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

451–460 of 662 posts

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

#451

Post by birken »

skissane wrote: post #419
birken wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the policies of other countries, I don't think just because another country has a different policy necessarily dictates that policy is better or worse. Additionally, I think it's very easy to see something like "Denmark doesn't recommend the vaccines to anybody under 50" and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under…

> While I think it is certainly fair to talk about the policies of other countries, I don't think just because another country has a different policy necessarily dictates that policy is better or worse. Sure. But if a person is aware that other countries have different policies, that gives them a legitimate reason to question whether the policy of their own country is correct. If a person looks into the matter, and d…

Yeah, I agree completely.

It also is difficult position for health agencies to be in, because they want to make clear guidelines to prevent confusion, but there are gray areas. For example, it's completely possible that:

(a) The benefits outweigh the risks of a 4th shot for any age group

or

(b) The risks outweigh the benefits of a 4th shot for some or all age groups [not because the risk are high, but the benefits so low]

AFAIK, there aren't any super high quality studies anywhere in the world that have robust data on the 4th shot in particular for all age groups. So one health agency might guess one way, another health agency might guess another way. Reasonable people can disagree. The CDC got a little bit ahead of the science when they were initially recommending the 3rd shot, but in the long run it was proven to be a good gamble that no doubt saved thousands of lives. But now maybe that same logic is a mistake for the 4th shot.

But regardless of the CDC's recommendations, most people seem to have figured out the cost/benefit for themselves: The vast majority of people in the US have 2 shots, a little under half have the booster, and very few have the 4th shot. Most people probably have made the right choices for themselves given the various risks and benefits for them personally.

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

#452

Post by ukFxqnLa2sBSBf6 »

hammock wrote: post #136
nluken wrote: post #65

"Interestingly, we recorded inflammatory foci predominantly in the right heart, which may suggest a gradual blood-stream derived dilution effect and based on this finding it is at least tempting to speculate that inadvertent intravascular vaccine injection may be contributive." Does this indicate that the authors believe aspirating the vaccine during administration would reduce the risk of myocarditis? I don't have a…

Yes. Complication from jab administration is something that has been widely discussed (not widely reported though). The clinical trials were supposed to show that the jab (and therefore the mRNA, and the resultant spike protein generated, which is known to be toxic) stayed in the muscle local to the injection site. What is widely speculated is that on some not-insubstantial portion of injections, the jab makes it int…

I wonder if having larger arm muscles reduces this risk. Great workout motivation if so.

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

#453

Post by ceejayoz »

hammock wrote: post #441
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?

Does it matter which?

It does if you can’t think of any that would demonstrably cause 1.3M excess deaths in the US, yes.

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

#454

Post by cthulha »

VancouverMan wrote: post #352
shagie wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first part is a mistaken belief. There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article. AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micro…

We have to be extremely cautious when considering any of the death-related statistics for this particular situation. For example, we know that a dubious methodology was used for counting deaths in Toronto (Canada's most populous city, and the fourth most populous city in North America). This was publicly admitted to by Toronto Public Health itself, as early as June 2020: "Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but…

The question nobody else has been able to answer is "What is a satisfactory analysis for these purposes?"

The closest I've seen to an answer is to remove accidental deaths (eg, hit by a car, firearms fatality, etc) but there's a huge range of arguable cases like stroke which is plausibly covid-affected. Second, you have the problem of comparing stats between locations that used different definitions, so it's harder to do post-hoc correlations.

The decisions seems to have been avoiding false-negative mistakes by increasing false positives in the first wave of analysis: "Let's include everything under a simple rule for covid stats so that we at least have some kind of worst-case baseline modelling with similar datasets, and we can figure out afterwards which are real and which aren't"

Anyway, just wanted to see if you actually have a better answer to the problem than the standard that was used.

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

#455

Post by lmm »

ethanbond wrote: post #244
danhak wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't get to dismiss an argument by just declaring that it "didn't pass the smell test." That guidance was exactly in line with every counter-pathogen campaign since, Idk, before germ theory?

Has this kind of vaccine mandate (for everyday life, not for travel) ever been imposed before? I remember the possibility of denying public services (e.g. schooling) to children who weren't vaccinated against measles being discussed but being extremely controversial, and that was for a vaccine that was far more reliable and well-tested.

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

#456

Post by shagie »

Mawr wrote: post #386
shagie wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first part is a mistaken belief. There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article. AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micro…

> "Converting this to micromort language, an individual living in New York City has experienced roughly 50 additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly deadly year." This is highly misleading. The average individual may be at such risk, jus…

The 50 micromorts per day is from the excess deaths in NYC during spring of 2020 and comparing that mortality to being a soldier in Afghanistan in 2010.

I don't believe that comparing those two is unreasonable.

However, to your last question that is what micomorts can answer.

The risk of death from a vaccination is 2.9 micromorts. The risk of death from contracting Covid-19 for a 25 year old is 100 micromorts. So 30x greater risk.. and those are directly comparable numbers.

The other point to consider - you're not always going to be 25. I'm much closer to the 55 bracket than the 25 bracket, and that represents a 40x increase in risk... so about 1200x greater risk than vaccination.

Assuming you remain a hermit for some number of years (and Covid-19 remains endemic), is there a point where you would change your mind on the value proposition of a vaccination? And if the answer is yes - why not do it now?

Yea, currently you're comparing 2.9 micromorts vs 100 micromorts. At 25, that comparison doesn't have too much to it. 100 micromorts is not something that I think too much about either (comparable to the risk of death while giving birth for the women out there). I've done road trips that racked up 100 micromorts cumulative (more if you add in the hiking and skiing micromorts on that trip).

I'll also note I'm older now than when I was when I did that roadtrip... and there are things that I would do now to further mitigate the risks that I took back then.

It's not wrong for your age, but it is something that should be said "yes, its a risk and it is a lot riskier."

That said, there's a number even beyond that 100 micromorts to consider.

New data shows long Covid is keeping as many as 4 million people out of work - https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid...

> 1.6 million full-time equivalent workers could be out of work due to long Covid. With 10.6 million unfilled jobs at the time, long Covid potentially accounted for 15% of the labor shortage.

That 4M number is not part that I want to be part of. While I have better than average health insurance, the not-dying also has a significant risk to it too. It is harder to quantify as it isn't an accurate cause of mortality - but it is not something that should be ignored.

Many people here enjoy better than average salaries - consider the risk of going on long term disability for the next 40 to 60 years with the corresponding reduction in compensation. And yes, I know people who are no longer able to work on anything that has a deadline or expectations of attendance in meetings; their lifestyle has changed significantly from three years ago.

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

#457

Post by willcipriano »

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.

Essentially all children and adolescents will get Covid if they somehow haven't had it already. Something like a quarter of the population being physically disabled to even a mild degree is an extraordinary claim requiring evidence in kind.

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

#458

Post by Eisenstein »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #445
Eisenstein wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We generally don't allow parents to force risky irreversible things onto their children. We absolutely do, but that is a completely different conversation. If that doesn't work for you I am sure you can't object to conscription as a societal burden. Where are you going with this line of discussion? Or did you just want me to think of something that wasn't medical?

Conscription is a good example of a social burden unfairly dispersed and widely objected to — at least in the West. My point is the underpinning of this “one more mandatory intervention is no big deal” view is not based on reality. The State stopped forcing irreversible interventions on adults when eugenics went out of (polite) fashion. The belief compulsory acts are normal and good policy is based on something like…

You make a very good point, but like in times of invasion where conscription is something I would argue is necessary, in times of other emergency then there is the possibility we must give up some independence of our person and perform compulsory acts. This may not be as obvious as getting a needle jabbed into your arm, but rationing water and food, joining in labor to clear wreckage/debris or rebuild, or taking arms in defense during invasion are all examples of similar situations.

I recognize that it is ill-advised to normalize forced medical intervention and I thank you for pointing out that my initial comment appears to be doing that, and I shall make a point to reflect on this, but I do maintain that during times of crisis the state/society should have the right to compel individuals in ways that are otherwise not acceptable.

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

#459

Post by skissane »

dekhn wrote: post #438
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

The military isn't a good example because they already have mandatory vaccines and those were completely supported, it wasn't until the fairly recent anti-vaccine drama (autism/mercury) mixed with the distrust of the establishment promoted by Trump, that military people (or right-wing media) began to turn this into an issue that people cared about.

> that military people (or right-wing media) began to turn this into an issue that people cared about

Historically, the majority of opposition to vaccines has been "left-wing" rather than "right-wing". It was only really with COVID that it suddenly picked up on the right as well. I've had some rather frustrating conversations online with people (mostly Americans it seems) who are utterly convinced that it is fundamentally a "right-wing" phenomenon, and seem to just want to ignore the evidence of its long history among self-identified "progressives":

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/how-one...

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

#460

Post by eli »

rednerrus wrote: post #280
eli wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are so small that it is hard to say -- several long-term studies are ongoing. All the evidence suggests the risk of Covid is far greater. I'm sure you know this, but covid causes significantly more cases of myocarditis than the vaccine.

The vaccine isn't preventing COVID, it's just limiting symptoms. Does it lower the risk of myocarditis from COVID? I just looked. The Vaccine doesn't lower your risk of getting myocarditis if you still become infected by COVID.

You are wrong. The vaccine absolutely reduces your odds of getting covid in the first place.
Post reply on HN