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

351–360 of 407 posts

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

#351

Post by Denvercoder9 »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #348
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The metric here was "probability that you will be hospitalized IF you are infected with COVID-19". That's a good metric, but it's not the metric the numbers GP quoted were for. Those numbers were for the metric "probability that you would catch COVID-19 and be hospitalized with it over the past 1.5 years". That's fundamentally something different. What's your alluding to is also known as infection hospitalization r…

> That's a good metric, but it's not the metric the numbers GP quoted were for. Those numbers were for the metric "probability that you would catch COVID-19 and be hospitalized with it over the past 1.5 years". That's fundamentally something different. Where did you see that? I looked up GP and didn't find that 1.5 year time anywhere. Furthermore, it makes no sense in the context of GP, where they said: > > For examp…

> Where did you see that? I looked up GP and didn't find that 1.5 year time anywhere.

In the appendix of the Gallup link from GP, the * Actually, now that I'm looking at the actual CDC data instead of taking their word, the figure they used is for hospitalizations from August 1, 2020 through August 9, 2021, so it should be a year instead of 1.5 year (and their adjustment for reduction of unvaccinated population due to vaccinations is off, so the 0.89% is an underestimation). Doesn't matter for the point I'm making here, though (except to reinforce that we should leave statistics to the professionals).

> I don't believe there is any place on earth where you can poll people and reach an average response of >50% to the question "what is the probability that you would catch covid AND be hospitalized for it over the next 1.5 years, if you don't get the vaccine".

I agree, the people asked probably interpreted the question differently. This makes presenting the result of that question in opposition to the > current strains of COVID, which hospitalize something like 1% of infected

This is and cannot possibly be correct. The CDC reports that the US has had 3.1 million COVID-19 hospitalizations since 1st of August 2020, on a population of 329 million. If only 1% of infected is hospitalized, that means by now everybody must've had COVID. That's clearly not the case. Furthermore, if we add hospitalizations from before August 2020, clearly hospitalizations of the population already exceed that 1% number.

You're right though that it's hard to accurately calculate infection hospitalization rate, because counting infections is hard. It has been reported to be somewhere around ~5% in the unvaccinated population, but I can see it being anywhere between 2% and 8% (probably depends on the characteristics of the population under study as well). Since August 2020 the US also reported 39.2 million cases, which gives an upper bound of 7.9%, and assuming three-quarters of infections are asymptomatic gives a lower bound of 2.0%. Note that since a significant part of the population has been vaccinated during that timeframe, and the vaccines protect better against hospitalization than infection, the current infection hospitalization rate is lower than that in the unvaccinated.

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

#352

Post by krageon »

mns wrote: post #323
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, did you get COVID first and then decided to get the vaccine later on? Or was it the other way around? I'm guessing the former - I've had friends who had COVID and their doctors still advised them to get the vaccine - and find it quite troubling if so. We've known for so long now how robust natural immunity is - and before we "knew for sure" any sane person's priors would still assume natural im…

A friend had COVID, positive by PCR result, loss of taste and all of that, at the beginning of the year. Mild case anyhow, she went to her doctor for a check-up 2-3 months later to make sure everything is fine and was asked afterwards if she is planning to go to get the vaccine, when she said no, at least not anytime soon, rollout was still in the early phases in our country, she got an absolutely insane scolding abo…

> absolutely insane

Probably not that insane if you recognise how many people this doctor has potentially seen or heard dying of it.

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

#353

Post by acdha »

dalmo3 wrote: post #345
acdha wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say that the evidence would have been here now is simply not true because we can't possibly know WHEN symptoms will present. Actually, we can. Vaccination isn’t long-term exposure but a brief immune trigger — this is very different from medication being taken over a long term because the vaccine is only in your body for such a short period of time. In the multi-century history of vaccination, side effects are al…

> Vaccination isn’t long-term exposure but a brief immune trigger — this is very different from medication being taken over a long term What could be the risks of taking booster shots every 6 months?

It's unlikely to be that frequent — I'd expect more like the annual combined flu + COVID vaccinations being tested — but again, there's nothing in the history of vaccination suggesting that would be a high risk. Vaccines trigger your immune system and it doesn't have delayed action mechanisms which would trigger a response months later.

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

#354

Post by temeritatis »

acdha wrote: post #343
temeritatis wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because lots of people do it doesn't mean it's a rational thing to do. As i see it, the only thing that matters in science is to be factual. If we stop being impeccable with our words, we are no better than the conspiracy nuts. To say that the evidence would have been here now is simply not true because we can't possibly know WHEN symptoms will present. What would be more appropriate would be to say that in the…

> To say that the evidence would have been here now is simply not true because we can't possibly know WHEN symptoms will present. Actually, we can. Vaccination isn’t long-term exposure but a brief immune trigger — this is very different from medication being taken over a long term because the vaccine is only in your body for such a short period of time. In the multi-century history of vaccination, side effects are al…

I don't wanna be a jerk, but honestly that proves my point. The correct wording would be; "there's a high probability that we can". But saying "we can" is clear cut. You provide strong arguments, but unless you have a time machine, you can't argue in definitives.

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

#355

Post by Certhas »

mythrwy wrote: post #347
TulliusCicero wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party. By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks. The point is, you already accept WW2 as…

The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. You again are appealing to ridicule. Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, ju…

You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition.

You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.

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

#356

Post by robomartin »

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?

Well my kid was in the hospital for two weeks with myocarditis. One of 700 cases in the US at the time. Not sure what the number might be up to now. He is fine.

Interestingly enough, my father was in the hospital at the same time being monitored for a potential heart attack.

The were both going through exactly the same testing and treatment. In other words, my young son was, among other things, being tested for the heart attack enzyme.

In this case it was the Pfizer vaccine. The rest of the family, myself included, got Moderna.

The issue --with kids-- seems to have been that the second dose had to be lower than what they were/are giving them. I haven't followed developments since he got out. He had a three month checkout and all was well.

While our entire family is vaccinated, this event made me realize that we must not vilify those who have doubts.

Yes, of course, I wish everyone was vaccinated. And yet, I have to ask myself: What would we had done had we known there was a potential for our young kid to actually suffer a heart attack because of the vaccine? As small as the probability of something like that might be, I am not sure how I would answer the question. My wife is an MD. Her opinion is we probably would have given them just one dose. Still, it's easy to say things like that after the fact.

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

#357

Post by fspeech »

raxxorrax wrote: post #338
daveguy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hijacks your cellular machinery No. It doesn't. This is completely ignorant misinformation. Your molecular machinery for creating proteins are doing so constantly. Introducing a bit of code that produces a protein that looks like the virus is in no way "hijacking" your molecular machinery. Your machinery happily chugs along with every other of the 10s of thousands of other proteins being produced at the same time.…

Technically it is nothing else than hijacking and it will lead to the cells death because it produces the foreign protein as instructed until it is killed by your immune system.

mRNA in cells are constantly degraded by nucleases. Half life is measured in hours. Not only that RNA itself is unstable at room temperature.

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

#358

Post by Dove »

blitzar wrote: post #317
curmudgeon22 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should smokers be denied medical treatment related to that choice too?

Yes. And heroin addicts, and morbidly obease people.

This line of reasoning goes to a dark place. You can't know what makes sense in someone else's life. A heroin addict self-medicating unbearable pain is, to me, a tragic figure deserving help. A morbidly obese person may be suffering from an undiagnosed underlying condition that makes diet and exercise impossible. A smoker may need the stress release.

Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by the Wright brothers during their experimental flights? Surely that's highly dangerous highly voluntary stuff. Should we refuse to rescue hikers if they become lost or trapped? Should the coast guard never help recreational sailors? Should we have to submit to a proscribed diet exactly to prove we deserve medical care? Should we forgo treatment for tendonitis if it can be shown we ignored known warnings about typing too much?

To me, people are precious, and they lead messy, imperfect lives. They make bad decisions and good ones, and decisions I don't understand. They'll take risks I never would in pursuit of goals I don't see as valuable. Sometimes, when you really get to know someone, a decision that didn't make sense from a distance really starts to. And sometimes people are being self-destructive and there's no more to the story, and sometimes it's something they go through and come out the other side of.

My conviction is to love and help them no matter what.

Sometimes I can't, and that's a different thing, but deciding that someone doesn't deserve help is a level of judgement I don't want and can't justify. Maybe what they were doing really was worth it. I don't know. Even if it's not, it's essential to let people try.

I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable. I am sure others feel the same way, about control in areas in which I wouldn't mind it because I happen to already be normal. So I am against it on principle. People need to be people, in all their messy glory. And we should help them if we can, regardless of how they got there. I think the only case in which I would act differently was if I thought letting someone suffer natural consequences was for their best - and I would have to be incredibly sure.

Leaving people to a fatal condition when we could help them is incomprehensible and inhumane to me, and represents a dangerous level of escalating disagreement into dehumanization.

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

#359

Post by vkou »

raxxorrax wrote: post #341
vkou wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is, by the way, still multiple orders of magnitude lower than the risk of myocarditis from catching COVID.

That is an unacceptable high risk in my opinion if the numbers are correct. What is certainly strange is the numbers differentiate so heavily.

If that risk is unacceptably high, then getting COVID must be an unacceptably higher risk.

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

#360

Post by twofornone »

fspeech wrote: post #357
raxxorrax wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it is nothing else than hijacking and it will lead to the cells death because it produces the foreign protein as instructed until it is killed by your immune system.

mRNA in cells are constantly degraded by nucleases. Half life is measured in hours. Not only that RNA itself is unstable at room temperature.

And what about the spike protein, which becomes embedded in and expressed at the cell wall? What do wayward spike proteins do inside cells? What are the full consequences of your immune system suddenly attacking your own cells? Are you potentially inducing permanent or semi permanent autoimmune conditions?

And such an autoimmune disease, if caused by the vaccine, would possibly be difficult to detect, especially on short timescales, and/or if no one is looking for them. Add in the stigma/silencing of professionals who criticize the vaccines and you're unlikely to get such research done/published, and it is a very real possibility that we just dosed hundreds of millions of people with a substance that may cause long term issues.

There's plenty of room for uncertainty here. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise, regardless of the media's manufactured consensus.

Post reply on HN