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

Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 700 posts

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#571

Post by dham »

edmundsauto wrote: post #562
SailingSperm wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 12 billion or so COVID vaccine doses given also only have a history of ~2 years. If the adverse effects of it were say for instance, minor cardiac damage that resulted in no acute symptoms, but instead an overall reduction in life expectancy by 5 years, the costs of such would not be known for some time. Another side of this is the possible cumulative effects of ongoing covid vaccination boosters that have no lon…

The risk of taking action was compared against the risk of not taking action. I imagine most scientists would have loved to have developed this vaccine 10+ years ago and done long term studies, but that wasn’t an option. It may have been influenced by the bias for action, but the trade off was the death and disruption we saw in 2020-21, compared to a future risk that scientists projected as minimal. It still seems li…

> Making decisions under uncertainty is hard.

I don't blame rushing the vaccines at all. In fact, maybe we should have skipped more steps to get the vaccine to 70+ year olds or people who are obese faster. But let's just be honest, the risk profile for younger people just wasn't high. The data was clear very early on. That was even with underreported numbers. It should have never been mandated and if you were at a decent weight and under 40 you were never at that much of a risk, especially to say something like the flu.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#572

Post by toast0 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #532
toast0 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding up the premiums plus the out-or-pocket max for the plan options that had my providers on my exchange, the low premium option was the least expensive, despite its higher deductable. The low premium option is the least cost option if you don't use much healthcare, or if you use a lot; but there's a range somewhere in there where the higher premium plan may lower your total costs. Of course, if you're getting a p…

The problem is that incidence for individuals is 100 %, and someone who gets to pay the full yearly deductible is likely so sick that he can't work. Lovely. Not only do you get to pay the hospital, now you are missing a chunk of income, too, when you can least afford it! An Obamacare Bronze plan is like the bank extending credit - they carry the umbrella after you when the sun is shining, but at the first drop of rai…

My point is the Platinum or whatever plan isn't any better. It's probably worse for most people. Total out of pocket is going to be higher because out ot pocket max + premiums is worse than the Bronze.

Of course, paying the hospital is usually sort of optional. They're most often happy to bill you later and send you to collections, and you can let it accrue. It's not great, but if you're so sick you can't work, what are you going to do about a debt you can't afford to pay? Better to not pay it.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#573

Post by ars »

blacksqr wrote: post #472
robomartin wrote: post #13

One of my kids, 15 at the time, was one of the reported cases of myocarditis. At the time of his hospitalization he was one out of 700 cases. He was in the hospital for two weeks. While under observation after his release, we have not seen indications of lasting damage. No way to know what the future holds. So far, so good. We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my next booster today. The one thing…

>Obamacare, which was forced upon us The ACA individual mandate penalty was eliminated in 2017.

He means that you can't get inexpensive insurance for low risk populations anymore. Prices were lower as were deductibles before the ACA.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#574

Post by dham »

gizmo686 wrote: post #229
no_butterscotch wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my next booster today. I'm curious about this. In my world COVID is over now. I live in San Francisco. Nobody I know is getting boosters or is worried about it anymore. Where do you live and what are the circumstances like there that you're considering getting your "next" one? (you've been boosted before?).

Or maybe no one you know is talking about it. A few weeks ago, I went for my annual Flu vaccine and saw that I was eligible for the bivalent Covid booster as well. I didn’t go around telling people I got either vaccine. At this point, as far as I am concerned, covid is jtst another vaccine to be taken routinely as directed. Maybe that will settle down to be anually like the flu, once or twice a lifetime like chicken…

But TDAP only needs to be taken once every 20 to 30 years. :facepalm: Just another outdated Americanized vaccine schedule to add to the list.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#575

Post by dham »

wiredearp wrote: post #171
Fomite wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. With the exception of a very narrow age range of young men, the COVID vaccine is protective against heart disease alone, even ignoring all other outcomes.

Young men on the other hand appear to face the biggest increase in COVID related heart attacks according to https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/covid-19-surges-linked... , so perhaps the vaccine remains their best option.

The issue isn't Covid vs vaccine heart risks, it's that you're going to get Covid 100% after having the vaccine, so you've essentially doubled your risk. That's the issue.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#576

Post by walterbell »

kube-system wrote: post #566
walterbell wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a sizable difference between: - informed consent at the time of signing an employment (e.g. military, medical) contract with known career conditions - new conditions (mandates) being added to existing labor contracts, while there is active litigation on the purpose and legality of those conditions, and re-definition of legal language (e.g. CDC's 2021 redefinition of "vaccine") used in mandates

There are also many places in the US where influenza shots aren't contractual, they're law, particularly for those in schools, long-term care facilities, and healthcare settings. And vaccine mandates have hundreds of years of precedent in the US. It ain't the mandates that are new, it's the political climate.

Same principle applies, if you don't like the law, don't join that career.

Very different from mandates being applied to existing jobs previously not subject to mandates.

> It ain't the mandates that are new.

The CDC (re)definition of vaccine is new.

Also the redefinition of pandemic around 2010.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#577

Post by bsder »

robomartin wrote: post #567
bsder wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obamacare, which was forced upon us and costs us $2,400 PER MONTH, did not cover it. We have no recourse whatsoever for this incident and any future care requirements. Calling this out as bullshit. Show me a reference. You can get a PLATINUM plan on the California exchanges for less than that for a family--and your co-pay for everything will be under $250. I would also like to point out that "myocarditis" qualifies…

> Calling this out as bullshit. Show me a reference. You mean, like this: https://i.imgur.com/iIz30xw.png Take note of the rating. The fact that they are labeled "Platinum" is nice marketing. We've had family members and friends on some of these plans, they are --and I am being kind-- not great. The context shouldn't be what's on the CA exchanges today. It should be what we and others had prior to being forced into A…

Ambetter is known to be horrible. Why on earth would you pick them when there are so many options?

I'm standing here with a friend who got full mental health care ($0 copays for almost everything) from "Sharp Health" and didn't even need to use the exchange to get the rate ($600/mo direct retail from Sharp). Kaiser is on the same order of magnitude.

Hell, even straight up Blue Cross/Blue Shield is better than what you picked. Good grief.

> The context shouldn't be what's on the CA exchanges today. It should be what we and others had prior to being forced into ACA. Which was fantastic insurance for the entire family for $650 per month.

Okay, okay, let's refresh your memory:

My mother was widowed and had to buy health insurance at 60. She got lucky and could tap into the PA Teacher's Pension system for a mere $1,100 per month. She paid that for 5 years until Medicare. This was prior to Obmamacare. Where was her $650 plan?

My wife was 35 and had sleep apnea and her cheapest plan that would even cover her was $3,500 per month with an enormous deductible. This was prior to Obamacare.

10+ million people couldn't get coverage. "Excision panels" worked hard to dump you off the rolls the moment you tried to use them.

Okay THAT was the system before Obamacare. Remember now?

What you are pining for was the old "indemnification" system that was due to the extremely strong labor unions. Unfortunately, that went away in the 80s due to the rise of the HMOs and the fact that everybody dumped on the labor unions. Many of us fought against that knowing that the HMOs were picking off the "profitable" people and were eventually going to to collapse the indemnification system--which is precisely what happened. And then the HMOs weren't so profitable once they got those patients and would dump them--which they did.

And THAT was the situation before Obamacare.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#578

Post by walterbell »

t0mas88 wrote: post #403
walterbell wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those countries initially gave the Covid injections to all adults, then altered their recommendations to exclude some young adults, based on post-vaccine adverse events. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-mode... > Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its u…

In the Netherlands the Moderna vaccine is not used for younger groups. I think the cutoff is 40. Anyone over 12 can get vaccinated and get a booster, but it will be the Pfizer vaccine.

Note that Moderna's booster volume of antigen was reduced by 50% compared to the original vaccine, while Pfizer's booster volume was unchanged from the original vaccine, https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/dosin...

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#579

Post by mindslight »

peteradio wrote: post #564
mindslight wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try being hospitalized without insurance. You'll find out really fast Actually no, you still won't. Because the hospitals send out fraudulently inflated/overitemized bills to help their negotiating positions. To know how much medical care actually costs, you need to have "insurance" and read through the itemized bills and explanations of benefits. The top line large number is the fraudulent amount that has no basis…

> Also it bears repeating, never pay a medical bill unless you're damn sure you're responsible for the amount [0]. Even if you have "insurance", often you'll get sent the fraudulent bill right away, and it will take a month or two for "insurance" to bother doing their job. Also billing departments have no problem blatantly lying to you about your (non) responsibility for the fraudulent bill, since it might get them m…

Most of the time, just wait a few months for them to bill your "insurance" and for it to do its thing. The "due dates" on medical bills are basically meaningless.

Then, you need to know your general deductible and copayment schedule. The bill should show original charges (fraudulent), "adjustments" to those charges to make them line up with what your "insurance" company has negotiated to pay, and then payment by the "insurance" company. The part remaining that you need to pay should line up with your deductible.

If you've got a large deductible (common) and this is one of your first bills, then the "insurance" company won't have anything to pay, but there will still be an adjustment. If you think that is off, you can contact your "insurance" company to check if it matches their negotiated rates. In my experience, their customer service departments haven't been totally gutted yet.

Calling the provider's billing department is generally pointless unless/until you know exactly what you're talking about. Once, a phone rep (at a small place even) called me to nag me about a bill. I told them that their charge was above the Medicare limit for a service, and that it needed to be corrected before I could pay. In response, they insisted harder that I "owed it" and I "had to pay". I told them they were wrong, ended the conversation, and just waited. Lo and behold 4-5 months later they finally billed the "insurance" and sent the correct bill. I think they were just hoping I'd fall for their fraud so they could pocket a few extra bucks.

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject in particular, just generally experienced at cutting through the avalanches of paper that psychopaths try to bury us with.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#580

Post by SailingSperm »

shadowgovt wrote: post #373

If the risk of myocarditis after covid vaccination is lower than the risk of hospitalization due to covid infection, mandating vaccination is still good public policy. It ultimately shifts the risk around, it is true, but it still improves the odds of survival for the people who will contract myocarditis also, because there was significant risk of covid crashing the medical infrastructure. This is the part of the sto…

Though, firing medical staff based on vaccine status(that has little impact on transmission) while saying "we need all the medical staff we can get to ensure healthcare facilities don't collapse" doesn't square up. Here in Australia it's still the case that our hospital staff require the vax, while we're deeply unstaffed. It begs the question if their exclusion is of any net gain to society despite the ostensible risk they pose to patients, or if their ability to contribute to the healthcare workforce would outweigh that 'risk'.
Post reply on HN