out, where-as post-vaccine and prior
| infection I was well recovered at the 6-week mark.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Wow that's so scientific considering those are completely
| different strains of Covid and one infection you got immune
| naive and one you got after an infection and a vaccination.
| It's so clear as mud
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > but at least in every social young adult I know, the risk
| is averaged to well over 1.0.
|
| But the rate of being _vaccinated_ is also over 1.0, since
| people keep getting boosters.
| torstenvl wrote:
| > _to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine
| wouldn 't you need to balance the risk of death / complications
| from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from
| covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid_
|
| No.
|
| Reasonable people make choices _all the time_ that don 't bear
| out under a cost-risk-benefit analysis like you propose. Those
| choices are still reasonable, despite perhaps not being
| strictly rational.
|
| And certainly not as a matter of public policy. The value of
| individual freedom of choice is inherent unless there's an
| overwhelming and compelling reason to violate it.
|
| There is far, _far_ greater danger in society forcing issues of
| bodily autonomy to a vote than there is in someone eating too
| much sugar.
| eftychis wrote:
| The choices are acceptable, not reasonable. At least by the
| strict definition of reasonable -- we seem to be changing
| that definition similar to the world "literally."
|
| > The value of individual freedom of choice is inherent
| unless there's an overwhelming and compelling reason to
| violate it.
|
| This is a slippery slope easily. People should be given the
| choice.
|
| And as people we have also the choice to judge people on
| their choice's results.
|
| Especially if it causes other people to die. Right now we
| have failed as humanity at least 6,637,512 people and
| counting.
| delecti wrote:
| The comment you replied to didn't mention mandates of any
| sort. It started with:
|
| > For it to be a _reasonable choice to not want_ to take the
| vaccine
|
| "Basically everyone should get the vaccine" is a meaningfully
| different statement from "we should force people to get the
| vaccine".
|
| Also, whether a _person_ can be reasonable while making
| unreasonable choices isn 't really the point either. The most
| reasonable option on this particular choice for the
| overwhelming majority pretty clearly seems to be to get the
| vaccine. It is similarly disingenuous to move the goal posts
| from "the most reasonable _decision_ is to get the vaccine "
| to " _you are an unreasonable person_ to not get the vaccine
| ".
| torstenvl wrote:
| No. Reasonable decisions are literally defined as "what a
| reasonable person would do." What is disingenuous and
| dishonest is moving goal posts from "a reasonable choice"
| to "the _most reasonable_ decision. "
|
| It's true that the post didn't mention mandates, but any
| time a group of people are putting themselves in the
| position to decide whether a person's individual choice
| about their own body is "reasonable" or not, you are pretty
| damn mandate-adjacent.
| librish wrote:
| My question wasn't about public policy or mandates, I'm
| asking what data an individual is looking at to come to the
| conclusion that not getting vaccinated is the right choice.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| I swore off getting it after the very first instance I
| heard of someone getting covid after the vaccine. That was
| my only data point.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| yeah that's reasonable, and a perfect way to do it is to go by
| age groups
|
| covid is hurting/killing people who are weak, elderly, and
| immunocompromised. So covid is the bigger worry here, they
| should get vaccinated
|
| young kids mostly don't even notice they have covid, and young
| people in general, ~<30 y/o, don't have any issues from covid.
| So the vaccine is a bigger risk, and the natural immunity they
| gain from getting the disease is more advantageous than the
| vaccine ever would be for their demographic
| chedca21 wrote:
| The risk: benefit analysis that supports vaccination is
| considering the earliest standards of care we had which were
| criminally misguided - no steroids allowed, plug patient
| respiration up with a machine to not spread the virus ,
|
| These protocols are what killed people mostly and ultimately
| they are what is being used to justify universal
| recommendations for a vaccine.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > multiplied by the risk of getting covid
|
| Wouldn't you actually multiply by (the risk of getting covid
| without the vaccine, minus the risk of getting covid with the
| vaccine)?
| bobobob420 wrote:
| Im not a skeptic but has to do with the mandate. Has to do with
| distrust in government, corporations, etc. not fully honest
| conversations about vaccine etc ..
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| No I don't need to balance anything based on your criteria. I
| and I alone decide what goes into my body. Anyone who is scared
| to walk outside and face hundreds of thousands of pathogens on
| a daily basis should remain at home. If you want a vaccine, go
| ahead and get one.
| pg314 wrote:
| Thankfully your attitude wasn't prevalent in previous
| generations or polio and smallpox would still be rampant.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Every person I've asked (here in Sweden) who opted out of
| COVID-19 vaccination made their decision based on one year of
| case data covering the two first waves, which to them concluded
| that statistically they were at no risk based on their age and
| health status. Despite taking e.g. tetanus boosters, TBC
| vaccine etc., they are still being referred to as
| "antivaxxers".
| librish wrote:
| At no risk for what?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the
| vaccine wouldn 't you need to balance the risk of death /
| complications from the vaccine against the risk of death /
| complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting
| covid?_
|
| Reasonable is subjective. I got the covid vaccine and had no
| concern for side effects. But I, like most people, don't bother
| getting the flu shot every year and I think that's perfectly
| reasonable despite me having no qualms about side effects. I
| simply don't care about the flu. Not getting the flu shot is
| one less reoccurring chore in my life that I don't have to
| bother with.
| kaio wrote:
| Key takeaway:
|
| >>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination
| is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with
| COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk
| associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].
| mizzack wrote:
| "stated" is an interesting choice there, especially when using
| "recorded" a few words later. It reads as being a bit
| untrusting of the COVID death numbers.
| hammock wrote:
| Are the covid death numbers trustworthy? (honest Q)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They're probably low, if anything.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercounting_of_COVID-19_pan
| d...
|
| The chart on https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/exc
| ess_deaths.htm shows _all cause_ deaths before and during
| the pandemic; there 's an _extremely_ clear difference, and
| it coincides closely with the spikes in COVID cases we 've
| seen.
|
| This method of reporting avoids all the complexities around
| "died with COVID" vs "died of COVID", people who never get
| tested before dying, etc.
| hammock wrote:
| >it coincides closely with the spikes in COVID cases
| we've seen.
|
| Aren't there about 100 other confounders that could be in
| the mix there
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| If it was one general noisy correlation, I would agree.
| But there are multiple spikes that go up and down and
| match almost precisely with the multiple waves of covid,
| persisting through many shifts in other factors (like
| downstream effects of different levels of lockdown) with
| almost no change in the trends for all other deaths
| beside it. It's about as close of a correlation as you
| can ever hope for with real-world data.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Which of them do you propose would cause the American
| public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths
| increased everywhere, whether they required masking or
| closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to
| suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers -
| again, of _any_ cause - for the last two years - and
| especially so at the same time large COVID waves are
| occurring?
| flutas wrote:
| > Which of them do you propose would cause the American
| public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths
| increased everywhere, whether they required masking or
| closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to
| suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers -
| again, of any cause - for the last two years - and
| especially so at the same time large COVID waves are
| occurring?
|
| I can give one example, which happened to my dad...
|
| "Sorry, we have to reschedule that surgery to remove the
| tumor because we're anticipating a covid spike and need
| the bed availability."
|
| Repeat until he died due to cancer spreading.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That sort of thing is relatively trivial to tease out of
| the stats, because in addition to excess deaths we have
| per-disease statistics as well.
|
| See the chart about 2/3 down on https://www.healthsystemt
| racker.org/brief/covid-19-continues..., titled "Average
| daily deaths in the United States, by cause (2020 -
| Present)". We don't see a massive spike in other causes
| of death (including cancer, which is a flat line at
| ~1,600/day throughout), and no one's likely to
| misidentify a cancer or heart attack death on a death
| certificate.
|
| There are certainly cases like your dad's, where delayed
| screenings and treatment had individual impacts, but none
| of the stats available to us show this explaining a
| meaningful amount of the 1.3M excess deaths observed.
| nyolfen wrote:
| the more interesting unaddressed question is, _for whom_? i am
| a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending
| up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for
| people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire
| population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who
| effectively has zero risk of serious covid?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Why do people keep thinking young people have no risk of
| ending up in the hospital for Covid? So many people have, and
| so many have died?
| rednerrus wrote:
| ~26,000 people under 30 have died of COVID since the
| epidemic began.
| nyolfen wrote:
| how many of them had an existing underlying condition?
| the broad numbers suggest ~85%
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm
| nyolfen wrote:
| statistically, it is extremely unlikely[0] for an otherwise
| healthy young person to end up in the hospital for covid,
| much like myocarditis -- i am simply interested in which is
| more likely for specific population subsets
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/figures/mm6915e3
| -F1.g... -- from
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm
| eli wrote:
| The numbers are so small that it is hard to say --
| several long-term studies are ongoing. All the evidence
| suggests the risk of Covid is far greater. I'm sure you
| know this, but covid causes significantly more cases of
| myocarditis than the vaccine.
| rednerrus wrote:
| The vaccine isn't preventing COVID, it's just limiting
| symptoms. Does it lower the risk of myocarditis from
| COVID?
|
| I just looked. The Vaccine doesn't lower your risk of
| getting myocarditis if you still become infected by
| COVID.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Because it's true
| mikeyouse wrote:
| That's not even the complete question though -- because by
| all accounts, Covid actually results in a higher incidence of
| myocarditis than the vaccine does.. Given the tenor of the
| conspiracy theories here, the landscape of questions is too
| nuanced for HN I guess. Ideally, the vaccine recommendation
| would weigh:
|
| Incidence and seriousness of myocarditis (ISM) naturally / in
| absence of covid or vaccine, ISM following vaccine, ISM
| following Covid, ISM after being vaccinated but later
| catching Covid, relative risk of death / or the other litany
| of problems following unvaccinated covid infection, same but
| with vaccinated covid infection and the increased chances of
| avoiding infection after being vaccinated.
|
| It's possible that vaccines are leading to more myocarditis,
| covid is certainly leading to more myocarditis, most cases of
| myocarditis are undetected and resolve on their own with no
| health impact at all.. as expected, weird antivaxxers are
| harping on point 1 to the detriment of anyone actually
| interested in public health.
| nwienert wrote:
| Not true for men under 40, myocarditis higher from vaccine.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who
| effectively has zero risk of serious covid?_
|
| This is only true if you consider death the only "serious"
| outcome. Around 25% of children and adolescents who get
| COVID-19 will get "long COVID", with long-term effects we've
| just begun to understand. Plenty of "young-ish healthy
| people" have suffered debilitating effects.
| blub wrote:
| Vaccines don't make a major difference against Long Covid.
| 14-25% reduction in risk I read.
|
| At this efficiency level they're not an adequate preventive
| measure.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nyolfen wrote:
| surprisingly high! how many of those children were
| vaccinated?
| kyleyeats wrote:
| It's actually a non sequitur because you can still get Covid
| after getting the vaccine. It's not an either/or at all, and in
| fact most people who got the vaccine did get Covid.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| But had lower incidence of hospitalization.
| kaio wrote:
| Key takeaway:
|
| >>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination
| is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with
| COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk
| associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].
|
| I hope the research continues to make it even more safe.
| danhak wrote:
| We coerced young, low-risk people into receiving these treatments
| despite known side effects on pain of losing their education or
| employment or being able to enter privately-owned establishments
| (irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those privately-
| owned establishments).
|
| We justified it with the specious argument that they were putting
| _other people_ at undue risk by remaining unvaccinated. We
| claimed that vaccinated people would not spread the virus.
|
| And we gave the companies producing these vaccines blanket legal
| immunity from any potential liability.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| We require young people to get vaccinated as a rule in order to
| obtain education. Every medical intervention involves risks. So
| does taking a shower or taking the bus to school. We all have
| to take risks and some of them are mandated for the good of
| society.
|
| There were very good indications that the vaccine would prevent
| spread.
|
| Public policy decisions which cost lives are not unusual and
| although tragic, are often necessary. For instance should we
| use the entire yearly budget of a hospital to cure one child,
| or let that child die in order to fund daily operations? These
| questions have no 'right' answer and no matter what was decided
| there is going to be criticism and errors which result in less
| than optimal or even tragic outcomes.
|
| Looking back in hindsight and using the knowledge we now have,
| I would say that the biggest errors made during the pandemic by
| public policymakers (besides disbanding the pandemic team and
| having a leader who was looking at everything in the lens of a
| what was personally good for him at that moment) was in
| messaging.
|
| If we can use this to craft a better way to handle public
| messaging in the future then perhaps we can avoid a lot of the
| negative societal effects which we are now dealing with --
| specifically lack of trust in scientific institutions, division
| based on ideology and not evidence, and the spread and enabling
| of conspiratorial thinking.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| >We all have to take risks and some of them are mandated for
| the good of society.
|
| What are some other risky and irreversible interventions
| mandated upon the individual for the good of society?
| lrem wrote:
| Schools spring to mind.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Anything we allow parents to do to or for their children or
| force their children to do qualifies.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| We generally don't allow parents to force risky
| irreversible things onto their children. But also, the
| view of all citizens as simple children of the State
| seems...problematic.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > We generally don't allow parents to force risky
| irreversible things onto their children.
|
| We absolutely do, but that is a completely different
| conversation.
|
| If that doesn't work for you I am sure you can't object
| to conscription as a societal burden.
|
| Where are you going with this line of discussion? Or did
| you just want me to think of something that wasn't
| medical?
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Daishiman wrote:
| blue039 wrote:
| > We require young people to get vaccinated as a rule in
| order to obtain education. Every medical intervention
| involves risks. So does taking a shower or taking the bus to
| school. We all have to take risks and some of them are
| mandated for the good of society.
|
| Absolutely insane take. A virtually untested vaccine with
| questionable testing practices and curious ties to certain
| donors of senators is not the same thing as getting your MMR
| or taking a shower.
|
| Insane. Absolutely insane. I hope you never have a chance to
| drive policy even in your own neighborhood. We rushed a
| vaccine with untested technology out and gave it to everyone
| without even a curious eye waved over the test results. Every
| death is on the FDAs hands. It is one thing to say the
| elderly and infirm should take this risk. To give this risk
| to otherwise healthy students is borderline homicidal.
|
| Downvote me all you want apologists. There are 70,000 pages
| from Pfizer that have yet to be reviewed. I'm sure it'll be a
| watergate level controversy. HN is a literal clown factory of
| psuedo-intellectual idiots.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please not fulminate and call names in HN
| comments? You can make your substantive points without any
| of that, and it would be in your interest, because comments
| like this only discredit your viewpoint.
|
| I realize how frustrating it is to hold a minority view,
| but why hand people flaming reasons to dismiss you? All it
| does is weaken your own position, and you're poisoning the
| ecosystem by doing it. You can weaken your position if you
| want to, but it's not ok to poison the ecosystem.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| hammock wrote:
| >There were very good indications that the vaccine would
| prevent spread.
|
| Now that we know that to be not true, do you support removing
| the covid jab from the schedule required in school?
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I do not have children so I have no stake in the matter and
| I do not feel that Id am sufficiently informed about the
| particulars at this point to have an opinion.
| mikem170 wrote:
| I happened to stumble across this [0], on the
| effectiveness of a third covid vaccination for 18-29 year
| olds, while looking for recent (omicron) studies
| quantifying how well vaccines keep people out of
| hospitals, and thought I'd pass it along:
|
| > To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month
| period, we estimate that 31207-42836 young adults aged
| 18-29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster
| mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net
| harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we
| anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA
| vaccines, including 1.5-4.6 booster-associated
| myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring
| hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430-4626 cases of
| grade >=3 reactogenicity interfering with daily
| activities (although typically not requiring
| hospitalisation). University booster mandates are
| unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated
| (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this
| age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young
| adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not
| outweighed by public health benefits given modest and
| transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
| (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious
| vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to
| gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in
| wider social harms. We consider counterarguments
| including efforts to increase safety on campus but find
| these are fraught with limitations and little scientific
| support.
|
| As an fyi, I also bumped into stats saying that it was
| something like 5-6 times less likely for vaccinated
| people to end up in the hospital (although most people
| who end up in the hospital are elderly), and vaccinations
| seem to confer only 15% benefit against long covid. I was
| hoping to find something breaking hopsitalization down by
| age and comorbidities in addition to vaccination status,
| but have had no luck so far.
|
| [0] https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022
| -108449
| prpl wrote:
| it's not entirely likely the dead were at a low-risk of death
| by the actual virus
| gwd wrote:
| You know what also causes myocarditis? COVID-19 [1].
|
| So the choices were:
|
| 1. Don't pressure young people to get vaccinated. Nearly
| everyone who's unvaccinated eventually catches COVID-19. Some
| of them would have severe reactions and die; or spend time in a
| hospital, taking up space and delaying care for others, causing
| those other people to die. Nearly all of them would pass
| COVID-19 on to other people, many of whom would be older and
| die. Some of them would develop myocarditis and die.
|
| 2. Pressure young people to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Some of
| them would develop myocarditis and die.
|
| #2 is strictly better than #1.
|
| Sometimes in life there are no good options; only not-so-great
| options and very bad options.
|
| [1] https://www.beaumont.org/health-
| wellness/blogs/myocarditis-r...
| ccn0p wrote:
| One of the cruxes of the issue is what constitutes
| "pressure". Should we block children from going to school in
| order to "pressure" them forcing the risk of #1 on them
| rather than allowing parents to make their own choices?
| addingadimensio wrote:
| You still get Covid after you are vaccinated. Fun fact if you
| are vaccinated before you catch Covid you cannot develop an
| immunity to the nucleocapsid is this good is this bad I don't
| know tune in in 10 years when we know more
| udp wrote:
| _> if you are vaccinated before you catch Covid you cannot
| develop an immunity to the nucleocapsid_
|
| Do you have a reference?
| RansomStark wrote:
| That's not necessarily the case, if fact it might be the
| exact opposite.
|
| 1. Don't pressure young people to get the vaccine, some will
| end up in hospital, some will die.
|
| 2. Pressure young people to get the vaccine and 6 times as
| many of them end up in hospital from the vaccine, taking up
| more space, and putting more pressure on the system [0], some
| of them will die [1][2]
|
| [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.212628
| 66v...
|
| [1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-
| news/tragedy...
|
| [2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/death-
| boy-14-three-...
| Daishiman wrote:
| lanstin wrote:
| As we also coerce babies into screening for various diseaaes
| and for vax against the diseases that afflict societies without
| this science. That is how it works. That is why we mostly don't
| die from infectious diseases for the first time since we built
| cities.
| gfodor wrote:
| Not for an emergency use drug that doesn't maintain herd
| immunity for a disease that is minimally harmful to children
| and is under immense selective pressure to break out of the
| vaccine.
|
| Maybe you've got a bad mental model because of the word
| "vaccine." This is not a vaccine of the kind we give
| children, in terms of what it prevents and the extent of data
| and knowledge we have of its side effects.
| spacefracas wrote:
| This is incorrect. Of the vaccines that are given to
| children, none prevent infection. All significantly prevent
| disease and death.
| gfodor wrote:
| This feels like pure revisionism. The purpose of the
| vaccination programs for children is not to prevent
| severe disease or death, though that is a nice benefit.
| The purpose, and manifested effect, is to maintain
| population herd immunity due to the fact these vaccines
| radically reduce the chance of the child acting as a
| vector. The consequence is a vastly reduced incidence
| rate across the whole population due to this network
| effect vs a scenario with no mandate. This was widely
| understood to be the ethical justification for mandating
| these vaccines: it led to a collective benefit,
| counterfactually preventing massive suffering across many
| individual, a benefit which outweighs the risk to the
| individual from taking these drugs. This fundamental
| premise is entirely not the case for this vaccine
| program, which does not come close to helping with herd
| immunity for a disease we now acknowledge is endemic, and
| also happens to have a wildly different relative risk
| profile for children vs the other vaccines we mandate.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > We claimed that vaccinated people would not spread the virus.
|
| Who is "we", I have never seen anything other the claims that
| there were claims. Can you point me to an epidemiologist that
| made this claim.
|
| > And we gave the companies producing these vaccines blanket
| legal immunity from any potential liability.
|
| We have ALWAYS given vaccine companies blanket legal immunity.
| This isn't a new thing and there are good reasons for it.
| hammock wrote:
| >Who is "we", I have never seen anything other the claims
| that there were claims. Can you point me to an epidemiologist
| that made this claim.
|
| https://twitter.com/guccibase/status/1488297386208378889
|
| Included in the video: Rochelle Walensky, Monica Gandhi
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Ah, by "we", you mean politicians.
|
| These clowns are also all saying it's 100% effective which
| was known to be false from day 1.
| hammock wrote:
| You asked for an epidemiologist. I gave you two of the
| world's foremost practicing infectious disease experts :
| Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, Mass General chief of
| Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital;
| and Monica Gandhi MD, MPH, Associate Chief of the
| Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine
| at UCSF.
|
| It seems you're being intellectually dishonest
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Monica Gandhi has been _repeatedly_ wrong, claiming herd
| immunity in India right before somewhere between 1-3
| million died, to the point of having to apologize for it.
| https://twitter.com/MehdiHasanShow/status/148940441066927
| 719...
| addingadimensio wrote:
| simonsarris wrote:
| Do you truly not remember? That was exactly the claim made at
| the start of vaccination. From December 2020:
|
| _Fauci Predicts U.S. Could See Signs Of Herd Immunity By
| Late March Or Early April_
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-
| updates/2020/1...
|
| > "I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you
| start to see an impact," Fauci said. "But I would say 75 to
| 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that
| blanket of herd immunity."
|
| Months later, May 2021:
|
| _Masks off? Fauci confirms 'extremely low' risk of
| transmission, infection for vaccinated_
|
| https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/dr-fauci-confirms-
| extreme...
| scarmig wrote:
| Why should the companies be held liable? This was a government
| project enforced by the gun; the companies didn't force anyone
| to take their vaccines, and there's not a way they could have
| made them meaningfully safer given the timelines.
| burner990 wrote:
| My employer wouldn't let me go to the office or even any
| offsites or outdoor actives (i.e. a picnic) until _very_
| recently. (Despite my approved religious exemption and
| "requiring" all employees to work in the office).
|
| If that isn't coercion to take an experimental vaccine i
| don't know what is.
| curiousgal wrote:
| > _approved religious exemption_
|
| The wording is a telltale sign that the exemption is pure
| BS.
| TheCrownedFox wrote:
| You might not like that the exemption exists, but it's
| legal in the USA. Would you rather that religious beliefs
| were not respected by the government?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| I would prefer the government was completely indifferent
| to religious beliefs. Because any belief can be construed
| as religious if you're willing to take the position that
| religion is stupid and you don't care about optics.
|
| So yeah, I would prefer beliefs not garner you special
| privileges
| TheCrownedFox wrote:
| What special privileges are being garnered? The topsy-
| turvy world of the religious person existing as the
| exception rather than the rule is quite odd to me. But
| regardless, in the USA the religious exemption policy is
| incredibly diverse and welcoming, you are correct on
| that. You do not even need to communicate with your God
| in expressible ways to other people. What should be the
| limit on someone's divine communication and the
| restrictions upon the government they live under?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| > What special privileges are being garnered?
|
| The exemption
|
| > What should be the limit on someone's divine
| communication and the restrictions upon the government
| they live under?
|
| None. But your definition of divine communication should
| not override otherwise unrelated rules.
| TheCrownedFox wrote:
| I would posit that the special privilege has been given
| to the non-religious, in that they have been able to
| openly discriminate against religious people in violation
| of existing laws.
|
| I would suggest looking into the EEOC regulations
| mentioned by someone else in this thread and Title VII of
| the 1964 civil rights act.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| By posting that you have discriminated against my
| religious beliefs. So you're just as bad as an offender.
| So it's really a moot point.
| TheCrownedFox wrote:
| Is it your position then that it's either your personal
| belief or a divine communication from your God that the
| government should be able to discriminate based on
| religious beliefs, against existing human rights
| legislation?
| burner990 wrote:
| That's the legal wording from EEOC[1]. I'll chalk up your
| religious prejudice to ignorance.
|
| [1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-
| about-covid-1...
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Seems reasonable to me. They want everyone to be at the
| office and vaccinated, but they're not allowed to fire you
| because "religion", so they made special accommodations to
| let you continue working without making all of their other
| employees have to be around you. You appear to be mad that
| your "exemption" wasn't enough to make them pretend you
| were vaccinated?
| burner990 wrote:
| But no accommodation to go to the company (outdoor)
| events and hear talks from the executives?
|
| > You appear to be mad that your "exemption" wasn't
| enough to make them pretend you were vaccinated?
|
| I had blood test proof of antibodies but its just about
| "feel goods".
|
| And they didn't require boosters, just the first 2 doses
| from over a year ago, so yes its non-sensical and purely
| political (not based on science).
| threeseed wrote:
| a) I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of
| millions of people have taken it.
|
| b) It sounds like your employer did the right thing to
| balance your rights versus those of the people you work
| with.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| If an experiment is big enough it becomes a statistic
| krona wrote:
| Then why did most of them sell it for profit?
| marsven_422 wrote:
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > Of note, it has been recently reported that intravenous
| injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is able to induce an acute
| (epi-) myocarditis in a preclinical model
|
| There have been lots of vaccinations shown in various TV reports
| over the last years. Watching carefully, there's two different
| variants: a) jab, aspirate, inject, b) jab, inject. Maybe it is
| just stock footage and not from covid shots, and everyone has
| been checking carefully for not finding blood?
