Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination • Hacker News Board

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#31

Post by whatshisface » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:16 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #13

whatshisface wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Myocarditis is rare and has been a part of the discussion from even before the vaccines were released, or at least the professional discussion. They were why the vaccines were not recommended for all ages to begin with.

The vaccines were and still are mandated for people not at risk of severe disease, and myocarditis has been framed as a side effect not worth worrying about despite the fact that it literally can kill you. Not to mention without understanding the mechanism of action, we cannot estimate the number of true deaths that occurred without a myocarditis diagnosis.

Anything that gets your immune system going can trigger an autoimmune crisis, including, you guessed it viruses - which also use RNA to cause your cells to produce spike proteins, by the way.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#32

Post by whitepaint » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #21

gfodor wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

> If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive.

You need to take age into account, no?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#33

Post by moralestapia » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #21

gfodor wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

That's good, but what about forcing people to take it?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#34

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #26

klipt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and righteousness, as it often is.

If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from repercussions for their actions in this case?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#35

Post by krona » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #21

gfodor wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

The age stratified risk was known almost a year before needles entered the arms of teenagers.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#36

Post by boredumb » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #21

gfodor wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

Yes but does the government have the ability to coerce or force you to do something with a '1 in 1000' death rate, if not, what is the number we are allowing in the name of public health.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#37

Post by estewart » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

The last paragraph in the article literally indicates there is no causal relationship or proof of any direct link between the vaccination and myocarditis.

> "Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis."

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#38

Post by decremental » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #20

gfodor wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

Before all that let's discontinue our demonization of the unvaccinated.

They'll just hate people who didn't get the covid vaccine for not getting memed into it.

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#39

Post by librish » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

A question for vaccine skeptics:

For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death / complications from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid?

There seems to be a lot of "aha I knew it" whenever any side-effect of the vaccine is found, but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common?

Re: Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

#40

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

chedca21 wrote: post #15

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425/rr-31 Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science "Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, quotes an infection fatality rate (IFR) for Covid of 0.00-0.57% (0.05% for under 70s), far lower than originally feared and no different to severe flu" -March 2020 The bigger scandal is how covid case:fatality rate was so much higher in some places than t…

The fatality rate for a disease that is very often asymptomatic highly depends on testing. The rate will go way down in places where lots of people are required to or just do get treated frequently.

Most asymptomatic cases will go unnoticed in places with less testing so the fatality rate will go way up.

Also how you count whether or not a death gets tagged with covid matters. Lots of people had Covid and plenty of deaths will just coincidentally happen while a person has a minor infection which didn’t affect the outcome. How or when do you count that?