21–30 of 49 posts
It looks like this is part of a growing body of evidence that suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination for young people. It's also worth noting that the incidence of post-vaccination myocarditis (from this study; 1.08 per 100k people) is significantly lower than the 2014 rate of myocarditis: 8.6 per 100k people [1]. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis from a covid infection is signfiicantly high…
It looks like this is part of a growing body of evidence that suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination for young people. It's also worth noting that the incidence of post-vaccination myocarditis (from this study; 1.08 per 100k people) is significantly lower than the 2014 rate of myocarditis: 8.6 per 100k people [1]. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis from a covid infection is signfiicantly high…
If true, I don’t blame them. One thing they have learned this pandemic is the modern public doesn’t process nuance - see the usage of masks. If they broadcast this, a huge chunk of the population will think they should not vaccinate, COVID deaths will surge and more people died from COVID than vaccines induced myocarditis. Best to keep their mouths shut until more studies are completed and they have enough data.
It looks like this is part of a growing body of evidence that suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination for young people. It's also worth noting that the incidence of post-vaccination myocarditis (from this study; 1.08 per 100k people) is significantly lower than the 2014 rate of myocarditis: 8.6 per 100k people [1]. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis from a covid infection is signfiicantly high…
> I think the CDC continues to quash its credibility by trying to sweep this under the rug, rather than presenting the facts--that there is risk, and there's a cost-benefit analysis. If true, I don’t blame them. One thing they have learned this pandemic is the modern public doesn’t process nuance - see the usage of masks. If they broadcast this, a huge chunk of the population will think they should not vaccinate, COV…
The modern public doesn't have patience for lies. The messaging around the masks was explicitly untruthful, as we now know. Once the public picked up on that, the CDC etc. lost the benefit of the doubt, and that got us to where we are now. What you're referencing is the effect, not the cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the CDC continues to quash its credibility by trying to sweep this under the rug, rather than presenting the facts--that there is risk, and there's a cost-benefit analysis. If true, I don’t blame them. One thing they have learned this pandemic is the modern public doesn’t process nuance - see the usage of masks. If they broadcast this, a huge chunk of the population will think they should not vaccinate, COV…
> see the usage of masks The modern public doesn't have patience for lies. The messaging around the masks was explicitly untruthful, as we now know. Once the public picked up on that, the CDC etc. lost the benefit of the doubt, and that got us to where we are now. What you're referencing is the effect, not the cause.
At the beginning it was "don't hog masks" because there was a shortage, it's effectiveness vs COVID was unknown, and healthcare workers needed them to do their job - it would be a problem if Nurse Nancy breathed additional germs onto Little Timmy who is already weaken because he is sick.
Later it's confirm that masks are effective vs COVID and the shortage has ceased so you should definitely wear them.
But to a good chunk of the public, context and nuance is completely lost on them.
Look at this user's submission history - nothing but inflammatory political posts, almost nothing related to technology. This is one of the only aggregation websites yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber, disappointing to see users actively try to push it in that direction.
Ironically HN almost seems like one of the better discussion venues for all of these incendiary (and possibly off-topic) posts, because:
> This is one of the only aggregation websites [that has] yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber
HN occasionally has downvote wars, but overall it seems to have done pretty well, even while comment sections on other sites (Ars Technica...) devolved into screaming chambers.
Look at this user's submission history - nothing but inflammatory political posts, almost nothing related to technology. This is one of the only aggregation websites yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber, disappointing to see users actively try to push it in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see the usage of masks The modern public doesn't have patience for lies. The messaging around the masks was explicitly untruthful, as we now know. Once the public picked up on that, the CDC etc. lost the benefit of the doubt, and that got us to where we are now. What you're referencing is the effect, not the cause.
See ... At the beginning it was "don't hog masks" because there was a shortage, it's effectiveness vs COVID was unknown, and healthcare workers needed them to do their job - it would be a problem if Nurse Nancy breathed additional germs onto Little Timmy who is already weaken because he is sick. Later it's confirm that masks are effective vs COVID and the shortage has ceased so you should definitely wear them. But to…
This has never been proven in any real sense, certainly not enough to justify mandatory masking. Now that the smoke is starting to clear a bit it is becoming clear that "There is not enough evidence to suggest medical-grade face masks protect vulnerable people from Covid" [1] and that "There is just no evidence that they — masks — make any difference ... There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference” [2]. A similar conclusion was reached earlier by an oft-cited Danish study [3] from 2020 so it can not be said that these are new insights. This also makes it clear that forcing people to wear masks was not based on scientific data and as such can not be justified as "following science".
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/12/face-masks-prote...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-...
Look at this user's submission history - nothing but inflammatory political posts, almost nothing related to technology. This is one of the only aggregation websites yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber, disappointing to see users actively try to push it in that direction.
Apart from whether this messenger specialises in "inflammatory political posts" the fact remains that this specific message potentially "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", especially given the way potential side effects of SARS2 vaccination have been made close to impossible to discuss without being labelled and pushed to the sideline. Assuming that the "European Heart Journal" is immune to being labelled as "a…
[flagged]
"Some people are dead" sounds bad, but if you think about it some "people are dead" from lack of vaccine mandates too. So you really have to do the math, and the math is actually pretty clear on the whole. Then you can get more sophisticated and break it down by age group.