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| Note: the ages in this study ranged from 46 to 75 for those who
| died.
| SnowProblem wrote:
| Why is it so hard to find data showing how often people are
| dying, no matter the cause, broken down by vaccination status and
| age? Surely that would help clear things up. Lots of countries
| publish COVID-19 mortality rates which show benefits for
| vaccinated but that's really not helpful for understanding
| overall risk of vaccines. The UK is the only country I could find
| that publishes this data and unless I'm missing something things
| look really bad. Table 2 in [1] shows a 2-3x higher mortality
| rate for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in almost all groups this
| year. Perhaps the unvaccinated are healthier on average, maybe,
| but 2-3x healthier? Yeah, don't think so. What's going on?
|
| [1]
| https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde....
| fallenasleep wrote:
| This meta analysis cited in the OP is good for context:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000914/
|
| >"The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405
| 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33*3 cases (95% CI 15*3-72*6) per
| million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between
| people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18*2 [10*9-30*3], 11
| studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who
| received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56*0 [10*7-293*7], 11 studies [9
| 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0*20). Compared with
| COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was
| significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132*1
| [81*3-214*6], p<0*0001) but was not significantly different after
| influenza vaccinations (1*3 [0*0-884*1], p=0*43) or in studies
| reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57*0
| [1*1-3036*6], p=0*58). Among people who received COVID-19
| vaccines, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly
| higher in males (vs females), in people younger than 30 years (vs
| 30 years or older), after receiving an mRNA vaccine (vs non-mRNA
| vaccine), and after a second dose of vaccine (vs a first or third
| dose)."
| [deleted]
| gfodor wrote:
| theteapot wrote:
| I really do believe myocarditis is an issue with the mRNA
| vaccines, but how can you claim both "Many died" and "First we
| need an accurate death count"? How do you know many died if
| there is not an accurate count?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I'm not sure why you'd want a trial, since you've already
| decided its outcome. In reality all you want is a lynching.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Before all that let's discontinue our demonization of the
| unvaccinated.
| decremental wrote:
| They'll just hate people who didn't get the covid vaccine for
| not getting memed into it.
| gfodor wrote:
| Where is that still happening? (Genuine q)
| hammock wrote:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05607-y
|
| > We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes
| against the unvaccinated in [nineteen different countries
| including the US]
|
| > Findings suggest that...the vaccinated react with
| discriminatory attitudes against...the unvaccinated. Elites
| and the vaccinated general public appealed to moral
| obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake but the
| present findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes
| including support for the removal of fundamental rights
| simultaneously emerged
| fein wrote:
| In the USA on a government level? No idea, at least it
| isn't a thing around where I live, but I also sit at home
| and get paid to write software. No idea what applying for
| jobs in some industries might look like.
|
| On the social level? People have fractured families over it
| and/or forced(you can't see your grand children unless
| you're vaxxed, for example)/coerced family members into
| getting it despite their otherwise refusal. I still know
| people who won't let non vaccinated people come over for
| events. It's a much rarer thing now, but the damage has
| been done.
| MrMan wrote:
| I think it's an excellent sorting mechanism
| zhrvoj wrote:
| Division bell...
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Yep. I'm now estranged from half my extended family
| because of the awful way they treated my unvaccinated
| brother. They invited him to visit for Thanksgiving,
| knowing he was unvaccinated and saying it was okay. Then
| after he drove 8 hours to visit, they changed their mind
| and wouldn't let him into their house. They gave him a
| sandwich and told him to eat it on the porch. They're
| dead to me after that.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Unvaccinated people can't go to a good school, join the
| military or enter the country.
| klipt wrote:
| I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save
| 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive.
| That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal
| with all the time.
| moralestapia wrote:
| That's good, but what about forcing people to take it?
| krona wrote:
| The age stratified risk was known almost a year before
| needles entered the arms of teenagers.
| boredumb wrote:
| Yes but does the government have the ability to coerce or
| force you to do something with a '1 in 1000' death rate, if
| not, what is the number we are allowing in the name of public
| health.
| chedca21 wrote:
| The vaccines confer an antibody response, which isn't all
| that important in terms of combating disease: "Antibodies
| that offer protection'? Let's pause right here. When was it
| ever proven that antibodies offer protection? In fact, the
| opposite has been observed. Don't we remember another
| prominent scientist (and a Nobel Prize winner in 1960) Sir
| Frank Macfarlane Burnet telling us the following regarding
| the role of antibodies (or rather lack thereof) for immunity
| in children who lacked antibody production due to a genetic
| condition called agammaglobulinemia:
|
| "To everyone's surprise [children with agammaglobulinemia]
| showed a normal measles course with a typical rash which
| faded at the normal time and was followed by just as
| substantial immunity against reinfection as would be shown by
| any other convalescent. Antibody production is therefore not
| necessary either for recovery from or for the development of
| immunity to measles." (Burnet and White. Natural History of
| Infectious Disease. Cambridge University Press, 1940) "
|
| https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/blog/should-you-be-
| afraid-...
|
| FDA could have used T-cell expression as a standard of
| efficacy but chose not to despite knowing antibodies were
| being over sold as hallmarks of immunity.
|
| Tetyana Obukhanych is a doctor of immunology from Rockefeller
| NYU. Pharma companies spun up multiple "blogs" to smear her
| when she started speaking out.
| Narretz wrote:
| If what you are saying is true, then the whole mechanism of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity is not
| working. So the human body maintains a complete system that
| produces useless antibodies?
| manwe150 wrote:
| What he is saying is not true. The large vaccine trials
| have always been about testing the effectiveness at
| combating disease directly (measuring rates of reported
| illness or hospitalization), with antibody titers used as
| a quick secondary check. His comment assumes the reverse
| happened. We still know surprisingly little about how
| long antibodies are measurable in the blood and for how
| long and how effective they are at what prevalence rate,
| etc.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| (I don't disagree with your sentiment, fwiw)
|
| For 1.5 years we had the notion of "1 death is 1 too many"
| shoved down our throats at every turn to justify some pretty
| heinous encroachments on personal freedom.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Is that really it? Over 1 million American's have died so
| far. That seems like it warrants some efforts to mitigate.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| I never said that any mitigation was unnecessary. There
| is a such thing as going overboard. There are still
| outdoor areas that are closed off despite there being no
| credible cases of outdoor transmission.
| https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-
| case...
| gfodor wrote:
| I'm not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet
| it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive,
| arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense
| of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of
| healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and
| opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and
| righteousness, as it often is.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply
| negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those
| that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and
| efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from
| repercussions for their actions in this case?
| gfodor wrote:
| The former group has been condemned, banned, ostracized,
| and dehumanized. To the degree any of them were acting on
| bad faith or in violation of their oaths, yes they should
| be condemned.
|
| But the deepest crimes lie elsewhere, by those in power
| who coerced others into taking drugs they did not want,
| who used ends-justify-the-means reasoning to violate
| ethics as physicians or public health officials, and who
| now continue to try to suppress, deflect, and gaslight us
| from recognizing the real events which actually occurred
| and which we are morally obligated to correct for our
| children.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Agree to disagree, I guess. I'd rather give the benefit
| of the doubt to those acting on the best information
| available at the time rather than "influencers" raising
| "concerns" based on nothing but their gut instincts.
|
| Or to put it another way, how many vaccine skeptics were
| pushing for the heavy use of masks, better HVAC systems
| in buildings, and social distancing when possible?
| Because I've noticed a large correlation between those
| that spoke out against vaccines and those that spoke out
| against _any_ preventative measures at all - regardless
| of how benign.
| gfodor wrote:
| You're just cherry picking - there have been plenty of
| people raising basic concerns about the bioethics of
| mandating an emergency use medicine using a new
| technology for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus.
| There have also been prominent public officials saying
| things like "the unvaccinated cannot be trusted." You
| should not let tribalism get in the way of seeing the
| full picture of what happened.
| chedca21 wrote:
| Did their stances actually contribute to public health
| policy, if so then they bare responsibility
| unfortunately. Armchair biosecurity advocates should be
| left off the hook.
| manwe150 wrote:
| I would agree with klipt: why were so many influential
| figures allowed to spread disinformation based apparently
| on misunderstanding mathematics, the scientific process,
| and just caring about general health and welfare?
|
| It was said once that 5 deaths is a tragedy, but 500k is
| just a statistic (as a justification of genocide). This is
| possibly why the 5 deaths in the article possibly from the
| vaccine is apparently more terrifying.
| whitepaint wrote:
| > If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's
| still a net positive.
|
| You need to take age into account, no?
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| In this study the ages ranged from 46 to 75 For those who
| died.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I was reading it open-mindedly but the use of "jab" is pretty
| suspicious. Anyone found using this term can be pretty much
| dismissed outright, right?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| These are very low numbers with only 5 vaccine+death cases found
| in an area with 8mio citizens.
|
| But they convincingly argue that accidentally injecting the
| vaccination into the bloodstream towards the heart may cause a
| heart infection similar to those seen in people who got sick with
| Covid.
| nluken wrote:
| "Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in
| the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived
| dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting
| to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may
| be contributive."
|
| Does this indicate that the authors believe aspirating the
| vaccine during administration would reduce the risk of
| myocarditis? I don't have a biological background so I would be
| interested in hearing someone else's take on this but that
| sentence seems to indicate that the authors think ensuring
| correct administration would lower the risk of post-vaccine
| complications (which from what I've seen, remains low but non-
| zero). If that's the case, then perhaps the issue isn't as much
| with the vaccine itself as how it's being administered.
| gfodor wrote:
| For a long time this theory always made the most sense to me,
| and frankly I assume I must just be missing something since
| it's so obviously criminal if there was a chance this was true
| that it wasn't blasted from the rooftops from the CDC (for the
| public to help correct it when they got their vaccine.)
| hammock wrote:
| Yes. Complication from jab administration is something that has
| been widely discussed (not widely reported though). The
| clinical trials were supposed to show that the jab (and
| therefore the mRNA, and the resultant spike protein generated,
| which is known to be toxic) stayed in the muscle local to the
| injection site.
|
| What is widely speculated is that on some not-insubstantial
| portion of injections, the jab makes it into the bloodstream.
| This would explain why we see spike protein collecting in the
| heart, reproductive organs and other parts of the body.
|
| And because of how the jab works - inducing spike protein
| genesis as well as an immune response - when the immune system
| finds spike protein on the cells that are creating it (supposed
| to be just your arm muscle but ends up being your heart and
| other things), it starts attacking those cells. Which leads to
| inflammation, blood clots, etc.
| thehappypm wrote:
| I wonder if a similar mechanism is responsible for the blood
| clotting risk with the J&J shot, which uses a viral delivery
| mechanism.
| CadmiumYellow wrote:
| This is extremely fascinating to me as a layperson. Can you
| explain how this effect would be unique to mRNA? Like, could
| you get a flu shot and end up with some of the inactivated
| flu virus spreading around the body and sticking to other
| organs? Or is the spike protein collecting in other organs
| solely because the mRNA is telling those cells to produce it,
| whereas with a typical vaccine the dead virus could get into
| the bloodstream but it would simply float around the body
| without piling up anywhere til it's taken out by the immune
| system?
| dontwearitout wrote:
| A nurse friend of mine raised this as a concern. The protocol
| for intramuscular injections used to be (and in some places
| still is) to draw the plunger back a bit first to verify that
| you're in muscle, and haven't hit a small vein. If you pull
| blood, you find new spot.
|
| In practice this doesn't happen for covid vaccines, and her
| personal hypothesis was that many of the adverse reactions
| (myocarditis, or just being hit hard) were due to the vaccine
| partially being administered into a vein.
| nradov wrote:
| One mouse study found that not aspirating when injecting the
| vaccine did increase the risk of myocarditis.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab707
|
| That research hasn't been reproduced in humans but it's worth
| further study. Currently the CDC recommends against aspiration,
| primarily due to pain.
| athenot wrote:
| What this article does describe, is _how_ the fatal "adverse
| events" take place. It's useful to deepen our understanding of
| the mechanisms of action for undesireable outcomes. And of course
| it's one piece of a much larger puzzle.
|
| Some seem to be interpreting this article as a confirmation that
| vaccines are inherently not safe. The thing is, _every_ therapy,
| whether preventative or curative carries an element of risk. This
| paper is not weighing on the relative safety of the immunization.
|
| To someone uncomfortable with the vaccine, this is of course
| unsettling to discuss, as it reinforces a fear. It's akin to
| discussing how exactly people's organs got smashed when they got
| killed by getting ran over by a bus. People who distrust busses
| will further cement their fears about them.
| nulld3v wrote:
| I am vaccinated but I am upvoting this post because I believe
| that it is important to investigate these cases to determine how
| to improve future vaccines. I really don't like how this topic
| seems to be treated like some fringe conspiracy theory. Maybe it
| is just a conspiracy, but we won't ever know until sufficient
| research has been done.
|
| Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even if
| vaccines cause mortality/harm in some cases. As long as vaccine
| side effects cause less deaths and less harm than the virus,
| vaccination is still the way to go.
|
| My position depends on us having a good understanding of the
| vaccine's effects however, and right now I feel like we don't.
| 2devnull wrote:
| Yes, it's never either or. For one good example of the
| complexity, see this video [1] where Paul Offit notes the
| problems with the current bivalve that vaccines.
