COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed • Hacker News Board

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#61

Post by nojokes » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #16

AndrewBissell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like 1% of people receiving inoculation would develop full-blown smallpox. No vaccine courts for those folks. They at least got the benefit of being inoculated against a virus which would have a 30% chance of killing them. This made it very likely for the inoculations to be positive risk tradeoff for all the troops who were ordered to get them. The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old wi…

> The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college. True, if you only narrowly focus on the immediate benefit to the individual there are head-spinning number of laws and rules that don't make sense in civilization.

You do not get a flu shot to not get killed by flu. Nobody really expects that it would be likely. You take it to not get a bad case of flu. Well, bad case of COVID-19 is worse than bad case of flu. This alone should be enough to get vaccinated but there is more: you may also develop long lasting symptoms (aka long covid) or get some more serious complication like myocarditis (more likely than from a vaccine).

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#62

Post by Auracle » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

nuerow wrote: post #42

Auracle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The estimate for the birth of our baby was over $30,000 for a normal, natural birth. It ended up being a c-section, so I can’t wait to see what the actual total is. We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug makers, and everyone else get paid significantly more here than pretty much anywhere else. Now is definitely not the time…

> We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem. Isn't the problem actually the lack of any public healthcare service compounded by the extensive reliance on private health insurances, which completely eliminates any competition based on cost and actually puts pressure for end-user prices to grow? The reason why healthcare costs in the US are extremely high is not due to quality at all, but…

One could easily argue that a public healthcare system would also eliminate competition based on cost. Our federal government isn't especially known for keeping costs low. That's why, personally, I'd be all for individual states running healthcare but not for the federal government to do so. If one state is mismanaged in that taxes are too high or the healthcare quality is shoddy you could still move and at least be in the same country.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#63

Post by native_samples » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 10:56 AM UTC

phonypc wrote: post #57

native_samples wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that's not what I've seen. So far there have been several studies by professional researchers that got published using VAERS data which were then forcibly retracted (against the will of the researchers themselves), the stated grounds being that they were "correlational". The message is clear now - you may not use VAERS or equivalent data for anything, regardless of who you are. W.R.T. just days: indeed, th…

Ya, "correlational" is a legitimate criticism of a study based on VAERS data that wasn't presented as such. Anyway, I'm not aware of studies being retracted as you describe. Certainly there have been problematic pre-prints (never published) making the rounds

It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a Kafka-esque catch 22.

If you say the analysis is merely "correlational" then the establishment says, by the studies own admission there's no evidence vaccines have anything to do with it so it must be ignored.

If you say that people dropping dead less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine were probably killed by it, then you will be told the CDC/etc don't allow the data to be used that way, that it's not valid to infer causation from a "merely" correlational data set, and that this is a retraction-worthy failure, and therefore it must be ignored.

Please. We can see through this kind of stupid mind game. "Science" has decided these databases may not be used for anything, even though they are the only way to understand side effects on a scale that the trials cannot pick up.

Examples:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/17/paper-linking-covid-1...

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/02/journal-retracts-pape...

"Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination"