My employer wouldn't let me go to the office or even any offsites or outdoor actives (i.e. a picnic) until very recently. (Despite my approved religious exemption and "requiring" all employees to work in the office). If that isn't coercion to take an experimental vaccine i don't know what is.
a) I wouldn't class it as experimental when hundreds of millions of people have taken it. b) It sounds like your employer did the right thing to balance your rights versus those of the people you work with.
If an experiment is big enough it becomes a statistic
Obvious according to who? I literally directly addressed that claim, so I'll quote it again for you: > Myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24]. It is under debate whether myocarditis in COVID-19 is primarily caused by the viral infection or whether it occurs secondary as a consequence of the host´s immune response, in particular by T-lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity or as a cons…
The claim I am making is it appears likely to me that at least some of these cases are fatal, which would mean the underlying mechanism of action for this side effect of the drug can, in the worst case, cause death. This ought to influence the ethics of mandating it at a minimum.
What I'm saying is that the mechanism with which the vaccine can cause myocarditis might be the exact same mechanism that triggers myocarditis but worse for people who catch COVID-19, as brought up in the study. If the myocarditis is the result of the immune system's response to the spike protein then both COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine will trigger myocarditis in those individuals. In this case the 'mechanism' is the same, but COVID-19 will likely trigger a far worse reaction from what we know about how the disease progresses in certain individuals.
This is the exact point that the article mentions.
Saying it’s not unreasonable means there is some significant probability that we may ultimately determine this to be the case. The conclusion is about the range of probabilities, not the actual state of reality. But probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to college.
> there is some significant probability that we may ultimately determine this to be the case I still don't see proof of that. > But probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to college. Again, this study doesn't involve "kids".
You already implies you agree with my claim about it not being unreasonable when you said “as well.” I guess you retract that?
And again: this study is just one of many studies that have lead to my prior. The rate of myocarditis is well established, the population size is well established, the open question is the fatality rate. The unreasonable part comes from putting a lower bound on the death rate based on some assumptions around these studies which have done autopsies and the estimates on subclinical heart interactions from the drug. There are several studies on all of these things. The back of the napkin math to me is on the order of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
>We all have to take risks and some of them are mandated for the good of society. What are some other risky and irreversible interventions mandated upon the individual for the good of society?
Anything we allow parents to do to or for their children or force their children to do qualifies.
We generally don't allow parents to force risky irreversible things onto their children. But also, the view of all citizens as simple children of the State seems...problematic.
(I don't disagree with your sentiment, fwiw) For 1.5 years we had the notion of "1 death is 1 too many" shoved down our throats at every turn to justify some pretty heinous encroachments on personal freedom.
Is that really it? Over 1 million American's have died so far. That seems like it warrants some efforts to mitigate.
I never said that any mitigation was unnecessary. There is a such thing as going overboard. There are still outdoor areas that are closed off despite there being no credible cases of outdoor transmission. https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case...
This paper doesn't claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, it investigates through autopsy 35 people in a region of Germany who died within 20 days of vaccination and only 5 of the deaths are found to show myocarditis of which only 3 somewhat might be attributed to the vaccine. This is not an expose of big Pharma or anything like that, I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research su…
Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.
If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that content.
What constitutes a 'serious adverse event' in this data? Do you mind linking the source? Having a 1 in 3000 chance of getting so sick you need to be hospitalized seems quite bad.
In case they don't answer, I would guess they are referring to VAERS data, and some random guy who once claimed it underreports everything by 40x. This is not logistically plausible (where would you hide 40x more patients than expected arriving at hospitals?), and I have seen some recent studies suggest that the underreporting factor is actually <1x (meaning it is overreported) when doing statistically random samplin…
In Canada, all reports to our Public Health Infobase must be made by a health care professional. I do suspect underreporting, given social and collegial pressure on practitioners to not undermine vaccination efforts, but I accept the given stats linked above at face value for the purposes of my model.
The problem here isn't the study---of course we should study possible vaccine side effects. The problem is the massive leaps of logic being made by people who have (quite wrongly, based on available evidence) become convinced that the vaccines are a greater threat to healthy people than the virus is. As unlikely as it is that an otherwise healthy young person will die from covid, it is even less likely that they'll d…
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…
You know what also causes myocarditis? COVID-19 [1]. So the choices were: 1. Don't pressure young people to get vaccinated. Nearly everyone who's unvaccinated eventually catches COVID-19. Some of them would have severe reactions and die; or spend time in a hospital, taking up space and delaying care for others, causing those other people to die. Nearly all of them would pass COVID-19 on to other people, many of whom…
That's not necessarily the case, if fact it might be the exact opposite.
1. Don't pressure young people to get the vaccine, some will end up in hospital, some will die.
2. Pressure young people to get the vaccine and 6 times as many of them end up in hospital from the vaccine, taking up more space, and putting more pressure on the system [0], some of them will die [1][2]
> Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Sample size of 25 out of a population of... how many tens of millions of young (EDIT: not actually young) men? Seems quite small, and perhaps not sufficient to draw any conclusions. I wonder what the results will show... > myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2…
>the authors offer no real ideas about how the damage could have happened They do, though. In fact that's the entirely novel value that this study brings. It's in the title: "histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination." That's a lot of words that means "we can now tell you exactly what microscopic tissue looks like following lethal jab-associated myocarditis.” And the scientis…
The actual wording of the study includes this...
> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis.
... which is a much, much more cautious conclusion than you're pretending.