Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

heart.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#21

Post by lern_too_spel »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #20
lern_too_spel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16 This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections. > Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no…

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think it adds some nuance to the test-negative part (italic emphasis mine): > Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom . Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms , and were matched to cases according…

> In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study

You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

> With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state?

Because it hasn't been measured for Omicron (except as fourth dose vs. not), so I would be lying if I gave a percentage, just like how GGGGP was lying about it not reducing infections. All I have to do is show that the reduction in infections is more than 0%, which I have done. In addition to those studies, there are studies that show vaccinated healthcare professionals transmit less, which reduces total cases of myocarditis further.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#22

Post by ifyoubuildit »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #21
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think it adds some nuance to the test-negative part (italic emphasis mine): > Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom . Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms , and were matched to cases according…

> In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... > With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state?…

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant?

Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading?

Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/

It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will quickly be closer to 0% than 100%. Presumably, a year after that series, virtually everyone in that cohort that was able to contract covid will have done so.

Here is some interesting evidence on heart issues in unvaccinated covid patients:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

> We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.

I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#23

Post by bovinyl »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #19
bovinyl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you square this for me: > [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively) > The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% C…

> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] > In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk It turns…

> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap.

Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way.

> It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man)

I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era.

> understand statistics better than you do

I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#24

Post by lern_too_spel »

bovinyl wrote: post #23
lern_too_spel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] > In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk It turns…

> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way. > It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era. > understand statistics better…

> I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era

It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant.

> I have a degree that required high level math

Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#25

Post by lern_too_spel »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #22
lern_too_spel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... > With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state?…

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading? Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will…

> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant?

Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant.

> I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.

You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#26

Post by ifyoubuildit »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #25
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading? Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will…

> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but so…

Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this:

> The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/

Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best.

Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later.

The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist.

Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#27

Post by lern_too_spel »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #26
lern_too_spel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but so…

Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change an…

> I didn't forget anything

You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately.

> I can't say which one wins

The AHA can.

> Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you

As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is saying nothing different from what I had claimed but something entirely different from what the person I responded to had claimed. Good job using a video with a vaccine conspiracy theory title though. No wonder you're so confused.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#28

Post by ifyoubuildit »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #27
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change an…

> I didn't forget anything You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately. > I can't say which one wins The AHA can. > Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is sayi…

You said "it's just not 100%".

I guess I must just be confusing myself into thinking that is misleading. What a silly vaccine conspiracy theorist I am.

You're a really good troll btw, just not 100%.

Re: Covid-19 infection poses higher risk for myocarditis than vaccines (2022)

#29

Post by lern_too_spel »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #28
lern_too_spel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't forget anything You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately. > I can't say which one wins The AHA can. > Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is sayi…

You said "it's just not 100%". I guess I must just be confusing myself into thinking that is misleading. What a silly vaccine conspiracy theorist I am. You're a really good troll btw, just not 100%.

I explained that earlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467

Are you seriously unable to remember? If I say vaccines prevent infection, a vaccine conspiracy theorist will say, "B-b-but my friend got vaccinated, and she still got infected." That's why I added that qualification, not to say it is near 100%. That's on you and your silly vaccine conspiracy theory interpretations.

Post reply on HN