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

361–370 of 662 posts

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

#361

Post by wpietri »

danhak wrote: post #327
ajross wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sc…

What about my position seems insincere to you? You see no philosophical difference between the government mandating vaccination records for schools and public institutions like the military vs. them mandating vaccination records for private establishments such as gyms, irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those establishments? Should the government have the right to mandate vaccination records for entry to a p…

The government has the right (and I'd argue, the duty) to quarantine people with diseases that are both contagious and dangerous if that's the best way to keep them from harming others. More details here: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

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

#362

Post by blub »

skissane wrote: post #303
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…

> 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. In some cases, it may well be true that the vaccine is a greater risk than the virus. For example, in Australia, the official recommendation is that healthy people under 30 not receive a fourth dose of COVID-…

I’ve been watching the vaccine discussions on HN these years and one can see that too many people are stuck fighting vaccination windmills from days gone by, while downplaying vaccine risks which by now are established and continue to be investigated as this publication shows.

Meanwhile many EU countries have understood that heart problems are a real risk and have adjusted recommendations accordingly. They’ve also stopped obsessing about vaccinating people.

The vaccination crusade’s dead folks, please stand by for the next pandemic.

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

#363

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #361
danhak wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about my position seems insincere to you? You see no philosophical difference between the government mandating vaccination records for schools and public institutions like the military vs. them mandating vaccination records for private establishments such as gyms, irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those establishments? Should the government have the right to mandate vaccination records for entry to a p…

The government has the right (and I'd argue, the duty) to quarantine people with diseases that are both contagious and dangerous if that's the best way to keep them from harming others. More details here: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

[deleted]

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

#364

Post by bombcar »

kurthr wrote: post #360
bombcar wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your right to gamble with your health ends when you expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes out badly. I wonder how that would apply to obesity and unprotected sex.

Um, obesity is an individual issue (at least at the current levels of hospital load associated with it) so your insurance and bills go up. Unprotected sex has two people involved and can be assault (if not agreed to) and if done by someone who knows they are HIV positive and infects another who dies... manslaughter.

But we've shown that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, so not getting it is an individual issue ...

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

#365

Post by bena »

mrtksn wrote: post #283
bena wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users…

Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content. Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.

All good then, I just didn't want you to think I was advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn't your intention, apologies to you as well.

And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.

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

#366

Post by fallenasleep »

This meta analysis cited in the OP is good for context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000914/

>"The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9–30·3], 11 studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], 11 studies [9 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132·1 [81·3–214·6], p<0·0001) but was not significantly different after influenza vaccinations (1·3 [0·0–884·1], p=0·43) or in studies reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57·0 [1·1–3036·6], p=0·58). Among people who received COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher in males (vs females), in people younger than 30 years (vs 30 years or older), after receiving an mRNA vaccine (vs non-mRNA vaccine), and after a second dose of vaccine (vs a first or third dose)."

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

#367

Post by nwienert »

mikeyouse wrote: post #186
nyolfen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom ? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?

That's not even the complete question though -- because by all accounts, Covid actually results in a higher incidence of myocarditis than the vaccine does.. Given the tenor of the conspiracy theories here, the landscape of questions is too nuanced for HN I guess. Ideally, the vaccine recommendation would weigh: Incidence and seriousness of myocarditis (ISM) naturally / in absence of covid or vaccine, ISM following va…

Not true for men under 40, myocarditis higher from vaccine.

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

#368

Post by [deleted] »

CharlesW wrote: post #165
nyolfen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom ? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?

> what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid? This is only true if you consider death the only "serious" outcome. Around 25% of children and adolescents who get COVID-19 will get "long COVID", with long-term effects we've just begun to understand. Plenty of "young-ish healthy people" have suffered debilitating effects.

[deleted]

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

#369

Post by claytongulick »

vannevar wrote: post #144
nulld3v wrote: post #67

I am vaccinated but I am upvoting this post because I believe that it is important to investigate these cases to determine how to improve future vaccines. I really don't like how this topic seems to be treated like some fringe conspiracy theory. Maybe it is just a conspiracy, but we won't ever know until sufficient research has been done. Currently, I still believe that people should vaccinate, even if vaccines cause…

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…

Many other people have replied with great information, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with:

> 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.

I believe the problem is that we were so convinced that our solution to covid was infallible that we removed a basic human right: the ability to make informed choice about your medical care.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most people involved did this out of a genuine desire to save lives and help people.

The issue is the hubris.

The idea that "I know better than you do what's good for you and for society, so I'm going to force you to do a thing".

This is where we went wrong. The forcing.

If we'd presented vaccination as informed choice, had recommendations but not coercion, I think there would have been a lot less resistance.

We decided that public health was a trump card that allowed us to ignore almost every civil liberty the U.S. was founded on.

We actively limited speech and debate, going to far as to silence and destroy the lives and careers of qualified physicians who dissented.

We restricted freedom of assembly.

We seized property through forced business closing without compensation.

We restricted free movement.

We coerced vaccination in the strongest possible ways shy of physical force.

The list goes on.

We did this out of a hubris that "we know better than you".

It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not, it's fundamentally anti-liberal.

It's made worse by the unfortunate fact that in most cases we were wrong.

Asymptomatic spread wasn't a thing. The initial studies that said it was were based on flawed methodology. Even China isn't counting asymptomatic cases anymore.

Pretty much every model that we based policy off of, predicting extreme fatality rates and recommending extraordinary interventions, were dead wrong.

As others have pointed out, mortality counts were wildly off due to many factors, including how death certificates were filled out (died with covid v/s died from covid).

The vulnerable populations were identified fairly early on, but we chose to implement draconian restrictions for everyone, regardless of their individual risk.

This was the problem.

Hubris.

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

#370

Post by [deleted] »

CharlesW wrote: post #165
nyolfen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom ? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?

> what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid? This is only true if you consider death the only "serious" outcome. Around 25% of children and adolescents who get COVID-19 will get "long COVID", with long-term effects we've just begun to understand. Plenty of "young-ish healthy people" have suffered debilitating effects.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN