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

551–560 of 662 posts

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

#551

Post by zmgsabst »

Izkata wrote: post #482
zmgsabst wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, please explain my leap in logic: - I was curious - I went to OECD to get datasets for COVID, excess, and all mortality [1] - I subtracted COVID deaths from excess deaths to get “likely non-COVID excess deaths” - then I made a chart [2], showing the ratio of COVID to non-COVID; log-2 scale with a black line at zero (equal COVID and non-COVID) - I expected mostly COVID excess, like during the delta wave near the…

What are the overlapping curves here? Different age groups, different countries, something else?

Each curve is one of the countries from the OECD dataset with partial opacity; the darker regions are overlaps.

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

#552

Post by Izkata »

ceejayoz wrote: post #515
Izkata wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If vaccination prevents you from catching covid, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to those you would have otherwise. Depends on what you mean by "covid" here. If you're referring to the virus, then no - this is a misconception. The vaccines at best only reduce symptoms, they don't stop infection or transmission. > versus several asymptomatic days while unknowingly contagious This was also an early gue…

> Right now, getting vaccinated is the selfish action because it's likely to turn you into an asymptomatic spreader. At least when unvaccinated you'll know to stay home. This is a) insane and b) directly contradicts the point you tried to make above it.

How does it contradict it? These vaccines reduce symptoms without stopping infection/transmission -> you're helping yourself without helping the community -> it's the selfish action.

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

#553

Post by ceejayoz »

Izkata wrote: post #552
ceejayoz wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now, getting vaccinated is the selfish action because it's likely to turn you into an asymptomatic spreader. At least when unvaccinated you'll know to stay home. This is a) insane and b) directly contradicts the point you tried to make above it.

How does it contradict it? These vaccines reduce symptoms without stopping infection/transmission -> you're helping yourself without helping the community -> it's the selfish action.

You can't argue asymptomatic spread isn't a thing, and then claim the vaccines are bad because they cause asymptomatic spread.

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

#554

Post by JamisonM »

nradov wrote: post #325
woodruffw wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By all means I would encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated. But there was never any valid reason to halt society in the first place, so your comment is a non sequitur . Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was routine for medical institutions to be overwhelmed by respiratory viruses. We didn't halt society, we just accepted the consequences and moved on. https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu…

"there was never any valid reason to halt society in the first place"

Look whatever you think about anything full hospitals everywhere and people in Spain being left for dead in old folks homes were definitely real things - I am not sure about your definition of "halt society" here but policy choices that reduced social contact in indoor spaces was absolutely required. You just can't rewrite history if that is what you are trying to imply.

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

#555

Post by jtc331 »

shagie wrote: post #231
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.

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…

You didn’t stratify vaccination risk by age which immediately calls into question your comparative data. Indeed the myocarditis risk appears to be inversely correlated with age (exactly the opposite of the positive correlation of risk COVID itself has with age).

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

#556

Post by kennyloginz »

lamontcg wrote: post #376
koolba wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. That includes you feeling safe that the local hospital system will not be at capacity if you have to be admitted. It’s no different…

> chain smokers, alcoholics, or morbidly obese people clogging the medical system. That's the normal load and it is scaled for it[*]. COVID is like a DDoS. And there is no elastic cloud scaling for nurses, you can't just turn up more instances from a ready pool. [*] Well maybe not any more, and lets not get into a discussion of the for-profit health care system.

Interesting way to look at it , a DDoS on healthcare. Makes me think of a Cold War sci-fi story called “Wasp”.

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

#557

Post by OrvalWintermute »

skissane wrote: post #532
simplotek wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, in Australia, the official recommendation is that healthy people under 30 not receive a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine (...) It should be stressed that this guidance explicitly refers to a fourth dose of a vaccine. I feel it's disingenuous to use this example to try to refute the OP when the problem lies in people taking massive leaps of logic such as going from "it's ok to take 3 doses of a vaccine b…

> "it's ok to take 3 doses of a vaccine but the benefits of a fourth might not justify it" That's not what the Australian health authorities are saying. They aren't just saying that "the benefits of a fourth might not justify it", they are saying "(for healthy young people) the health risks of the fourth dose likely outweigh the health benefits"–your rephrasing ignores that safety risk aspect. In my mind, there are t…

There is actually a (4) also, which we can see evidence for in a paper such as [1] in the paper Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction

Summarized: The Covid vaccines have real safety risks for which there is a body of evidence, that taken in totality, leads one to believe that the temporal and Absolute Risk Reduction of =I don't believe that all Covid vaccines share the same risks since the microgram dosing of the MRNA vaccines vary greatly, and the Novavax vaccine [2] [3] is coming onto the scene, unfortunately with a few of the same adverse events as the MRNA vaccines though

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2022.2...

[2] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/novavax-covid-vaccine

[3] https://us.novavaxcovidvaccine.com/hcp

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

#558

Post by claytongulick »

xcrunner529 wrote: post #512
claytongulick wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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). This has never really been shown to be that accurate considering the excess deaths from the averages every year. You’re ignoring an inconvenient fact.

Which inconvenient fact am I ignoring?

I took screen shots almost daily of all-cause mortality stats through the lockdown.

The entire time it tracked pretty close to the expected linear increase that we see year over year with an aging population, with the exception of a bump in April that was almost exclusively New York City. Given the reported quality of care issues that drove a lot of that, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

I also saw a sudden jump in these numbers right at the end of the year. Could have been completely legitimate due to delays in reporting, but for some reason the CDC refuses to release anonymized data sets that would allow independent analysis.

Which is highly abnormal.

Additionally, all-cause mortality measures don't do a good job of indicating covid deaths, necessarily. Many deaths were due to delays of care for critical conditions. I experienced this myself, and was fortunate to not have become a statistic. We had deaths of despair, and we have several conflicting studies about those. We also have a significant (maybe majority) number of the deaths attributed to covid being a six to twelve month acceleration of death for those who were at end of life, especially the elderly with comorbidities.

While sad, it's not quite the terrifying tragedy that the numbers without nuance present. It will be interesting to see if 2022 and 2023 see a concomitant dip in expected mortality.

I also spent countless hours hunting down source data (as much as was available) understanding how Covid ID was generated for cross region case tracking, data collection methodology and evaluting transmission studies and models.

I saw massive revisions of numbers post-investigation in several counties, such as Collin county in TX.

If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that the data is a collosal mess. If you spend any time digging into the data collection methods and how reporting was happening you'd see this for yourself.

FWIW, my background is in healthcare logistics, data analysis and technology.

So if you are aware of some facts that I'm ignoring, I'd love to understand them.

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

#559

Post by polynox »

skissane wrote: post #492
polynox wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust that when I drive over a bridge it won't collapse. But I cannot say I know that the bridge won't collapse. Knowledge is a true and justified belief. But trust is not a justification - quite the opposite. If you had a justification, you wouldn't need trust. Trust whomever you want, on whatever basis you want, but that's fundamentally not reason or rationality, it's just an argument from authority [1]. No state…

> Trust whomever you want, on whatever basis you want, but that's fundamentally not reason or rationality, it's just an argument from authority [1]. No statement becomes more true just because someone said it, regardless of who they are. A statement can become more likely to be true just because someone said it, depending on the nature of the statement and the person making it. For example, my brother is an oncologis…

I was not aware of abduction before today, thank you!

I think we may agree in practice if not in theory. I did have the Hume-an problem of induction explicitly on my mind. It would be quite fair to say my epistemology is quite conservative.

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

#560

Post by stephen_g »

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…

I think that's a pretty specious argument though. Other statistics are available (especially excess deaths) that can pretty clearly help show what was going on along with the COVID death numbers (i.e. a significant increase in the number of people dying through the pandemic who most likely wouldn't have died during that time otherwise, in proportions generally tracking more or less to the reported COVID deaths). It's not like the reported numbers of COVID deaths exist in a vacuum to be able to be so sceptical of them!
Post reply on HN