Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 407 posts

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#101

Post by Denvercoder9 »

gorwell wrote: post #59

A lot of comments here asking for specific numbers and making comparisons to other risks. That's exactly how one should be looking at this. What I don't understand is why people don't apply this same critical thought process to the risks of Covid? For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization from Covid is when unvaccinated? If you said >50%, you would be in good company. It's the most common answer. But…

> For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization from Covid is when unvaccinated?

>

Risk numbers are totally useless when not stating the time over which the risk is incurred. A 1% lifetime risk is very different from a 1% daily risk.

For example, the 0.89% population hospitalization rate in the last 1.5 years for the unvaccinated from the article you linked corresponds to a 38% chance of hospitalization over a 80-year lifespan. (Note that this is just an example to point out the problem with GP's reasoning, in reality this is an overestimation as it neglects that you build immunity after an infection).

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#102

Post by javagram »

sergiotapia wrote: post #67
gorwell wrote: post #59

A lot of comments here asking for specific numbers and making comparisons to other risks. That's exactly how one should be looking at this. What I don't understand is why people don't apply this same critical thought process to the risks of Covid? For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization from Covid is when unvaccinated? If you said >50%, you would be in good company. It's the most common answer. But…

It's heretical to say such things and "anti-science" as branded by the media. The fact that California now wants kids to get the vaccine is bonkers to me. Kids don't even feel this shit if they catch it. Pharmaceutical companies must be paying big bucks to the politicians in that state.

Covid is more dangerous to kids than chicken pox, we still vaccinate kids for chickenpox though. Hundreds of children have died of Covid-19. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#103

Post by citilife »

ceejayoz wrote: post #2

> "A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis," he said. I find it frustrating that we’re still not putting numbers on statements like this in news articles. How slight?

The long-term studies I am way more curious about.

Heart damage typically can cause lasting effects. Many people may have heart damage and not even know it.

I'm not making any specific claims, just that it's unknown.

Here's an explanation of how a heart cannot or very slowly repairs: https://www.uclahealth.org/heart/cardiac-repair-regeneration

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#105

Post by Delk »

thepasswordis wrote: post #68

In nordic countries these vaccines are restricted. In the US, they're required . Very odd.

They're restricted in the sense that the health authorities stopped recommending a specific covid-19 vaccine for a particular demographic. That demographic -- young males under 30 -- are recommended and given a vaccine from another vendor (practically Pfizer) instead.

That's rather different than the impression you might get from "these vaccines being restricted", or something similar.

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#106

Post by azinman2 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #52
Mikeb85 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article at least in text said you’re more at risk of getting it from Covid than the vaccine But the risk of getting COVID in any time period is less than 1 (based on % of population that has actually had it, possibly less than 0.1 or 10% per year), so it's worth waiting for the safest vaccine for certain groups.

It obviously depends on your lifestyle, which is also why it should never be mandated. I call this the risk coefficient – it's different for everyone. Personally, I've effectively been self-isolating since January. Why should I get a shot now? Especially if it's going to wear off in 5 months?

It don't wear off to 0, you're risk of hospitalization or death is far far far greater if you're unvaccinated (even with declining efficacy of catching it), the safety profiles are known to be great especially considering the hundreds of millions vaccinated, and unless you're very extreme you'll want to come out of the woods at some point.

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#107

Post by MatteoFrigo »

summerlight wrote: post #83
gorwell wrote: post #59

A lot of comments here asking for specific numbers and making comparisons to other risks. That's exactly how one should be looking at this. What I don't understand is why people don't apply this same critical thought process to the risks of Covid? For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization from Covid is when unvaccinated? If you said >50%, you would be in good company. It's the most common answer. But…

> But what's the actual risk? > Where did you get that number? As of Sep 29, 2021, US reported 43,289,203 cases where 3,047,033 of them are hospitalized, including vaccinated. This is nowhere close to <1%. I'm pretty sure the number could be much higher with saner medical insurance system.

Cumulative numbers since the beginning of time are kind of meaningless to evaluate risk, though. They can be useful to assess the damage when all is said and done, but risk is about the future and not the past. Also, probabilities should be per unit time, otherwise they go up forever by definition.

I think a better assessment of risk comes from the UK data https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

From Table 3, we learn that somebody unvaccinated in their 20's has a chance of 10/100,000 to end up in the hospital over a period of 28 days. So something like .1% per year. Vaccination reduces the risk by a factor of O(10), old age increases it by a factor of O(10). These data refer to a recent snapshot of a 28-day period, and I'd feel safer to assume that the next month looks more like the previous month than March 2020.

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#108

Post by georgekv »

From NEJM Israeli study on Pfizer:

"In our study, definite or probable cases of myocarditis among persons between the ages of 16 and 19 years within 21 days after the second vaccine dose occurred in approximately 1 of 6637 male recipients and in 1 of 99,853 female recipients."

Moderna shot is worse then for boys. What again is the rush to vaccinate the lowest risk age group?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730?query=re...

Re: Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

#110

Post by noetic_techy »

The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding significantly the more we learn and the more fervent the mandates become. We pulled the swine flu vaccine for way less back in 2010, I think it was 12 cases of GBS only! The fact that I know of people who have either had mycarditis AND clots tells me the rate is much higher then reported by VAERS.

The reason damn near everyone except for adamant anti-vax have the perception that VACCINE=SAFE/GOOD is that 93% of experimental candidates are rejected and it takes 10-15 years of trails and data to get full approval. It's the reason you are confident giving it to your own children the safety standards are so stringent. These comparisons to your chances of car accidents and being struck by lighting are totally bogus, you need to compare the data to past vaccines! And yet we think we got this mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula right on the first try times 3 different brands with 2 years of reduced trials?

That's all gone out the window for the sake of the pandemic emergency and that's fine as long as the choice is clear and consensual, let those who want it take the risk, but don't mandate it. The VAERS data is abysmal, worse then the past 50 years of all vaccine combined, and yet people are now in the mode of dismissing the VAERS system entirely because its self reported, with no alternative to fall back to! The FDA even had the option of setting up a separate system for covid vaccine adverse event reporting and rejected it. Fine, then VAERS it is! The only system we have ever had to judge this by.

At what point is it ethical to hand someone a long list of side effects that occur at x50+ higher rates then past vaccines and then say "but you must take this or you can't work".

I think in 10 years, we will see this technology as higher risk but much faster turn around times compared to traditional vaccines. Just be up front about it and let people choose.

Post reply on HN