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

611–620 of 662 posts

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

#611

Post by ls15 »

lzauz wrote: post #519
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…

>I am vaccinated but Funny how this sounds like you have some special kind of keycard to be allowed to say what you said.

Because many people fallaciously assume that someone who is not vaccinated must be an idiot and hence should not be listened to.

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

#612

Post by CrimsonRain »

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…

why is that logic jump is happening? Mostly because of censorship. If your logic needs censorship to prevent logic jumps, perhaps your logic isn't solid to begin with (or mixed with lies like the vaccine).

For healthy persons in certain age group, COVID risk is almost missing. If they don't want vaccine, regardless of taking 3 doses, I have no right to tell them to take not-thoroughly tested vaccine to help reduce the spread at the potential cost of their own.

The solution is more open studies and acknowledge statistical (in)significance of vax side effects instead of trying to shove it under conspiracy and censorship. Oh, and dont lie about vaccine effectiveness.

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

#613

Post by CrimsonRain »

shagie wrote: post #456
Mawr wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Why does vaccine has one micromort where COVID has it broken down by age group? Are you saying vaccine sets the risk to constant regardless of age?

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

#614

Post by dablweb »

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…

> As long as vaccine side effects cause less deaths and less harm than the virus, vaccination is still the way to go.

No.

This is the wrong criteria to judge by. Right now it takes ~30,000 injections to prevent one hospitalization from COVID, according to recent studies.

So the real criteria is, if there are severe side effects in more than 1/30k they should be pulled.

In Pfizer's own RCT more people died in the vaccinated cohort. They had ~4x the amount of cardiac arrest. There was no proven effect on all-cause mortality from the start. Anyone paying attention and not blindly listening to politicians and the sycophantic media knew this long ago.

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

#615

Post by daneel_w »

mint2 wrote: post #596
librish wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no risk for what?

Since I didn’t know Sweden was a nation entirely of stats experts, perhaps the poster meant no risk of objective, statistically sound analysis?

I don't know what stupid assumptions you're making, so I'll fill you in:

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has been producing thorough public statistics over the situation in Sweden ever since the COVID outbreak began. The statistics are accumulated on a weekly basis and cover the number of confirmed infections, number of mild and severe hospitalizations, and the number of deaths. All of it is broken down in age groups as well as grouped according to prior underlying health concerns of the patients.

The statistics accumulated up to the same week the general availability vaccinations began - covering two waves and approx. 14 months of COVID - revealed that for their age group (age 35-45) and with no known underlying health problems, there had been a total of 11 deaths. It's fully understandable that they don't feel threatened by this virus.

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

#616

Post by daneel_w »

librish wrote: post #390
daneel_w wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every person I've asked (here in Sweden) who opted out of COVID-19 vaccination made their decision based on one year of case data covering the two first waves, which to them concluded that statistically they were at no risk based on their age and health status. Despite taking e.g. tetanus boosters, TBC vaccine etc., they are still being referred to as "antivaxxers".

At no risk for what?

Death, or even hospitalization. Swedish case statistics on COVID are very thorough and the data is public.

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

#617

Post by simplotek »

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…

> 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.

This is a red herring.

It's irrelevant if anyone feels that the 3rd or 4th or 5th dose of Pfiser's increases health risks. The problem is the misrepresentation of these findings. You cannot in good faith jump from "a residual number of people experience health issues when taking the 4th or 5th dose of Pfiser's vaccine" to "do not take any vaccine at all ever or you'll die" specially when they deny that COVID poses a threat and already killed over 6million people.

You're talking about health concerns of taking a vaccine when not taking the vaccine poses a far greater threat, and somehow that's left out of the equation. That's the problem: the disingenuous misrepresentation of the problem.

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

#618

Post by briandon »

mrguyorama wrote: post #353
ethanbond wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The worst part is that we have already comprehensively litigated all of this. The spanish flu had people protesting being forced to wear masks and other societal health measures and the Supreme court affirmed the US's right to mandate those kind of large scale health things.

The mask push then was because, for a while (and despite evidence of infectious agent passing through too-small-for-a-bacterium filters) they believed influenza was being caused by a bacterium, not a virus. Even then, they knew that the masks available would not stop airborne viruses. And masking didn't work then either (areas with enforced masking fared no better than areas where masking was optional). You're welcome to dig into accounts of the pandemic and medical journal articles written during and in the immediate aftermath of the influenza pandemic and confirm this for yourself.

Likewise, the initial (honest) advice not to bother with masks for covid was based on the fact that covid, like other coronaviruses and influenza, is aerosol-borne and aerosol particles pass through surgical mask material easily (so wearing a 2nd tight-fitting mask over a surgical mask to get a better fit doesn't matter).

The u-turn on masks for covid wasn't based on science. The justification later given was that the earlier, correct advice not to bother with masks was a noble lie to conserve supplies of masks for healthcare workers. At the time, the reversal was publicly predicated on hand-wavey (and false) claims that covid might be droplet-spread (droplets are larger than aerosol particles and droplet emissions could conceivably be greatly reduced by well-fitted surgical masks with no gaps).

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

#619

Post by ethanbond »

briandon wrote: post #618
mrguyorama wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is that we have already comprehensively litigated all of this. The spanish flu had people protesting being forced to wear masks and other societal health measures and the Supreme court affirmed the US's right to mandate those kind of large scale health things.

The mask push then was because, for a while (and despite evidence of infectious agent passing through too-small-for-a-bacterium filters) they believed influenza was being caused by a bacterium, not a virus. Even then, they knew that the masks available would not stop airborne viruses. And masking didn't work then either (areas with enforced masking fared no better than areas where masking was optional). You're welcom…

The initial advice on masks was that we don’t know that they help. This is a truthful and different claim than the claim that we do know they don’t help.

The only record you’ll find of a public health official saying we DO know they DON’T help is USSG Jerome Adams.

It’s weird that you’re writing this implying that we now know masks don’t work. That’s not true. We DO know that SOME masks work, others work hardly at all or none at all.

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

#620

Post by api »

rnd0 wrote: post #520
api wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience smart people are also far more likely to create elaborate self-reinforcing systems of belief that are detached from reality. Any moron can understand the idea of a round Earth and stuff orbiting around it. It takes a genius to comprehend the sublime intricacies of ether vortex theory which explains how a flat Earth can still permit satellites to stay airborne over the plane. I've met an extremely int…

Were they convinced, or are you convinced that they were convinced? The Kubrick thing is an old joke (which usually ends by saying he insisted on filming "on location" for the sake of authenticity)

They were convinced.
Post reply on HN