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

391–400 of 662 posts

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

#391

Post by kyleblarson »

ajross wrote: post #318
kyleblarson wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

"two weeks to flatten the curve", "if you get the vaccine you won't get covid", "the vaccine is 95% effective", "the vaccine is 80% effective", "the vaccine is 50% effective", "well you'll still get covid but you won't spread it to others", "well actually you can spread it to others"

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

#392

Post by mcronce »

mrguyorama wrote: post #347
ajross wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

These people also seem to ignore that CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT over the entire pandemic. Of COURSE recommendations made when the vaccine first came out might need to be modified or updated as more gets learned about possible side effects and how it interacts with different variants. These people never seem to have a problem with the changes in the polio vaccine over the years, or chickenpox

They also like to yell and scream about how "science can't make up its mind"

Yes, because that's how science works. When new information is acquired, new hypotheses are created and tested.

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

#393

Post by OrvalWintermute »

bb88 wrote: post #167
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…

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…

Are you saying that aneuryms are not a potential adverse event associated with MRNA Covid vaccination [1]?

Furthermore, we know hypertension is also associated with dissections, and there are several documented cases of acute and non-acute hypertension after MRNA covid vaccination [2]

I'm saying that to say there are some possibilities there, but I am also going to say the opposite too.

I don't know that we know enough about the adverse events associated with these vaccinations, and whether or not a vaccine is implicated, or if there was a previous medical condition.

Retrospectively speaking, I don't know that an autopsy would give us any novel answers either, because of the gaps we have around passive medical surveillance vs active medical surveillance.

I am sorry that Mr. Wahl died at such a relatively young age

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35646499/

[2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA...

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

#394

Post by lamontcg »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #304
lamontcg wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a highly specious argument that the unvaccinated were putting other people at significant risk. The unvaccinated were filling up the hospitals which was putting other people at risk. Your right to gamble with your health ends when you expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes out badly.

Well... the awkward part about this is right now, it is now the opposite problem. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/opinion/environment/covid... https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20221127/more-vaccinated-peo... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinate...

As even that top article points out we'd expect the rate of unvaccinated people to approach the base rate which is 76% of the population having received one dose. And since old people are at more risk and are more vaccinated, we'd expect it to reach even higher eventually. But that happens because eventually the unvaccinated do all pick up natural immunity and the effect we're measuring is that the excess load caused by the unvaccinated is declining. We could have gotten to this point much quicker by having 100% vaccination rates (and 100% of the people still being admitted with COVID would then be vaccinated) but with an order of magnitude less load on the hospital system.

The top article you cite has all this information in it, and even mentions the base rate fallacy. It is criticizing the framing of the pandemic as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and trying to focus attention on the elderly, but that is orthogonal to the question of if the unvaccinated are disproportionately clogging up the hospital system. Both statistics are true. Everyone should still get vaccinated to reduce the load on the hospital system (although this concern is now fading as antivaxxers actually do pick up immunity the hard way). We should also focus on the elderly more.

As a simple example: if a population begins entirely susceptible and there's a vaccine from day 1 which is available and reduces the risks of hospitalization by 9x and 90% of the people get the vaccine, then the rates of hospitalization will be split 50/50 between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccinating the rest of the population would increase vaccination rates by 10% but would decrease overall hospitalization rates by 44%.

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

#395

Post by neuralRiot »

tempsy wrote: post #164
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…

Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I absolutely feel like I have to.

> why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero.

In my case i vaccinated because i knew i was a transmission node in case of being infected and not noticing, potetially endangering multitude of vulnerable people.

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

#396

Post by gjsman-1000 »

mcronce wrote: post #392
mrguyorama wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people also seem to ignore that CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT over the entire pandemic. Of COURSE recommendations made when the vaccine first came out might need to be modified or updated as more gets learned about possible side effects and how it interacts with different variants. These people never seem to have a problem with the changes in the polio vaccine over the years, or chickenpox

They also like to yell and scream about how "science can't make up its mind" Yes, because that's how science works. When new information is acquired, new hypotheses are created and tested.

People were literally fired from their jobs, removed from 30+ year military careers, over the science, only for the science to keep changing.

If science can't make up its mind and this is "how science works," anyone who thinks anything should be mandated based on science should be shot. You can't tell people something, have it directly and deeply affect their personal lives, then tell them something substantially different 2 years later, without people grabbing pitchforks. Your theoretical definition of science is irrelevant and makes popular perception of "science" a whimsical joke.

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

#397

Post by amluto »

lamontcg wrote: post #294
tempsy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I absolutely feel like I have to.

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…

> Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already.

I don’t find this compelling at all. At the very least, the mRNA vaccines have the lipid nanoparticles themselves, and LNPs are quite clearly biologically active.

And the mRNA gets delivered to cells that would not be infected by the actual virus. One might imagine that such cells would be targeted to at some some extent by CD8+ T cells that learn to recognize spike protein. As far as I can tell, there is nothing published examining what actually happens, but you certainly don’t end up with massive death of muscle cells when vaccinated. See, for example, the comments here:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mrna-vaccines-what...

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

#398

Post by throw4659261 »

failuser wrote: post #382
blub wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

So you argue that you should increase the risk of death or disability by COVID by not vaccinating. Got it.

No post body was provided.

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

#399

Post by ceejayoz »

flutas wrote: post #384
ceejayoz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring?

> Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring? I can give one example, which happened…

That sort of thing is relatively trivial to tease out of the stats, because in addition to excess deaths we have per-disease statistics as well.

See the chart about 2/3 down on https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-continues..., titled "Average daily deaths in the United States, by cause (2020 - Present)". We don't see a massive spike in other causes of death (including cancer, which is a flat line at ~1,600/day throughout), and no one's likely to misidentify a cancer or heart attack death on a death certificate.

There are certainly cases like your dad's, where delayed screenings and treatment had individual impacts, but none of the stats available to us show this explaining a meaningful amount of the 1.3M excess deaths observed.

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

#400

Post by librish »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #191
librish wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID is much less dangerous to younger people but there are still very real risks involved, especially non-lethal ones. Assuming a 25% probability of catching it, how are you coming to the conclusion that the risk of the vaccine is higher?

> risk of the vaccine is higher? I said within a certain demographic... For old people, the vaccine is obviously worth it. Boys/men from age 10-30, probably not. Hell, a bunch of EU countries literally stopped giving young people the Moderna vaccine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-f...

Yes, I'm asking within the demographic of say 20-50 how are you coming to the conclusion that the risk is not worth it?
Post reply on HN