Heart attacks on rise for 25-44 age group

Here is my central issue: I still can't find basic cohort level information about blood clot incidences at the cohort level: covid/vaccinated/not vaccinated. I think this is pretty basic stuff. Since you seem to be knee or chest deep into this, any idea why this information is so hard to find? It's a pretty obvious question that I think someone like you would be curious too I assume?

I remember the study you provided. It was from the early days. What happened since then? Millions of people have been vaccinated repeatedly in the US itself, so where is the follow up for clots and other issues?

My cousin who works with a healthcare provider mentioned casually to me that health insurance claims around blood clots have gone up rapidly in the last 2 years. I am all for believing its purely covid related, but why not just dispel any myth and release the cohort information as I mentioned above. It's pretty basic stuff as a data scientist myself.

There is a bit of "trust me bro" vibe going on around any kind of large scale cohort analysis for vaccines that makes me very uncomfortable.

If I am completely misguided about my last sentence, would love to see concrete numbers at a population scale (from a credible source), not just a study among some participants. It would be make me pretty happy to see real population level vaccine cohort data, which so far seems to have been evasive for me (any my doctors).

----

Independently, I am going to share something else. My doc was VERY uncomfortable even implying that vaccine could be a possible culprit behind my issues, even though there was such a clear temporal link and I'm young/healthy otherwise. I guess there is a lot of pressure on docs to not be considered Anti Vax or even have their credibility be tarnished. But I think you can see how that can bias data and reporting one way or the other.

The original post you replied to said:

> i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.

They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted.

> It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite

You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August.

The fact that this is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit.

Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected.

> The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.

Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against? Maybe you wanted more specifics?

> They are simply not collecting this kind of data at a large scale to draw meaningful conclusions either way because the whole vaccine discussion is so charged.

I think you partially answered your own question: if a causative link is found, they're scared about what may happen to themselves/people who pushed the vaccines, given how many people have taken them.

This is a common viewpoint of someone who hasn't actually seen their arguments.

It started off as a more generic "we've never successfully made a vaccine against coronaviruses before, this needs more testing to be sure we don't have the same problems as those old attempts".

Then they started noticing patterns no one else was willing to address, like in 2021 countries kept having massive covid waves after reaching high vaccination rates. It was obvious they weren't doing what they were sold on, yet this never got addressed. Instead they were just called "anti-vaxxers" and ignored.

Around the same time they noticed the spike in myocarditis in young men, and only now, over a year later, are people talking about it.

They refer to research and public numbers, they use archive sites to keep things available from official websites that get deleted, and yet are constantly dismissed as "anti-vax" when they have evidence no one wants to look at and actually try to debunk. They just get ignored through ad-hominims instead.

And even so, for several months articles were coming out questioning of it stopped infection/transmission at all. It was only once we got a few months into 2021 that that got buried with the assumption it did.