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

> almost always when the government steps in to fund things on the demand side of the market equation it leads to massive growth in costs and burden for consumers. Universities are another great example of this.

I agree with all the points you make in your comment. I'll just add that the problem is far more complex than this. And, yes, it is all, 100%, caused by government intervention.

Without diving too deep, the problem starts with substandard education in the US all the way down to K-12 level. From there it goes to the insanely high cost of university education due to the government being involved in guaranteeing loan. Nobody in their right mind would give an 18 year old a $300K loan or $120K loan for a bullshit degree with no prospects of repaying it in their lifetime. Then we have heavy, expensive regulatory frameworks and horribly slow and bureaucratic processes to build or make just-about anything. And, finally, lawsuits.

When someone is laying on an operating table in the hospital, they are surrounded by a team with somewhere in the order of three to five million dollars in student debt. The same team likely spends somewhere close to a million dollars a year in liability and other licensing and insurance.

Each and every manufacturer of the equipment in that room and the tools used for the surgery, employs people with student debt in the range of $100K to $300K per person. Hundreds of them. Thousands of them. The companies has huge regulatory, legal and insurance costs.

The hospital is in a similar situation. Millions of dollars per year in legal, insurance and other costs and a workforce that owes millions of dollars in student loans. Not to mention the various laboratories and services that make the hospital run.

If you follow the various tentacles and construct financial cost model showing what it takes for a person to be on a table in an operating room, the resulting number will be massive.

That's the key to our broken healthcare system and why no socialist utopia is going to fix it.

Until we fix the underlying cost structures driving the system, it is impossible to pass laws to truly control such costs. The "single payer" idea is, in this context, in a range between utopia and demented.

Why is it demented?

here's an analog: We take out one credit card with zero interest for a year. The intent is to use it to pay off all of our other credit cards within that period using this card by transferring the balance. People do this all the time.

Here's the problem: They don't change their spending behavior. Instead of ending-up with no credit card bills after twelve months, they wake up one glorious Monday now owing more money and having one more card to pay off.

You have to fix the underlying cost structure first. The problem can't be solved without this important first step.

This means getting the government out of education, student loans and a bunch of other areas. It also means demanding that the government be efficient and effective in doing the work we hire them to do.

The problem with this concept is that the people need to understand reality in order for them to vote appropriately. We don't have an informed citizenship. Not even close. We have clans fighting against each other and a few of us in the middle yelling "the emperor has no clothes!", and nobody listens.

Sorry to hear that.

One of the massive negative side-effects of ACA will come to the national forefront in a few years. We now have tens of millions of people enrolled in Medicaid. What most don't understand is that, after 55 years of age, this isn't insurance at all, it's a loan you are required, by law, to repay.

Don't take it from me, here's a summary directly from the Medicaid website:

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate-recover...

I looked into this a while back. The State can place liens on your estate and your children could be stuck with a bill because of that. For example, if you have a home it is very likely that 100% of the value of your home will be consumed by your healthcare bills if you needed what I am going to call a normal level of care for that age group from 55 onwards.

In other words:

People were told they they were getting health insurance through Obamacare. In reality, they agreed to receive a credit card using their estate as collateral. If this isn't fraud, I just don't know what is.

Obamacare might just be the largest private-property grab by any government in the history of this nation, if not humanity. I wonder how many people actually understand they will not be able to leave anything to their children. Or worse, leave them a huge bill owed to the State.

These are the things that really rattle me: Politicians selling pushing programs in the most dishonest ways possible. How many people would have supported ACA had they were told they would have to sign-over their estate to pay for their after-55 medical bills? Very few, if any.

What really sucks about this is it affects the low to middle class portion of the population in a disproportionate manner. They are the ones who end-up on a Medicaid plan, not people who can afford to pay for something else. Once again, politicians claim to be for the little guy and, instead, they royally shaft them every time they are able to. All they care about is their votes.

I also wonder how to square it with the rest of their claimsc Seems that you can't take any publication headline of any instance on any side of the argument on face value when stuff gets politicized like this.

"But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are available in the U.S."

What makes you say that the current strains are weaker?

"but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively)."

And more extensively in summary:

"First, the risk of myocarditis is substantially higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals than the increase in risk observed after a first dose of ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine, and a first, second, or booster dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Second, although the risk of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains after vaccination, it was substantially reduced, suggesting vaccination provides some protection from the cardiovascular consequences of SARS-CoV-2. Third, in contrast with other vaccines, the risk of myocarditis observed 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine was higher and similar to the risk after infection. Last, vaccine-associated myocarditis was largely restricted to men younger than 40 years with 1 exception; both younger men and women were at increased risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273."

It does so by including "5,934,153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination."