271–280 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead of trying to fear-porn parents > we are going to put your kids at risk from the vaccine A bit on the nose, don't you think?
How else should it be stated except "on the nose," given what's at stake?
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/NEJM…
> What again is the rush to vaccinate the lowest risk age group? Because they still contribute to chain of transmission to the most vulnerable members of society, likely in a disproportional way since younger members of society tend to socialize more. Fighting a virus is a collective action. In order to stop transmission to the vulnerable members, you need to cut edges along all paths through the graph. Furthermore,…
~2.7 cases of myocarditis per 100k. Deadly car crashes in the US is about 11 deaths per 100k (between 3.3 and 25 when looking at states directly, 18.2 worldwide average). That's not even counting indirect deaths caused by car fumes. So to the person posting the same thing from new accounts about vaccines being a great risk to yourself, I hope you take driving and crossing the road as seriously as you take getting vac…
That's like saying "War and Peace isn't a big book because it isn't even as big as the smallest car". Yes, both can be measured in the same units (e.g. weight or volume) but that doesn't mean the comparison makes sense. You have to compare things which are in some sense alternatives of each other. The question is not "is the vaccine safer than driving" but "is the vaccine safer than not getting the vaccine ?". Sure,…
Maybe convenience is the highest priority (prefer single dose).
Maybe effectiveness against delta is the highest priority (prefer Moderna).
Maybe minimizing risk of myocarditis is a priority (say you have a history of autoimmune over reaction).
Ultimately, not only do we have the choice to get vaccinated, we also have the choice of which vaccine to get and this new data allows the population to make more informed choices about which vaccine is right for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How else should it be stated except "on the nose," given what's at stake?
It's "a bit on the nose" that someone complaining about fear-porn uses the same post to push fear-porn about the vaccines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data. 1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis? 2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as suc…
> Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies Nobody is. Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions. But since the vaccines are proven to be safe given hundreds of millions of doses there is a lot more willingness to trust them.
My point is that the "facts on the ground" are extremely noisy and in large part coming from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This proof is overstated, ignoring the fact that there hasn't been enough time to detect mid-long term effects, its own can of worms.
All of this doubly so given the chilling effect of the stigma associated with what has seemingly been decided to be "misinformation". Clinicians, researchers, nurses are less willing to stick their necks out to criticize the research/data, and so the problem is dangerously self-reinforcing.
These are the same circles that gave us the opioid crisis. And suddenly we've all forgotten about regulatory capture? None of these criticisms deserve this rabid bullying. This is supposed to be science, not religious dogma.
Edit: and let's not forget that these pharmaceutical companies are legally not liable for any adverse effects. Informed consent requires freedom of discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying "War and Peace isn't a big book because it isn't even as big as the smallest car". Yes, both can be measured in the same units (e.g. weight or volume) but that doesn't mean the comparison makes sense. You have to compare things which are in some sense alternatives of each other. The question is not "is the vaccine safer than driving" but "is the vaccine safer than not getting the vaccine ?". Sure,…
I can only speak to myself, but I decided that covid is not a threat to me, and neither is the vaccine (being safer than driving). Hence I would just go with the path of least resistance: take the damn vaccine so people will shut up about it and let me be part of society. Point is that the absolute risk matters too: If it's low enough you can just shrug and do whatever.
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…
There isn't a medical system on planet earth that is prepared or capable of having 1% of their population in the hospital at the same time. So " Ignoring the massive financial burden on hospitals who are also not financially setup to have the entire hospital full of people sick with COVID - they are bleeding cash without elective surgeries. They can only bleed for so long without significant government intervention.…
> "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?
In sweden, this seems to be the "recommendation" from the government: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhets... ..which links to https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/sv/nyheter/covid-19-mrna-vac... ..which in turn seems to point here: https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/4a0b25/globalassets/dokument... ..which references EMA & EES which are European that states "145 cases of myocarditis out of 177M dosis…
A message from the Swedish state epidemiologist, as quoted in context (https://tt.omni.se/vaccinering-med-moderna-pausas-for-yngre/...):
> Det här är väldigt osäkra data från en preliminär studie, så vi har inte pekat på någon särskild nivå. Vi har fått ta del av den här studien från Läkemedelsverket och ser att det finns en skillnad mellan de vaccin som finns tillgängliga och då menar vi att det i nuläget är bättre att vi använder det vaccin där man inte ser de här signalerna, säger statsepidemiolog Anders Tegnell till TT.
Translation (my own): These are highly insecure measurements from a preliminary study – there is no established certainty. This study was recieved from Läkemedelsverket [translation: Medical Products Agency] which acknowledges there is a difference between available vaccines. Our opinion is that we currently should use a vaccine where we cannot correlate these types of indications [personal remark: relations to myocarditis], says Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell to TT [ref: media]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash tests. But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out unless the medicine is administered to larger group of people. This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept under extended surveillance.
> Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. And for how long do most vaccine trials last? How long have they historically been in use before any mandate was instituted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "a bit on the nose" that someone complaining about fear-porn uses the same post to push fear-porn about the vaccines.
To state that children will be put at risk by the vaccines is not "fear porn," it is clearly the case. The reason the media is pumping out "your kids are in grave danger from Covid" and not "they should take one to help protect the at-risk population" is because they know no parent in their right mind would go for the latter.
To argue that COVID is not a threat to children, but the vaccines are, is an inconsistent position. Children are, statistically, at quite low risk from both.
As a parent, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of my children taking the very very very small risk of a vaccine reaction in order to not go grandparent-less.