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

311–320 of 662 posts

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

#311

Post by s1artibartfast »

ajross wrote: post #288
nradov wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that's not P-hacking. The majority of US residents have been infected at this point. The sizes of those population groups both with and without serious pre-existing conditions are so huge that there is minimal chance of an incorrect random result. Your link is not relevant to this issue so I don't know what point you're trying to make. To be clear I support vaccination. But patients should make their own decisions…

Right, you have a hypothesis. But you don't have data. Trying to tease out evidence for your hypothesis from existing data by slicing the data set up is the very definition of p-hacking. If you refuse to believe existing work on the basis of an unmeasured hypothesis, well, that's a different sort of logical fallacy on top of the bad statistics. And FWIW, if you want a more complete (but much less amusing) explainer o…

This is not at all correct. By your definition looking at anything in greater detail is P hacking.

For example, peanut allergies don't exist because most people don't have reactions to them. You absolutely can ask the question for if peanuts are good or bad for a subpopulation.

The alternative is just sticking your head in the sand.

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

#312

Post by woodruffw »

nradov wrote: post #301
driggs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Vaccination has only limited and temporary effects in reducing the risk of transmission. I would encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated but this does very little to prevent it from spreading in society . https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2116597

Spread is just one social effect. I think the GP meant that there are plenty of other civic motivations, like not overloading medical institutions and minimizing the extent to which society needs to be halted to prevent particularly harmful spread.

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

#313

Post by pexabit »

Daishiman wrote: post #282
pexabit wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You are so astoundingly wrong that I'm just glad people like you get coerced into getting vaccinated so society doesn't have to live your terrible risk assessments.

What is your back of the envelope math here? Clearly, the vaccine does not prevent infection. There is no evidence it reduces the incidence of harmful sequelae following infection. So how does this add up to support mandatory vaccination for young men?

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

#314

Post by seydor »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #108
Mikeb85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common? You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1. For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications * probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk of compli…

> Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people... Having seen the impact of covid on young family members and others in my extended social circles, I believe that there's a long tail of effects that we won't be able to see the full picture of for years to come. There's a lot more that should be considered in the decision than just risk of death.

But the vaccine does not help with those effects, and importantly it doesnt prevent infection.

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

#315

Post by librish »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #196
librish wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The true hospitalization risk from COVID could be 1/4th to 1/10th that given that cases are widely estimated to be 4-10X what was reported. The serious adverse event definition and rates are defined here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/ut... 1 in 9000 doses reportedly results in a SAE, so if you are mandated to take 4 doses, your risk becomes ~0.04% or ~1/2500. This also does not factor in…

I'm looking at your link but I can't find anything about serious events controlled for age group (to make it a fair comparison to your covid hostpitalisation number). Is the data in there somewhere?

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

#316

Post by bryanlarsen »

mhb wrote: post #297
lamontcg wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how smal…

Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. It's good to point that out, but the first term needs to be multiplied by the chance of getting the virus.

That's likely a number greater than 1 since there is a really good chance of contracting the disease multiple times.

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

#317

Post by vfclists »

kennend3 wrote: post #286
bb88 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the Musk takeover, conspiracy theorists on $8Chan have talked about Grant Wahl dying suddenly because of the "clot shot". Then we find out he died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm. Then people still refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit their narrative they're pushing. And anyone who dies suddenly must have died because of the vaccine. https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1603103342481342465 This killed…

There is also the "Canadian doctors" story the anti-vax group continue to flog yet it has being proven wrong over and over again. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/07/why-wont-a-de... One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to save his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage his tragedy for their narrative.

> One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to save his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage his tragedy for their narrative.

One out of how many?

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

#318

Post by ajross »

kyleblarson wrote: post #308
vannevar wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a lot of the resentment comes out of "the experts" changing their narratives a dozen times about the efficacy of the vaccines over the last 3 years while browbeating anyone who voiced any amount of skepticism.

No post body was provided.

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

#319

Post by ajross »

danhak wrote: post #213
gamacodre wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has bugged me since the beginning of this mess. It ought to be possible to say "Hey this looks kind of funny, could the vaccines be having weird effects in this .0000001% of the population?" without daggers coming out all around. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that "The SARS-Cov-2 vaccines occasionally cause health problems" and "Almost everyone should get vaccinated/boosted" are both entirely true statemen…

The issue is that there were coercive government mandates. "Almost everyone should get vaccinated" does not mean the government should coerce everyone into making the correct medical decision by barring them from employment or access to private establishments. Absent a very compelling reason, people should be free to go against medical advice. People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. People h…

> the government should coerce everyone into making the correct medical decision by barring them from employment or access to private establishments.

But... the government has been doing that for decades and decades, since the very invention of the vaccine! Why is that "The Issue" when there's suddenly a pandemic and it's important, vs. when you needed to show your vaccination records to join the military or go to school in the 90's or whatever?

You see that the concern you're showing seems, to those of us on the other side, maybe a little insincere?

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

#320

Post by mikem170 »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #108
Mikeb85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common? You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1. For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications * probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk of compli…

> Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people... Having seen the impact of covid on young family members and others in my extended social circles, I believe that there's a long tail of effects that we won't be able to see the full picture of for years to come. There's a lot more that should be considered in the decision than just risk of death.

I'm a numbers guy. I happened to just stumble onto this article [0], summarizing a study on the vaccines and long covid:

> Compared to an unvaccinated individual, the risk of long Covid in a fully vaccinated individual was cut by only about 15 percent, the study found.

> Dr. Greg Vanichkachorn, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Covid Activity Rehabilitation Program in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the new study, said the results were not “too surprising.”

> “We know that the majority of folks with long Covid have not had severe infections,” he said.

Not very much help against long covid on average, nothing like the protection against hospitalizations in vulnerable populations.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccines-offer-li...

Post reply on HN