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

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

link.springer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 662 posts

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

#51

Post by colechristensen »

manwe150 wrote: post #28
gfodor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can estimate from excess death statistics that this is basically a non-risk for most people. Unlike getting ill with COVID, which we can also estimate from excess death statistics is a notable risk factor for most people.

Young people were at extremely low risk from covid. It is entirely possible that the vaccine killed more people than it saved under a certain age. It is not certain but it is plausible as the covid deaths for young people were so low.

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

#53

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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.

> Besides pneumonia, myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24].

I mean, your point only makes sense if you ignore that COVID causes the same myocarditis and ignore that the vaccine has been proven to reduce severity and duration of symptoms. This study was of 5 autopsies, unless you can prove this was incredibly widespread concern I don't understand why you think it would be better people get COVID.

On a slightly different note I find it incredibly funny how the refrain was "they died with COVID, not from", but now it's "they died because of the vaccine, not with".

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

#54

Post by Eisenstein »

danhak wrote: post #8

We coerced young, low-risk people into receiving these treatments despite known side effects on pain of losing their education or employment or being able to enter privately-owned establishments (irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those privately-owned establishments). We justified it with the specious argument that they were putting other people at undue risk by remaining unvaccinated. We claimed that vacci…

We require young people to get vaccinated as a rule in order to obtain education. Every medical intervention involves risks. So does taking a shower or taking the bus to school. We all have to take risks and some of them are mandated for the good of society.

There were very good indications that the vaccine would prevent spread.

Public policy decisions which cost lives are not unusual and although tragic, are often necessary. For instance should we use the entire yearly budget of a hospital to cure one child, or let that child die in order to fund daily operations? These questions have no 'right' answer and no matter what was decided there is going to be criticism and errors which result in less than optimal or even tragic outcomes.

Looking back in hindsight and using the knowledge we now have, I would say that the biggest errors made during the pandemic by public policymakers (besides disbanding the pandemic team and having a leader who was looking at everything in the lens of a what was personally good for him at that moment) was in messaging.

If we can use this to craft a better way to handle public messaging in the future then perhaps we can avoid a lot of the negative societal effects which we are now dealing with -- specifically lack of trust in scientific institutions, division based on ideology and not evidence, and the spread and enabling of conspiratorial thinking.

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

#56

Post by gfodor »

manwe150 wrote: post #28
gfodor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can estimate from excess death statistics that this is basically a non-risk for most people. Unlike getting ill with COVID, which we can also estimate from excess death statistics is a notable risk factor for most people.

I agree with my sibling here is that your confidence is misplaced that we did not kill many teenagers unnecessarily.

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

#58

Post by jamespo »

estewart wrote: post #37

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."

Very few of the instant commenters read the study first it seems.

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

#60

Post by chedca21 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34
gfodor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did their stances actually contribute to public health policy, if so then they bare responsibility unfortunately. Armchair biosecurity advocates should be left off the hook.
Post reply on HN