|
| [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_vXMI91nw
| [deleted]
| blub wrote:
| The association between heart problems and mRNA vaccines is a
| settled matter - outside social media at least.
|
| The Paul Ehrlich institute which is monitoring vaccine side-
| effects has a nice detailed report on vaccine safety with
| details on heart problems and all sorts of other things.
|
| Most affected are men and male teens between 12-17 and
| Moderna's causing more problems than Biontech. This was the
| main reason why the German vaccination committee recommended
| that men under 30 get Biontech.
| gregcrv wrote:
| Has there been any plan to compensate victims of the vaccines?
| either deaths or heart inflammation or other side effects? Any
| plan to approve and understand vaccine's effects should also
| come with proper system to compensate and acknowledge the
| risks.. But I feel that this has been avoided from the start to
| remove any liability.
| ycombinete wrote:
| I agree with you, there's a weirdly political zealotry when it
| comes to such things.
|
| I took the Sinopharm vac as I felt hesitant to take what I
| considered to be brand new tech in the MRNA vaccines (I ended
| up taking the MRNA one as well but that was for travel reasons
| where I live). And people online acted like I was a conspiracy
| theorist, for preferring the tried and tested tech of the
| traditional vaccine.
| vfclists wrote:
| > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had
| died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2
| vaccination. In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination,
| we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of
| another significant disease or health constellation that may
| have caused an unexpected death.
|
| Myocarditis was found in 4 out of 25 people who had received
| the vaccine and died within 25 days of it, and none had showed
| any sign of related disease.
|
| What are the odds of any 4 out 25 people in the age range of
| the group with no record of any related illness having acute
| myocarditis?
|
| It is so typical of HN that your vapid comment should rise to
| the top.
|
| > Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even
| if vaccines cause mortality/harm in some cases. As long as
| vaccine side effects cause less deaths and less harm than the
| virus, vaccination is still the way to go.
|
| Where is the evidence of this, given that many governments have
| withdrawn the vaccines or even banned for them for young
| people, a category you probably fall into?
| nulld3v wrote:
| > What are the odds of any 4 out 25 people with no record of
| any related illness dying of myocarditis.
|
| Note that I'm not saying vaccines do not cause myocarditis,
| I'm saying that even if vaccines may cause myocarditis but
| cause fewer myocarditis cases than COVID deaths, then it is
| still worth vaccinating.
|
| > Where is the evidence of this, given that many governments
| have withdrawn the vaccines or even banned for them for young
| people, a category you probably fall into?
|
| Hence my next sentence right?
|
| > My position depends on us having a good understanding of
| the vaccine's effects however, and right now I feel like we
| don't.
|
| That said, although I didn't mention it in my comment, my
| current understanding of the statistics does make me believe
| that the vaccine causes less cases of myocarditis than COVID
| deaths.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| There is a lot of studies on this topic. Somehow not covered in
| media. Which makes me even more curious.
|
| Gill J.R. et al: Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in 2
| Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose, Arch
| Pathol Lab Med (2022) 146 (8):925-929
| https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/146/8/925/47778...
|
| Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias
| associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infectionhtt
| ps://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0#Aff1
|
| Vaccine-Associated Myo/Pericarditis in Adolescents: A
| Stratified Risk-Benefit Analysis
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13759
|
| Schauer J. et al: Persistent Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
| Finfings in a Cohort of Adolescents with Post-Coronavirus
| Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine Myopericarditis, The Journal of
| Pediatrics, March 25, 2022
| https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext
|
| Chua G.T.et al: Epidemiology of Acute Myocarditis/Pericarditis
| in Hong Kong Adolescents Following Comirnaty Vaccination, Clin
| Infect Dis 2022, Sep 10. 75(4):673-681
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/
|
| Le Vu S.et al: Age and sex-specific risks of myokarditis and
| pericarditis following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines, Nat
| Commun, 2022, 13:3633, 25 Jun 2022
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9233673/
|
| Goddard K.et al: Risk of myokarditis and pericarditis following
| BT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination, Vaccine 2022, Aug
| 19, 40(35): 5153-5159
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9273527/
|
| https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/vaccination-against...
|
| Bardosh K.et al: COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A
| Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against
| Mandates at Universities, 12 Sep 2022, preprint
| https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
|
| Oster M.E. et al: Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based
| COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August
| 2021, JAMA 2022,327(4):331-340, 25 Jan 2022
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
|
| Lai F.T. et al: Carditis After COVID-19 Vaccination With a
| Messenger RNA Vaccine and an Inactivated Virus Vaccine, Ann Int
| Med, March 2022
| https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3700?rfr_da...
|
| Massari M. et al: Postmarketing active surveillance of
| myokarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with
| COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy:
| A multi-database, self-controlled case series study, Plos
| Medicine, July 2022 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/
|
| SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study
| of 23 Million Residents
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
|
| Age and sex-specific risks of myocarditis and pericarditis
| following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5
| asdf123wtf wrote:
| What does "not covered in media" mean to you?
|
| While this topic doesn't dominate the news cycle, I've seen
| plenty of reporting on it.
| kodyo wrote:
| If you're over 80, you should probably get vaccinated.
| manwe150 wrote:
| I agree it is good we keep funding studies to try to better
| understand and predict the effects of the vaccines. What would
| it mean to feel like we have a good understanding though? How
| would we quantify "god"? We have observed that the side-effects
| have minimal deviation from the normal variations observed in
| the population for those effects. And we also know it is highly
| dependent on individual characteristics as to who exhibits the
| worst side-effects or best antibody response.
| nulld3v wrote:
| > What would it mean to feel like we have a good
| understanding though? How would we quantify "god"?
|
| That is a hard question and honestly I don't have the
| knowledge to answer it.
|
| > We have observed that the side-effects have minimal
| deviation from the normal variations observed in the
| population for those effects. And we also know it is highly
| dependent on individual characteristics as to who exhibits
| the worst side-effects or best antibody response.
|
| Yeah, I get that the vaccine can cause side effects for a
| very small minority of the population. I think what I want is
| for vaccine side-effects to be treated more like plane
| crashes. I get that bad things happen, but if it isn't cost-
| prohibitive, I would like to know why these things happened,
| even if they happen extremely rarely.
| vannevar wrote:
| The problem here isn't the study---of course we should study
| possible vaccine side effects. The problem is the massive leaps
| of logic being made by people who have (quite wrongly, based on
| available evidence) become convinced that the vaccines are a
| greater threat to healthy people than the virus is. As unlikely
| as it is that an otherwise healthy young person will die from
| covid, it is even less likely that they'll die from a vaccine
| side effect. That's just a statistical fact at this point, we
| have millions of both covid cases and vaccinations to back that
| up.
|
| This study looked at 25 cases of unexpected death in people
| aged 46-75 and found 5 cases of myocarditis. Without any
| control group to compare to, there is literally nothing that
| can be drawn from this study about the risk presented by the
| vaccine, and the authors admit as much:
|
| "The nature of our autopsy study necessitates that the data are
| descriptive in quality and does not allow any epidemiological
| conclusions in terms of incidence or risk estimation."
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| They are making these leaps of logic because people have
| refused to look into it...
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| There is a lot of evidence that the system to report vaccine
| injuries is largely ignored and people that report issues are
| ostracized for doing so. It also begs to question how often
| injuries would go unreported or misreported because of the
| difficulties of being linked to the actual cause, and many
| doctors may be unwilling to claim a vaccine caused an injury
| just due to the stigma around vaccine injuries, especially in
| regards to COVID-19.
| Daishiman wrote:
| I really hope you're not talking about VAERS, because
| that's about the flimsiest mechanism you could conceive.
| skissane wrote:
| > The problem is the massive leaps of logic being made by
| people who have (quite wrongly, based on available evidence)
| become convinced that the vaccines are a greater threat to
| healthy people than the virus is.
|
| In some cases, it may well be true that the vaccine is a
| greater risk than the virus. For example, in Australia, the
| official recommendation is that healthy people under 30 _not_
| receive a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine, since Australian
| health officials believe the risk from vaccine side effects
| (such as myocarditis) in that age group outweighs the risk of
| COVID-19 itself. [0] Furthermore, for healthy people in the
| 30-49 age group, the official Australian position on fourth
| doses is "permitted but not recommended", since it is
| unclear if the risk of COVID-19 is greater than that of the
| vaccine. This is different from the recommendations made by a
| number of other countries (US, UK, Canada, Singapore), but it
| appears Australian health authorities weigh the risk of
| vaccination side effects versus the risk of COVID-19
| differently than they do.
|
| [0] https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-you-won-t-get-
| another-co...
| blub wrote:
| I've been watching the vaccine discussions on HN these
| years and one can see that too many people are stuck
| fighting vaccination windmills from days gone by, while
| downplaying vaccine risks which by now are established and
| continue to be investigated as this publication shows.
|
| Meanwhile many EU countries have understood that heart
| problems are a real risk and have adjusted recommendations
| accordingly. They've also stopped obsessing about
| vaccinating people.
|
| The vaccination crusade's dead folks, please stand by for
| the next pandemic.
| failuser wrote:
| So you argue that you should increase the risk of death
| or disability by COVID by not vaccinating. Got it.
| throw4659261 wrote:
| Pfizer really has you in the palm of their hand lmao
| meindnoch wrote:
| It's the paradox of intelligence: smart people are more
| prone to fight tooth and nail, and do all kinds of mental
| gymnastics, rather than to admit that they too have been
| misled. People of average or below average intelligence
| tend to accept it much more easily.
|
| I don't know if there's already a name for this
| phenomenon...
| marvin wrote:
| Would love to see the incidence of this by IQ. My
| intuition says it spikes in slightly smarter-than-average
| folks.
| wsc981 wrote:
| Denmark doesn't recommend COVID vaccines anymore to anyone
| under 50 who is not at risk or work in health sector [0].
|
| _> 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._
|
| ------
|
| [0]: https://sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Vaccination-
| against-cov...
| birken wrote:
| While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the
| policies of other countries, I don't think just because
| another country has a different policy necessarily
| dictates that policy is better or worse.
|
| Additionally, I think it's very easy to see something
| like "Denmark doesn't recommend the vaccines to anybody
| under 50" and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't
| think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the
| age of 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on
| anti-vax sites). But that isn't the case. What was good
| health policy in 2021 is different from good health
| policy now, because we have way more information about
| the virus, better and more effective drug to treat it,
| new variants, etc.
|
| Two things can be true at the same time: The vaccines are
| (on net) incredibly beneficial to people and the
| population as a whole, and yet at the present time there
| are certain specific populations of people whose optimal
| number of doses might be fewer than others.
| skissane wrote:
| > While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the
| policies of other countries, I don't think just because
| another country has a different policy necessarily
| dictates that policy is better or worse.
|
| Sure. But if a person is aware that other countries have
| different policies, that gives them a legitimate reason
| to question whether the policy of their own country is
| correct. If a person looks into the matter, and decides
| not to follow the recommendations of their own
| government, because they think some other country's
| government is more likely to have got it right, such a
| person isn't necessarily being
| irrational/irresponsible/etc, nor would it necessarily be
| irrational/irresponsible/etc for them to share their
| conclusion with others.
|
| > and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think
| vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the age of
| 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on anti-vax
| sites)
|
| Yes, many people do seem to conflate these two claims:
|
| (1) "for healthy children and young people, the safety
| risk of _additional_ doses of the vaccine _currently_
| outweighs the risk of COVID-19 "
|
| (2) "for healthy children and young people, the safety
| risk of _any_ dose of the vaccine has _always_ outweighed
| the risk of COVID-19 "
|
| While the claim (1) is disputed, some highly respected
| medical experts agree with it; the same cannot be said
| for claim (2).
|
| However, I think this conflation goes in both directions
| - some people who want to defend (2) do so by conflating
| it with (1); but conversely, some people attack (1) by
| conflating it with (2).
|
| Some people can't distinguish _reasonable_ scepticism
| about vaccinations from _unreasonable_ scepticism.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| I think a lot of the resentment comes out of "the experts"
| changing their narratives a dozen times about the efficacy of
| the vaccines over the last 3 years while browbeating anyone
| who voiced any amount of skepticism.
| ajross wrote:
| I see this point so often that it's sort of become a
| shibboleth for identifying political affiliation. And I
| still don't really understand it. Have the experts ever
| been saying anything significantly different than "get your
| shot"? Have they ever been wrong about that? No on both
| counts, right?
|
| I'm genuinely curious what you mean here about "changing
| their narratives a dozen times about the efficacy of the
| vaccines"?
| kyleblarson wrote:
| "two weeks to flatten the curve", "if you get the vaccine
| you won't get covid", "the vaccine is 95% effective",
| "the vaccine is 80% effective", "the vaccine is 50%
| effective", "well you'll still get covid but you won't
| spread it to others", "well actually you can spread it to
| others"
| mrguyorama wrote:
| These people also seem to ignore that CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE
| CHANGED QUITE A BIT over the entire pandemic. Of COURSE
| recommendations made when the vaccine first came out
| might need to be modified or updated as more gets learned
| about possible side effects and how it interacts with
| different variants.
|
| These people never seem to have a problem with the
| changes in the polio vaccine over the years, or
| chickenpox
| mcronce wrote:
| They also like to yell and scream about how "science
| can't make up its mind"
|
| Yes, because that's how science works. When new
| information is acquired, new hypotheses are created and
| tested.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| People were literally fired from their jobs, removed from
| 30+ year military careers, over _the science_ , only for
| _the science_ to keep changing.
|
| If science can't make up its mind and this is "how
| science works," anyone who thinks anything should be
| mandated based on science should be shot. You can't tell
| people something, have it directly and deeply affect
| their personal lives, then tell them something
| substantially different 2 years later, without people
| grabbing pitchforks. Your theoretical definition of
| science is irrelevant and makes popular perception of
| "science" a whimsical joke.
| claytongulick wrote:
| Many other people have replied with great information, but
| I'm going to respectfully disagree with:
|
| > The problem is the massive leaps of logic being made by
| people who have (quite wrongly, based on available evidence)
| become convinced that the vaccines are a greater threat to
| healthy people than the virus is.
|
| I believe the problem is that we were so convinced that our
| solution to covid was infallible that we removed a basic
| human right: the ability to make informed choice about your
| medical care.
|
| I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most people
| involved did this out of a genuine desire to save lives and
| help people.
|
| The issue is the hubris.
|
| The idea that "I know better than you do what's good for you
| and for society, so I'm going to force you to do a thing".
|
| This is where we went wrong. The forcing.
|
| If we'd presented vaccination as informed choice, had
| recommendations but not coercion, I think there would have
| been a lot less resistance.
|
| We decided that public health was a trump card that allowed
| us to ignore almost every civil liberty the U.S. was founded
| on.
|
| We actively limited speech and debate, going to far as to
| silence and destroy the lives and careers of qualified
| physicians who dissented.
|
| We restricted freedom of assembly.
|
| We seized property through forced business closing without
| compensation.
|
| We restricted free movement.
|
| We coerced vaccination in the strongest possible ways shy of
| physical force.
|
| The list goes on.
|
| We did this out of a hubris that "we know better than you".
|
| It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not, it's
| fundamentally anti-liberal.
|
| It's made worse by the unfortunate fact that in most cases we
| were wrong.
|
| Asymptomatic spread wasn't a thing. The initial studies that
| said it was were based on flawed methodology. Even China
| isn't counting asymptomatic cases anymore.
|
| Pretty much every model that we based policy off of,
| predicting extreme fatality rates and recommending
| extraordinary interventions, were dead wrong.
|
| As others have pointed out, mortality counts were wildly off
| due to many factors, including how death certificates were
| filled out (died with covid v/s died from covid).
|
| The vulnerable populations were identified fairly early on,
| but we chose to implement draconian restrictions for
| everyone, regardless of their individual risk.
|
| This was the problem.
|
| Hubris.
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| Yep.
|
| Fuck authoritarians!
|
| Never forget.
| addingadimensio wrote:
| addingadimensio wrote:
| Wow down votes and no fucking refutations of the Central
| point I can tell I'm surrounded by liberals
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for using HN primarily for
| ideological battle. You can't do that here, and yes that
| rule holds regardless of which ideology you're battling
| for or against. It's not what this site is for, and
| destroys what it is for. Please don't create accounts to
| break HN's rules with.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tempsy wrote:
| Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is
| improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it
| necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small
| chance of side effects? Rare is not zero.
|
| I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I
| absolutely feel like I have to.
| vannevar wrote:
| Because a) the risk from covid, while small, is still
| greater than the risk from the vaccines and b) unvaccinated
| people are more likely to be infected and become a vector
| for the virus, infecting other people.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and
| become a vector for the virus
|
| I've read conflicting accounts of whether that's true or
| false, but even if it is - what difference does it make?
| We're not going to reach heard immunity here. Everybody's
| going to get it, several times throughout their lives, no
| matter what we do at this point.
| dtauzell wrote:
| Is there any evidence for (b)? My understanding is that
| you are just as likely to get vaccinated and "shed" the
| virus for just as long, but are less likely to be
| severely sick.
| mtillman wrote:
| I think you mean "get sick" which is untrue. You are less
| likely to get sick if vaccinated. You are also less
| likely to experience severe symptoms if vaccinated.
| https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-
| care/va...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Your understanding is wrong. Vaccinated and unvaccinated
| people with symptomatic COVID shed at comparable rates,
| but vaccinated people are less likely to get symptomatic
| COVID. The difference wanes considerably if your last
| shot was > 6 months ago, but is still present.
| bscphil wrote:
| > unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and
| become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.
|
| I'd add to this the fact that it was especially true
| earlier in the pandemic, and at that time COVID was
| significantly more likely to be fatal. Even if someone
| rejects the idea of getting a fourth dose of the vaccine
| (rightly or wrongly), it's possible to think that the
| first two doses were an entirely reasonable one-time
| intervention into an ongoing pandemic that saved many
| thousands of lives.
| jszymborski wrote:
| [deleted, I retract my statement]
| tempsy wrote:
| Myocarditis literally has it's own page on the CDC covid
| vaccine website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov
| /vaccines/safety/my...
| driggs wrote:
| Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to
| others, whose risk of dying may be higher than yours.
|
| Choosing not to take Advil affects nobody but you. Choosing
| not to get vaccinated against a highly-contagious virus
| affects _society_.
| nradov wrote:
| Vaccination has only limited and temporary effects in
| reducing the risk of transmission. I would encourage
| everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting
| vaccinated but this does very little to prevent it from
| spreading in _society_.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
| woodruffw wrote:
| Spread is just one social effect. I think the GP meant
| that there are plenty of other civic motivations, like
| not overloading medical institutions and minimizing the
| extent to which society needs to be halted to prevent
| particularly harmful spread.
| nradov wrote:
| By all means I would encourage everyone eligible to get
| vaccinated. But there was never any valid reason to halt
| society in the first place, so your comment is a _non
| sequitur_.
|
| Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was routine for
| medical institutions to be overwhelmed by respiratory
| viruses. We didn't halt society, we just accepted the
| consequences and moved on.
|
| https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-
| patie...
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/
| woodruffw wrote:
| There's a significant difference in kind between "a nasty
| cold or flu season" and the excess mortality rate we've
| seen during COVID, particularly earlier in the
| pandemic[1].
|
| There's no non sequitur here: getting vaccinated reduces
| every demographic's risk of serious illness (even when
| serious illness is not especially likely!), which in turn
| reduces the burden on healthcare institutions. That is a
| _good civic_ reason to get vaccinated that has nothing to
| do with transmission.
|
| [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_de
| aths.htm
| vfclists wrote:
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid
| to others...
|
| I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it
| likely _reduces_ your chances of doing that, to some
| extent. It does not _prevent_ you from spreading COVID.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We
| commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's,
| but they're not perfect either.
|
| If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not
| preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same.
| If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing
| STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing
| infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing
| infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still
| worth getting for the protection from severe illness and
| death.
| bscphil wrote:
| > If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing
| STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing
| infection, we wouldn't use them.
|
| No? If they were the best form of contraception we had
| (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), _of
| course_ people would use them! It would make abstinence
| marginally more appealing, of course, but there are
| already people who don 't want or can't afford a
| pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception.
| There would certainly be an enormous number of people who
| would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex
| entirely.
| driggs wrote:
| If vaccination prevents you from catching covid, _then it
| has prevented you from spreading covid_ to those you
| would have otherwise.
|
| If vaccination causes you to experience an early immune
| response, versus several asymptomatic days while
| unknowingly contagious, _then it has prevented you from
| spreading covid_ to some of those you would have
| otherwise.
|
| If vaccination results in a less severe infection with
| lower viral load, _then it has prevented you from
| spreading covid_ to some of those you would have
| otherwise.
|
| My reply was intentionally simple in order to drive home
| a point about _selfish_ versus _societal_ viewpoints.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the
| virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from
| the vaccine.
|
| Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the
| vaccine that isn't in the virus already.
|
| There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're
| living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just
| "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments,
| while no matter how small the risk is of the vaccine that
| is all that matters.
| amluto wrote:
| > Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in
| the vaccine that isn't in the virus already.
|
| I don't find this compelling at all. At the very least,
| the mRNA vaccines have the lipid nanoparticles
| themselves, and LNPs are quite clearly biologically
| active.
|
| And the mRNA gets delivered to cells that would not be
| infected by the actual virus. One might imagine that such
| cells would be targeted to at some some extent by CD8+ T
| cells that learn to recognize spike protein. As far as I
| can tell, there is nothing published examining what
| actually happens, but you certainly don't end up with
| massive death of muscle cells when vaccinated. See, for
| example, the comments here:
|
| https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mrna-vaccines-
| what...
| lamontcg wrote:
| The lipid nanoparticle itself is basically a cell wall
| and it fuses with your cell wall and deploys its payload.
| There isn't a lot there. It isn't like the adenovirus
| capsid that binds to PF-4 and causes the clotting
| disorders in J&J and ChAdOx1. It would have to be
| something related to ALC-0315 and/or ALC-0159 and be
| active in the very tiny quantities which are
| administered. Those are lipids and it is most likely that
| they're eventually just disassembled.
|
| > One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to
| at some some extent by CD8+ T cells that learn to
| recognize spike protein.
|
| This is exactly what we want to see happen, and you're
| going to get CD8+ T-cells from the virus as well (and if
| you don't, then you're going to get very extremely ill).
|
| The tissue distribution is a reasonably good point, but
| that should be considered in light of the evidence that
| the virus itself likes to hide out in places like the gut
| and that liver and gut activation after vaccination may
| be protective. And if that argument is wrong, that would
| be an argument to try to produce nasal mRNA vaccines.
|
| And at this point we do have a really massive amount of
| data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines and
| we're having to sift the data very closely to find
| effects lower than one in million. Other vaccines perform
| worse. I think it probably is because we're getting
| closer and closer to minimalism.
| woodruffw wrote:
| It's definitely not a standard name, but I call kind of
| reasoning error "active/passive bias": we're generally
| much more afraid of risks that manifest from action
| (mauled by a shark while swimming, getting in a car
| crash) than inaction (dying of obesity, getting hit by a
| car on the sidewalk).
|
| In the case of COVID-19: you have to actively get the
| vaccine, meaning that people overweight its risks
| relative to the risks latent in not getting it.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| I think you're right, and an additional factor is that
| the vaccine is tangible and certain where the virus is
| invisible and may or may not be present in any given
| situation (and in unknown quantity).
| lamontcg wrote:
| At its core it may be more that people can't think past
| binary logic. Either something works or it doesn't work.
| Either something is perfectly safe or it is too risky.
| But that doesn't address why they don't apply the same
| logic to the virus itself (although there are some people
| on the flip side who still do).
| pexabit wrote:
| That isn't relevant because there is no evidence that the
| vaccine reduces your risk of suffering from myocarditis
| after infection. (It isn't even necessarily true, but
| that is a separate matter).
| lamontcg wrote:
| > The risk of COVID-19 infection-related myocarditis risk
| was cut in half among people infected after vaccination
| (received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine).
|
| https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-
| significant...
| 2devnull wrote:
| Based on the original strain. Not that I would want to
| argue. There are several nations that do not recommend
| vaccination for younger people. They could be wrong of
| course, but to be so certain about science of a rapidly
| changing virus and wave away methodological difficulties,
| like measuring myocarditis without an autopsy, strikes me
| as scientifically naive, perhaps bordering on
| religiosity.
| mhb wrote:
| _Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the
| virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from
| the vaccine._
|
| It's good to point that out, but the first term needs to
| be multiplied by the chance of getting the virus.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's likely a number greater than 1 since there is a
| really good chance of contracting the disease multiple
| times.
| ajross wrote:
| With all respect, this is terrible logic. You have _two_
| probabilities to compare, not one to compare to zero! If
| _and only if_ the vaccine is more dangerous then your
| "improbably small chance of dying of covid", you should
| forego the vaccination.
|
| Is it? No. It is not. Not even for the best protected
| youngest cohort. Get your shot. You're being misled by
| politics and tiny, difficult numbers.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| > why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only
| a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero.
|
| In my case i vaccinated because i knew i was a transmission
| node in case of being infected and not noticing, potetially
| endangering multitude of vulnerable people.
| shagie wrote:
| That first part is a mistaken belief.
|
| There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" -
| it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a
| million chance of dying
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
|
| A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19
| and it is summarized in the wikipedia article.
| AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 - 2.9
| micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 - 20
| micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 25 - 100
| micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 55 - 4,000
| micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 65 - 14,000
| micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 75 - 46,000
| micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 85 - 150,000
| micromorts [32]
|
| Yes, many people survived - but those are not numbers I
| want to be betting against on a daily basis.
|
| NYT - Putting the Risk of Covid-19 in Perspective Is the
| risk of dying from Covid-19 comparable to driving to work
| every day, skydiving or being a soldier in a war?
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-
| ris...
|
| > Converting this to micromort language, an individual
| living in New York City has experienced roughly 50
| additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19.
| That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you
| would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed
| forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly
| deadly year.
|
| Rare is not zero - but if you are risk adverse, then
| avoiding things that are fairly high up on the risk counter
| would be reasonable. Likewise, if there are two options
| (driving in a car vs driving in a motor cycle), taking the
| one that adds the least amount of additional risk is
| reasonable.
| nradov wrote:
| How do those numbers change when you adjust for presence
| or absence of pre-existing conditions such as obesity and
| type-2 diabetes?
| shagie wrote:
| On the scale that micromorts work, that isn't something
| that it measures well. Micromorts work best for the acute
| risk "do X and this is your chance of dying." Adding in
| things that are chronic risks doesn't factor into
| micromorts well.
|
| Consider "traveling 230 miles by car is 1 micromort"...
| but that doesn't account for impaired driving or any of
| the other factors known to influence likelihood or
| survival of a car crash.
|
| The numbers would likely change if you further specified
| them, but they are useful for the broad comparisons and
| risk analysis.
|
| If you've got someone going skydiving every weekend, what
| does that do to their life insurance rates? Well,
| skydiving is 8 micromorts per jump. So that's 400
| micromorts per year. And that goes into some insurance
| premium cost calculations.
|
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > Micromorts for future activities can only be rough
| assessments, as specific circumstances will always have
| an impact. However, past historical rates of events can
| be used to provide a ball park, average figure.
|
| Another part of this is a study about risk acceptance.
|
| > An application of micromorts is measuring the value
| that humans place on risk. For example, a person can
| consider the amount of money they would be willing to pay
| to avoid a one-in-a-million chance of death (or
| conversely, the amount of money they would receive to
| accept a one-in-a-million chance of death). When offered
| this situation, people claim a high number. However, when
| looking at their day-to-day actions (e.g., how much they
| are willing to pay for safety features on cars), a
| typical value for a micromort is around $50 (in 2009).
| This is not to say the $50 valuation should be taken to
| mean that a human life (1 million micromorts) is valued
| at $50,000,000. Rather, people are less inclined to spend
| money after a certain point to increase their safety.
| This means that analyzing risk using the micromort is
| more useful when using small risks, not necessarily large
| ones.
|
| That last sentence is an important one when looking at
| this.
|
| Would you be willing to be paid $150 to get vaccinated?
| ajross wrote:
| Please don't. What you are doing is called "P-hacking".
| Yes, if you keep selecting for subsets of a dataset
| you'll eventually find one that, just due to random
| chance, looks like a statistically significant result
| that proves whatever it is you want to see. That's not
| the way you do science.
|
| As always, xkcd explains it best: https://www.explainxkcd
| .com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant
| lurquer wrote:
| The global risk of death from childbirth is X.
|
| It isn't p-hacking for a dude to inquire what the chances
| are for the male subgroup.
| nradov wrote:
| No that's not P-hacking. The majority of US residents
| have been infected at this point. The sizes of those
| population groups both with and without serious pre-
| existing conditions are so huge that there is minimal
| chance of an incorrect random result.
|
| Your link is not relevant to this issue so I don't know
| what point you're trying to make.
|
| To be clear I support vaccination. But patients should
| make their own decisions free of coercion based on
| informed consent with full knowledge of the risks on both
| sides. Don't presume to patronize them with spurious, bad
| faith comments about "P-hacking". Let's see the actual
| data.
| ajross wrote:
| Right, you have a hypothesis. But you don't have data.
| Trying to tease out evidence for your hypothesis from
| existing data by slicing the data set up is the very
| definition of p-hacking. If you refuse to believe
| existing work on the basis of an unmeasured hypothesis,
| well, that's a different sort of logical fallacy on top
| of the bad statistics.
|
| And FWIW, if you want a more complete (but _much_ less
| amusing) explainer on the subject, wikipedia always comes
| through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This is not at all correct. By your definition looking at
| anything in greater detail is P hacking.
|
| For example, peanut allergies don't exist because most
| people don't have reactions to them. You absolutely can
| ask the question for if peanuts are good or bad for a
| subpopulation.
|
| The alternative is just sticking your head in the sand.
| kbenson wrote:
| The difference is in the motivations for asking the
| question and what's done with the answer (so _agenda_ ).
| People are assuming and agenda of others in this thread,
| and are crafting responses to head of that perceived
| agenda without actually answering the question, which is
| rarely productive, IMO. Better to _ask_ than _assume_ ,
| or if the answer is known, provide it with a caveat that
| it doesn't actually support the specific cases you're
| worried it might be used for erroneously.
| asterix_pano wrote:
| I would not call "P-Hacking" wishing to know the stats of
| the group you're in, especially if there are significant
| differences between groups.
| vikingerik wrote:
| These numbers are useless going forward if they are based
| on the original Covid-19 strains and not the Omicron
| strains, which now account for virtually every case and
| are tens of times less lethal.
| gdavisson wrote:
| That's not true. Death rates are now much lower, but that
| seems to be mostly due to people having (partial)
| immunity due to vaccination and/or previous infection,
| and better treatment. Omicron variants are less
| intrinsically severe _than delta_ , but delta was more
| intrinsically severe than the earlier variants, so it's
| not clear omicron's actually any lower than the original
| strain, alpha, etc.
|
| For example, according to "Challenges in Inferring
| Intrinsic Severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant" (ht
| tps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2119682?query=fe
| a...): "This meaningful but fairly small difference [vs
| Delta] implies that omicron, alpha, and wild-type SARS-
| CoV-2 have similar intrinsic severity."
| Mawr wrote:
| > "Converting this to micromort language, an individual
| living in New York City has experienced roughly 50
| additional micromorts of risk per day because of
| Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to
| die as you would have been if you were serving in the
| U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a
| particularly deadly year."
|
| This is highly misleading. The _average_ individual may
| be at such risk, just like humans have ~1.9 legs on
| average, but that doesn 't mean that everyone walks
| around with their 1.9 legs.
|
| So those statistics are based on the risk to the general
| population and therefore have approximately zero
| relevance to any single person.
|
| Almost by definition, the disease will claim those most
| vulnerable first, so questioning whether vaccination is
| worth it for those less vulnerable is valid.
|
| What're the risks of vaccination vs covid for a healthy
| 25 year old who works from home?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This exactly. You would want to see the micromort
| breakdown for the same populations as covid infection.
| You might also want to dive deeper and see if there's
| more specific populations and how they compare.
| VancouverMan wrote:
| We have to be extremely cautious when considering any of
| the death-related statistics for this particular
| situation.
|
| For example, we know that a dubious methodology was used
| for counting deaths in Toronto (Canada's most populous
| city, and the fourth most populous city in North
| America).
|
| This was publicly admitted to by Toronto Public Health
| itself, as early as June 2020:
|
| _" Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a
| result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for
| COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."_
|
| https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/127588839006028
| 596...
|
| I can't see how that significant city's death stats could
| be considered reliable or usable for analytic purposes,
| after considering how the counting was done. The
| provincial and national stats would also be affected to
| some extent.
|
| This makes me quite doubtful about the stats coming out
| of other regions, too.
| shagie wrote:
| The paper those numbers are based on is Assessing the age
| specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19:
| systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy
| implications
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721859/
|
| The meta-analysis is looking at that question that you
| are asking.
|
| It also has all the papers that it cites for analysis and
| an analysis of its own limitations.
|
| > The systematic review encompassed 113 studies, of which
| 27 studies (covering 34 geographical locations) satisfied
| the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-
| analysis.
| bb88 wrote:
| Since the Musk takeover, conspiracy theorists on $8Chan have
| talked about Grant Wahl dying suddenly because of the "clot
| shot".
|
| Then we find out he died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm.
|
| Then people still refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit
| their narrative they're pushing. And anyone who dies suddenly
| must have died because of the vaccine.
|
| https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1603103342481342465
|
| This killed John Ritter, George C. Scott, Lucille Ball and
| Albert Einstein. But somehow the vaccine is to blame for
| anyone who dies of it now...
| kennend3 wrote:
| There is also the "Canadian doctors" story the anti-vax
| group continue to flog yet it has being proven wrong over
| and over again.
|
| https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/07/why-wont-a-
| de...
|
| One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to save
| his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage his
| tragedy for their narrative.
| vfclists wrote:
| > One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to
| save his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage
| his tragedy for their narrative.
|
| One out of how many?
| kennend3 wrote:
| The number of doctors who "died" after getting their
| fourth dose is a moving target, but the article i posted
| did a bit of a breakdown:
|
| " The cluster of deaths back in the summer helped kindle
| what is now a fire -- a conspiracy theory that today
| peddles a list of dozens of doctors online, including the
| three who died in July, as well as -- according to its
| own descriptions -- several who drowned, one who was in
| the middle of biking 105 kilometres and a doctor who died
| coming down K2, a mountain deadlier than Everest. "
|
| It started out as "three" doctors, now it is "dozens".
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| Are you saying that aneuryms are not a potential adverse
| event associated with MRNA Covid vaccination [1]?
|
| Furthermore, we know hypertension is also associated with
| dissections, and there are several documented cases of
| acute and non-acute hypertension after MRNA covid
| vaccination [2]
|
| I'm saying that to say there are some possibilities there,
| but I am also going to say the opposite too.
|
| I don't know that we know enough about the adverse events
| associated with these vaccinations, and whether or not a
| vaccine is implicated, or if there was a previous medical
| condition.
|
| Retrospectively speaking, I don't know that an autopsy
| would give us any novel answers either, because of the gaps
| we have around passive medical surveillance vs active
| medical surveillance.
|
| I am sorry that Mr. Wahl died at such a relatively young
| age
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35646499/
|
| [2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/HYPERTENSI
| ONAHA...
| westmeal wrote:
| People will believe whatever they want to believe, just let
| them stew.
| phtrivier wrote:
| Unfortunately, some of them don't stew in silence - and
| consider anyone who got vaccinated with exactly the same
| contempt as you do.
|
| Which is all fun and games until you have to, you know,
| _live_ with them in the real world because they're your
| family and / or loved ones ?
| bb88 wrote:
| This works until it leads to politicians asking for grand
| juries to investigate anyone associated with the vaccine.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/13/ron-
| desantis...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > even less likely that they'll die from a vaccine side
| effect
|
| My understanding is that there've always been risks
| associated with vaccines, and they were always relatively
| small risks. What I can't find any unbiased information about
| is how the risks of the Covid vaccine compare with the risks
| of, say, the mumps or rubella vaccines.
| gamacodre wrote:
| This has bugged me since the beginning of this mess. It ought
| to be possible to say "Hey this looks kind of funny, could the
| vaccines be having weird effects in this .0000001% of the
| population?" without daggers coming out all around.
|
| It seems perfectly reasonable to me that "The SARS-Cov-2
| vaccines occasionally cause health problems" _and_ "Almost
| everyone should get vaccinated/boosted" are both entirely true
| statements.
| jfengel wrote:
| Yeah, it sure ought to be.
|
| But the same people who believe that evolution and climate
| change are hoaxes are also convinced that COVID is a hoax.
| (The disease is a hoax, the vaccine is a hoax, the hoax
| disease that doesn't need to be cured by the hoax vaccine is
| an attack by China -- and the coverup is a hoax.)
|
| And those people are ~40% of the US population, with an
| outsized thumb on the scale of elections due to accidents of
| geography and history. So instead of talking cogently about
| tradeoffs, we're barely fending off turning conspiracy
| theories into policy. And by "barely" I mean "succeeding
| slightly more often than we fail".
|
| Yeah, we ought to be able to discuss things cogently. That
| ship sailed a long time ago.
| danhak wrote:
| The issue is that there were coercive government mandates.
|
| "Almost everyone should get vaccinated" does not mean the
| government should coerce everyone into making the correct
| medical decision by barring them from employment or access to
| private establishments.
|
| Absent a _very_ compelling reason, people should be free to
| go against medical advice. People have the right to do
| whatever they want with their bodies. People have the right
| to make the wrong choice.
|
| In this case, the reason given for overriding that freedom
| was a highly specious argument that the unvaccinated were
| putting _other people_ at significant risk. That argument did
| not pass the smell test from the very beginning.
| gamacodre wrote:
| > ...does not mean the government should coerce everyone...
|
| Here you're presuming that the government's role in a
| pandemic is to wring their hands and issue PSA's. That
| might be what some folks want them to do these days, but
| when the legal foundations of public health policy were
| laid the government was expected to do quite a bit more.
|
| > People have the right to do whatever they want with their
| bodies.
|
| This might be your opinion, but the majority of your fellow
| citizens disagree with you. Try asking them about drug use,
| abortion, suicide, and other "purely personal" matters.
|
| > People have the right to make the wrong choice.
|
| Many wrong choices come with severe state-imposed
| consequences. We in the US long ago delegated to our
| elected representatives the authority to force some choices
| onto individuals, including in a health emergency. We are
| of course vigorously debating whether they used that
| authority wisely this time, but it was theirs to use.
| ethanbond wrote:
| You don't get to dismiss an argument by just declaring that
| it "didn't pass the smell test." That guidance was exactly
| in line with every counter-pathogen campaign since, Idk,
| before germ theory?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The worst part is that we have already comprehensively
| litigated all of this. The spanish flu had people
| protesting being forced to wear masks and other societal
| health measures and the Supreme court affirmed the US's
| right to mandate those kind of large scale health things.
| ajross wrote:
| > the government should coerce everyone into making the
| correct medical decision by barring them from employment or
| access to private establishments.
|
| But... the government has been doing that for decades and
| decades, since the very invention of the vaccine! Why is
| that "The Issue" when there's suddenly a pandemic and it's
| important, vs. when you needed to show your vaccination
| records to join the military or go to school in the 90's or
| whatever?
|
| You see that the concern you're showing seems, to those of
| us on the other side, maybe a little insincere?
| danhak wrote:
| What about my position seems insincere to you?
|
| You see no philosophical difference between the
| government mandating vaccination records for schools and
| public institutions like the military vs. them mandating
| vaccination records for private establishments such as
| gyms, irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those
| establishments?
|
| Should the government have the right to mandate
| vaccination records for entry to a private home,
| irrespective of the wishes of the homeowner?
| wpietri wrote:
| The government has the right (and I'd argue, the duty) to
| quarantine people with diseases that are both contagious
| and dangerous if that's the best way to keep them from
| harming others. More details here: https://www.cdc.gov/qu
| arantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
| [deleted]
| emmelaich wrote:
| AIDS/HIV sufferers would like a word with you.
|
| Speaking of which, Fauci's early statements on AIDS in
| the initial outbreak were interesting.
| wpietri wrote:
| Your theory is that the best way to prevent AIDS deaths
| is quarantining people? That seems extreme.
|
| Regardless, it's not one of the diseases listed on the
| linked page, and it's very different in nature than the
| ones there, so that sounds like a red herring to me.
| enaaem wrote:
| Pandemics are not a private issue. It's similar to a war.
| It can kill a significant percent of the population and
| it requires collective action to stop it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bombcar wrote:
| The "vaccine mandates" that have been around since the
| 90s have been relatively weak or non-existent, via any
| number of possible exemptions.
|
| Perhaps the military had some say but it's relatively
| easy to not accidentally enlist.
| [deleted]
| lamontcg wrote:
| > a highly specious argument that the unvaccinated were
| putting other people at significant risk.
|
| The unvaccinated were filling up the hospitals which was
| putting other people at risk.
|
| Your right to gamble with your health ends when you expect
| to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes out badly.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well... the awkward part about this is right now, it is
| now the _opposite_ problem.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/opinion/environment/co
| vid...
|
| https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20221127/more-vaccinated-
| peo...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccin
| ate...
| lamontcg wrote:
| As even that top article points out we'd expect the rate
| of unvaccinated people to approach the base rate which is
| 76% of the population having received one dose. And since
| old people are at more risk and are more vaccinated, we'd
| expect it to reach even higher eventually. But that
| happens because eventually the unvaccinated do all pick
| up natural immunity and the effect we're measuring is
| that the excess load caused by the unvaccinated is
| declining. We could have gotten to this point much
| quicker by having 100% vaccination rates (and 100% of the
| people still being admitted with COVID would then be
| vaccinated) but with an order of magnitude less load on
| the hospital system.
|
| The top article you cite has all this information in it,
| and even mentions the base rate fallacy. It is
| criticizing the framing of the pandemic as a "pandemic of
| the unvaccinated" and trying to focus attention on the
| elderly, but that is orthogonal to the question of if the
| unvaccinated are disproportionately clogging up the
| hospital system. Both statistics are true. Everyone
| should still get vaccinated to reduce the load on the
| hospital system (although this concern is now fading as
| antivaxxers actually do pick up immunity the hard way).
| We should also focus on the elderly more.
|
| As a simple example: if a population begins entirely
| susceptible and there's a vaccine from day 1 which is
| available and reduces the risks of hospitalization by 9x
| and 90% of the people get the vaccine, then the rates of
| hospitalization will be split 50/50 between the
| vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccinating the rest of the
| population would increase vaccination rates by 10% but
| would decrease overall hospitalization rates by 44%.
| bombcar wrote:
| > Your right to gamble with your health ends when you
| expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes
| out badly.
|
| I wonder how that would apply to obesity and unprotected
| sex.
| kurthr wrote:
| Um, obesity is an individual issue (at least at the
| current levels of hospital load associated with it) so
| your insurance and bills go up. Unprotected sex has two
| people involved and can be assault (if not agreed to) and
| if done by someone who knows they are HIV positive and
| infects another who dies... manslaughter.
| bombcar wrote:
| But we've shown that the vaccine doesn't prevent
| transmission, so not getting it is an individual issue
| ...
| koolba wrote:
| > The unvaccinated were filling up the hospitals which
| was putting other people at risk.
|
| > Your right to gamble with your health ends when you
| expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes
| out badly.
|
| My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right
| you have to _feel_ safer. That includes you feeling safe
| that the local hospital system will not be at capacity if
| you have to be admitted.
|
| It's no different than having a bunch of chain smokers,
| alcoholics, or morbidly obese people clogging the medical
| system. People have the right to make potentially
| destructive choices that are not _directly_ harmful to
| those around them.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > chain smokers, alcoholics, or morbidly obese people
| clogging the medical system.
|
| That's the normal load and it is scaled for it[*].
|
| COVID is like a DDoS.
|
| And there is no elastic cloud scaling for nurses, you
| can't just turn up more instances from a ready pool.
|
| [*] Well maybe not any more, and lets not get into a
| discussion of the for-profit health care system.
| mrtksn wrote:
| This paper doesn't claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, it
| investigates through autopsy 35 people in a region of Germany
| who died within 20 days of vaccination and only 5 of the deaths
| are found to show myocarditis of which only 3 somewhat might be
| attributed to the vaccine.
|
| This is not an expose of big Pharma or anything like that, I
| don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some
| kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims.
|
| If you look into the statistics, it actually might be the case
| that those 35 deaths were attributed to the vaccine. They found
| for fact that 10 of those died actually died of something else.
|
| This is also why it takes an expert in a field to evaluate the
| content and make conclusions. Despite the tone in the HN
| comments, this actually might suggest that the deaths
| attributed to the vaccine side effect might be significantly
| higher than the reality but it would take a research to say of
| this is the case.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Fair enough, but everyone was compelled to get the vaccine
| (regardless of age or risk factors). Given that, the vaccine
| makers and proponents leave themselves open to such
| criticisms that would not be valid if the vaccine was not
| compelled on my 7 year old.
| mrtksn wrote:
| If everyone was compelled how the vaccination rates are so
| low?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Where do you live that COVID vaccination is compulsory for
| a seven year old?
|
| In the US, the 5-11 age range has only 38% having had even
| the first dose. https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-
| coronavirus-covid-19...
| bena wrote:
| Tell that to this guy:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500
|
| He _is_ acting like it 's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And
| it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a
| very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the
| smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is
| enough to proclaim victory.
| emmelaich wrote:
| You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of
| the paper under discussion.
|
| If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it?
|
| I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment
| interesting.
| mrtksn wrote:
| If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid,
| I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical
| hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data,
| resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give
| you a shocking graph where you can see that young people
| are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is
| achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to
| dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that
| content.
| bena wrote:
| I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince
| you of the anti-vaxxer side.
|
| You said:
|
| > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this
| is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer
| claims."
|
| To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if
| this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer
| claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact
| thing that happened. Because those users know the
| pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted
| specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those
| comments to point out that this study does not in any way
| vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made
| them were right to make those comments.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I
| just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-
| vaxxer content.
|
| Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it
| very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't
| referring to that comment anyway.
| bena wrote:
| All good then, I just didn't want _you_ to think _I_ was
| advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn
| 't your intention, apologies to you as well.
|
| And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the
| eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same
| bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported
| by abused statistics.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Yeah, I also currently believe that the statistics work out
| in favor of the vaccine. I am curious though, on how those 3
| people died.
|
| My biggest concern is in long-term effects. I understand that
| it is difficult to study them but that is why I am advocating
| for continued research.
|
| So basically:
|
| - I understand that in a pandemic situation, you can't wait
| for research into long-term effects to come out.
|
| - Hence, in a pandemic situation, immediate vaccination
| should still be recommended.
|
| - Research into long-term effects should continue after the
| pandemic.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Is there anything make you believe that the research
| doesn't continue?
| nulld3v wrote:
| I am worried how the discussion around the vaccine has
| turned political and how there are a lot of strong
| opinions around it. I worry it might affect funding and
| also "politically taint" people who publish research
| about it.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Fair enough but this doesn't mean that the research is
| finished, just the reporting on it is getting harder.
| People who actually work with these things instead of
| pushing their agenda are not really influenced by the
| politics because what they find is not political. They
| will not find out that bug Pharma was lying, they will
| find out how many people actually had myocarditis under
| what conditions for example.
| lanstin wrote:
| Well your feeling is wrong. The data gathering to establish the
| risks is why we don't just update the mRNA monthly based on the
| latest viral RNA.
| felipellrocha wrote:
| Same. The impact rate of myocarditis might be extremely small,
| but if it's caused by the vaccine, it should be investigated,
| while at the same time, people should get vaccinated. Luckily,
| the scientific community understands that. Unluckily, the non-
| scientific community doesn't on both ends. The supporters of
| the vaccine think you're attacking the vaccine. The detractors
| think you're suddenly supporting them. No. EVERYONE should be
| vaccinated. The vaccine has been given to billions, it is
| exceedingly safe. Can we do better? Yes. Is it marginal? Also
| yes, but I don't wish miocarditis on anyone.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Wife got shot. Few days later her arm swelled up. 2 years later
| it still is. Her and I had already had Covid from before the
| vaccine. Absolutely refused to get it because of that. She now
| regrets it. She still gets Covid with every outbreak anyway. So
| doesn't seem to have helped.
|
| I know a couple of kids that got it and have clots in their
| brains now. Less sure on timeline on these. But I've not seen
| this before.
|
| Sure it could all be coincidence.
|
| then there's all the assholes who decided that get the vaccine
| or become unemployed.
| [deleted]
| merpnderp wrote:
| I keep hearing vaccination being promoted, but the last major
| study I saw showed no statistically significant difference in
| natural immunity + vaccination versus simple natural immunity.
| This also seems to be a topic treated as a fringe conspiracy
| theory instead of an extremely serious health issue worthy of a
| large amount of resources dedicated to giving us an answer. One
| certainly could be forgiven for thinking the vaccine has become
| a larger political issue than health issue for both sides.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| > As long as vaccine side effects cause less deaths and less
| harm than the virus, vaccination is still the way to go.
|
| Assuming the vaccine prevents or lessens the effects of
| infection, this is logical. A common belief is that the vaccine
| is virtually useless. If this belief is true or close to true,
| then taking the vaccine would result in an increase in risk.
| sethammons wrote:
| Utilitarian ideas like this are the basis of every story of
| the rogue AI that locks up humanity for its own safety.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > I am vaccinated but I am upvoting this post because I believe
| that it is important to investigate these cases to determine
| how to improve future vaccines.
|
| The fact that people feel the need to say that for any
| criticism of an intervention says that we have long left the
| realm of science and entered the realm of religion.
|
| Every intervention has benefits and harms.
|
| Not talking about harms makes it impossible to assess the cost-
| benefit tradeoffs of the intervention.
| chedca21 wrote:
| https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425/rr-31
|
| Covid-19: politicisation, "corruption," and suppression of
| science
|
| "Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, quotes an
| infection fatality rate (IFR) for Covid of 0.00-0.57% (0.05% for
| under 70s), far lower than originally feared and no different to
| severe flu" -March 2020
|
| The bigger scandal is how covid case:fatality rate was so much
| higher in some places than the global average.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-some-doctors-...
| colechristensen wrote:
| The fatality rate for a disease that is very often asymptomatic
| highly depends on testing. The rate will go way down in places
| where lots of people are required to or just do get treated
| frequently.
|
| Most asymptomatic cases will go unnoticed in places with less
| testing so the fatality rate will go way up.
|
| Also how you count whether or not a death gets tagged with
| covid matters. Lots of people had Covid and plenty of deaths
| will just coincidentally happen while a person has a minor
| infection which didn't affect the outcome. How or when do you
| count that?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Professor ioannidis forecasted 10,000 deaths in the US as a mid
| range guess of what to expect. He's not exactly a good appeal
| to authority.
| manv1 wrote:
| People will believe whatever they want to believe.
|
| They only found 5 deaths that had no other real issue besides the
| vaccine. At that level more people died from shower accidents
| than vacccine-induced myocarditis (assuming that there was a
| causal link, which the authors are careful to say they didn't do
| that analysis).
| fzeroracer wrote:
| The discussion here is absolutely rancid. So here are the actual
| the salient points from the study:
|
| > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had
| died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2
| vaccination. In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we
| identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another
| significant disease or health constellation that may have caused
| an unexpected death.
|
| Out of 25 people that died post-vaccination, four patients had
| signs of myocarditis. That's a fraction of a fraction of people.
|
| > Myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-
| CoV-2-infection [24]. It is under debate whether myocarditis in
| COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it
| occurs secondary as a consequence of the host's immune response,
| in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a
| consequence of the cytokine storm observed during COVID-19
|
| We don't know whether or not Myocarditis is a result of the
| infection or the immune response; in either scenario people who
| are predisposed to myocarditis would likely have similar
| reactions during either infection or vaccine.
|
| > However, the vaccine against smallpox, based on a vaccinia
| virus, is reported to cause (epi-)myocarditis in rare cases
|
| Smallpox vaccines can also trigger myocarditis despite being a
| more 'traditional' vaccine.
|
| > The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination
| is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with
| COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk
| associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29]. Importantly,
| infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a
| similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is
| required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated
| myocarditis.
|
| The risk factor is low and the chances of hospitalization and
| death from COVID-19 in even otherwise healthy people is higher
| versus the risk from vaccination, similar to other vaccinations.
|
| > Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a
| direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further
| studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at
| risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed
| clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond
| the scope of this study.
|
| This is not a definitive link between the two, but rather a call
| for further investigation and to ensure that at-risk individuals
| are caught earlier and monitored.
| tiahura wrote:
| _We don 't know whether or not Myocarditis is a result of the
| infection or the immune response; in either scenario people who
| are predisposed to myocarditis would likely have similar
| reactions during either infection or vaccine._
|
| This is the most straightforward conclusion. Some people's
| hearts don't like the immune response to Covid. Since everyone
| is going to get it eventually, avoiding the vax seems based on
| myocarditis seems illogical.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yes, thank you. Also, important to call out ages here:
|
| > Median age at death was 58 years (range 46-75 years).
|
| I keep seeing "young men" over and over in the comments. These
| are not the people being studied here.
| gfodor wrote:
| It seems obvious at this point that there is a mechanism of
| action of the drug in the vaccine that can harm the heart and
| it's highly likely this can lead to death. It's time to stop
| mandating it for kids.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Obvious according to who? I literally directly addressed that
| claim, so I'll quote it again for you:
|
| > Myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-
| CoV-2-infection [24]. It is under debate whether myocarditis
| in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or
| whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host's
| immune response, in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated
| cytotoxicity or as a consequence of the cytokine storm
| observed during COVID-19
|
| We don't know whether or not Myocarditis is a result of the
| infection or the immune response; in either scenario people
| who are predisposed to myocarditis would likely have similar
| reactions during either infection or vaccine.
|
| If myocarditis is a result of the immune system response to
| the spike protein then infection by COVID and/or vaccination
| can potentially trigger a response, with COVID likely
| triggering an even worse response with what we know and how
| it travels through the body. Additionally, as I also
| mentioned and will quote:
|
| > However, the vaccine against smallpox, based on a vaccinia
| virus, is reported to cause (epi-)myocarditis in rare cases
|
| Smallpox vaccines can also trigger myocarditis despite being
| a more 'traditional' vaccine.
|
| We distributed smallpox vaccines and managed to eradicate
| smallpox thanks to being thorough.
| gfodor wrote:
| The claim I am making is it appears likely to me that at
| least some of these cases are fatal, which would mean the
| underlying mechanism of action for this side effect of the
| drug can, in the worst case, cause death. This ought to
| influence the ethics of mandating it at a minimum.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| What I'm saying is that the mechanism with which the
| vaccine can cause myocarditis might be the exact same
| mechanism that triggers myocarditis but worse for people
| who catch COVID-19, as brought up in the study. If the
| myocarditis is the result of the immune system's response
| to the spike protein then both COVID-19 and the COVID-19
| vaccine will trigger myocarditis in those individuals. In
| this case the 'mechanism' is the same, but COVID-19 will
| likely trigger a far worse reaction from what we know
| about how the disease progresses in certain individuals.
|
| This is the exact point that the article mentions.
| gfodor wrote:
| So the argument is that if the vaccine causes this the
| same way COVID does, the risk of death would have been
| higher had they got COVID?
|
| You'll have to excuse my skepticism, because setting
| things up so that we end up in a situation where it's
| entirely unfalsifiable if the vaccine caused net harm in
| an individual has been par for the course. I reject the
| premise that even if it's an immunological response
| shared by with COVID we should run with that to the
| assumption that catching COVID would have yielded a
| higher risk profile. That takes a far leap ahead of the
| science.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| We literally know COVID yields a higher risk profile for
| myocarditis. This data has been well captured through
| multiple studies. And that's just solely on the basis of
| myocarditis and not the other side effects we're also
| aware of like the damage to lung tissue, blood clotting
| and more.
|
| To provide an allegory, you are trying to point of the
| incidence rate of myocarditis in the smallpox vaccine and
| claiming that the smallpox vaccine was more dangerous
| than smallpox itself.
| gfodor wrote:
| You're smuggling in the assumption that the vaccine
| induced myocarditis is the same underlying phenomenon,
| with the same risk profile, as the viral induced one.
|
| Let's say, hypothetically, that what was going on here
| was some % of vaccines were being injected intravenously
| in error, leading to massively localized spike protein
| buildup in the heart over a few hour period, with
| dynamics highly divergent with the progressive, broad way
| it would run with actual disease, causing a different set
| of possible outcomes like instant death being very much
| on the table. In this hypothetical scenario, can you see
| why your analysis about immunological response being
| similar, and myocarditis being caused by the disease and
| vaccine being relevant, would turn out to have in fact
| been missing the point? And that by failing to do so, we
| missed a simple protocol change that could have saved
| many lives counterfactually?
|
| I'm not saying that is what is going on. But what I am
| saying is if that scenario is logically coherent to you,
| can you extrapolate why the kinds of responses you are
| giving here could be falling into the the same trap you'd
| have recognized if the above scenario was actually what
| was happening? You're telling me that I should stop
| thinking something bad is going on here, that we can
| stop, and am making nonsense arguments like the one you
| raised with the smallpox vaccine. I reject that - this is
| important and we should figure it out.
| sfusato wrote:
| Multiple US universities still mandate the shots for young
| students in total opposition to Europe, for example: Harvard [0],
| Yale [1], Tufts University [2], University of California [3], New
| York University [4], University of Notre Dame [5], Boston
| University [6]
|
| [0] https://www.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-
| informa...
|
| [1] https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-
| de...
|
| [2] https://coronavirus.tufts.edu/healthy-at-
| tufts/covid-19-vacc...
|
| [3] https://campusready.ucdavis.edu/covid-vaccination
|
| [4] https://www.nyu.edu/life/safety-health-
| wellness/coronavirus-...
|
| [5] https://ndsmcobserver.com/2022/11/university-announces-
| addit...
|
| [6] https://www.bu.edu/hr/hr-covid-19-resources/vaccine-
| required...
|
| Is biology/science different in the US than in Europe?
| lxe wrote:
| "Graphical abstract"... lol why?
| qorrect wrote:
| That caught me off guard too. 'Did he ... did he hand draw
| this' ?
| pianoben wrote:
| > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had
| died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2
| vaccination.
|
| Sample size of 25 out of a population of... how many tens of
| millions of young (EDIT: not actually young) men? Seems quite
| small, and perhaps not sufficient to draw any conclusions. I
| wonder what the results will show...
|
| > myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-
| CoV-2-infection [24]. It is under debate whether myocarditis in
| COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it
| occurs secondary as a consequence of the host's immune response,
| in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a
| consequence of the cytokine storm observed during COVID-19 [25].
|
| Interesting!
|
| > Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a
| direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further
| studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at
| risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed
| clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond
| the scope of this study.
|
| So in total, out of 25 young men, 20 showed signs of cardiac
| damage. It's suggestive and merits more research. On the other
| hand, the authors offer no real ideas about _how_ the damage
| could have happened, other than to observe that since similar
| damage happens as a result of COVID-19, maybe the immune response
| is the culprit (provoked by the vaccine, similarly as by the
| disease).
|
| Far from any sort of smoking gun. It's important to keep that in
| mind.
| hammock wrote:
| >the authors offer no real ideas about how the damage could
| have happened
|
| They do, though. In fact that's the entirely novel value that
| this study brings. It's in the title: "histopathological
| characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-
| CoV-2-vaccination." That's a lot of words that means "we can
| now tell you exactly what microscopic tissue looks like
| following lethal jab-associated myocarditis."
|
| And the scientists discuss how it happens. For your benefit,
| I'll describe it here.
|
| These mRNA-vaccinated patients suffered from heart damage
| because their hearts were attacked by their own immune cells.
| The mRNA is injected into your muscle cells, turning the cell
| into a factory producing COVID-19 spike proteins. As a result
| of the mRNA immunization, your body generates an immune
| response against COVID-19 spike proteins. Since your own muscle
| cells were used to make the COVID-19 spike proteins and may
| have them on the cell surface, your newly-weaponized immune
| cells targeting the spike protein may start attacking your own
| healthy muscle cells. This autoimmune attack on their own heart
| cells then leads to their damaged hearts beating so many times
| per second that, once the tachycardia unexpectedly started,
| they died in minutes.
|
| This new German study shows photographic evidence that this
| happens and has killed people
| c1ccccc1 wrote:
| Fascinating. Without a detailed knowledge of biology, it
| seems like this could affect any cell type, why would heart
| muscle cells specifically be targeted? Are the spike proteins
| just more likely to get stuck to the surface of certain types
| of cell?
| hammock wrote:
| It's a good question. I believe there is some preliminary
| study around that, and it deserves more
| jamespo wrote:
| You've paraphrased into "jab-associated" which is dishonest
| at best.
| pianoben wrote:
| > And the scientists discuss how it happens. For your
| benefit, I'll describe it here.
|
| Condescension noted :)
|
| You've described what I understand to be a common(-ly
| presented online) hypothesis about how an mRNA vaccine might
| injure heart tissue. The study authors, on the other hand,
| don't claim that this is how any of the study subjects died.
| Indeed they explicitly _disclaim_ any causal link between an
| mRNA vaccine and incidences of myocarditis.
|
| Allow me to rephrase, then - "the authors offer no real ideas
| about how the Covid vaccines could have caused this damage".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The actual wording of the study includes this...
|
| > Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or
| a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis.
|
| ... which is a much, much more cautious conclusion than
| you're pretending.
| [deleted]
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| > out of 25 young men
|
| These were not young men
|
| > Three of the deceased persons were women, two men. Median age
| at death was 58 years (range 46-75 years).
| pianoben wrote:
| My mistake; I misread something somewhere, and thought that
| the population was 30-and-younger men.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It feels like 2021 again.
|
| Small sample size (n = 25), small number of incidents of
| myocarditis, no causal link found between myocarditis and adverse
| events (including, but not limited to, death) and no causal link
| found between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis.
|
| But do you what does cause myocarditis? _Getting Covid_ [1].
|
| Covid and the (highly effective) vaccines are the most clearcut
| case of evolution in action [2] I've seen in my lifetime.
|
| This isn't really worth worrying about this point. Countries
| (barring China) have largely decided they're over Covid. Get a
| vaccine, don't get a vaccine. Nobody cares. Looking for
| justification for not getting a vaccine however reminds me of
| creationists trying to equate "intelligent design" as "science".
|
| [1]:
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
|
| [2]: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1800059-larry-niven-think-of-
| it...
| uoflcards22 wrote:
| As someone who did choose to get the latest booster despite being
| a young male (highest risk group for myocarditis I believe), we
| should _always_ be questioning what we put in our bodies.
| criddell wrote:
| > we should always be questioning what we put in our bodies
|
| If we did a better job of that, health problems associated with
| obesity, smoking, drinking, etc... would be reduced and that
| would have a pretty big impact on cardiovascular health too.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Given the information i had at the time, I am fine with my
| unforced decision to get the first two doses, but I will not be
| getting a third barring some surprising new information, new
| variant, etc.
| bittercynic wrote:
| >...we should always be questioning...
|
| I partially agree, or at least think we shouldn't be
| discouraged from questioning, but there's only so many hours in
| a day, and a person can digest a finite amount of information.
|
| I choose to trust US health authorities. Flawed as they may be,
| I think it would be worse to somehow try to verify every claim,
| or come to my own conclusions on every single question. I won't
| judge you for making a choice different from my own, but for
| me, and I suspect many (most?) people, having a doctor who you
| trust, following their recommendations, and getting on with
| your life might be the best strategy.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| I thought it wasn't the highest risk group for myocarditis,
| just the lowest risk for covid which makes it the highest
| _relative_ risk?
| imode wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:01 UTC)