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

261–270 of 662 posts

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

#261

Post by pg314 »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #92
librish wrote: post #39

A question for vaccine skeptics: For it to be a reasonable choice to not want to take the vaccine wouldn't you need to balance the risk of death / complications from the vaccine against the risk of death / complications from covid multiplied by the risk of getting covid? There seems to be a lot of "aha I knew it" whenever any side-effect of the vaccine is found, but aren't the side-effects of covid well established,…

No I don’t need to balance anything based on your criteria. I and I alone decide what goes into my body. Anyone who is scared to walk outside and face hundreds of thousands of pathogens on a daily basis should remain at home. If you want a vaccine, go ahead and get one.

Thankfully your attitude wasn't prevalent in previous generations or polio and smallpox would still be rampant.

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

#262

Post by ajross »

tempsy wrote: post #164
vannevar wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

With all respect, this is terrible logic. You have two probabilities to compare, not one to compare to zero! If and only if the vaccine is more dangerous then your "improbably small chance of dying of covid", you should forego the vaccination.

Is it? No. It is not. Not even for the best protected youngest cohort. Get your shot. You're being misled by politics and tiny, difficult numbers.

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

#263

Post by ghastmaster »

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.

Assuming the vaccine prevents or lessens the effects of infection, this is logical. A common belief is that the vaccine is virtually useless. If this belief is true or close to true, then taking the vaccine would result in an increase in risk.

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

#264

Post by gfodor »

fzeroracer wrote: post #255
gfodor wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the argument is that if the vaccine causes this the same way COVID does, the risk of death would have been higher had they got COVID? You’ll have to excuse my skepticism, because setting things up so that we end up in a situation where it’s entirely unfalsifiable if the vaccine caused net harm in an individual has been par for the course. I reject the premise that even if it’s an immunological response shared by w…

We literally know COVID yields a higher risk profile for myocarditis. This data has been well captured through multiple studies. And that's just solely on the basis of myocarditis and not the other side effects we're also aware of like the damage to lung tissue, blood clotting and more. To provide an allegory, you are trying to point of the incidence rate of myocarditis in the smallpox vaccine and claiming that the s…

You’re smuggling in the assumption that the vaccine induced myocarditis is the same underlying phenomenon, with the same risk profile, as the viral induced one.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that what was going on here was some % of vaccines were being injected intravenously in error, leading to massively localized spike protein buildup in the heart over a few hour period, with dynamics highly divergent with the progressive, broad way it would run with actual disease, causing a different set of possible outcomes like instant death being very much on the table. In this hypothetical scenario, can you see why your analysis about immunological response being similar, and myocarditis being caused by the disease and vaccine being relevant, would turn out to have in fact been missing the point? And that by failing to do so, we missed a simple protocol change that could have saved many lives counterfactually?

I’m not saying that is what is going on. But what I am saying is if that scenario is logically coherent to you, can you extrapolate why the kinds of responses you are giving here could be falling into the the same trap you’d have recognized if the above scenario was actually what was happening? You’re telling me that I should stop thinking something bad is going on here, that we can stop, and am making nonsense arguments like the one you raised with the smallpox vaccine. I reject that - this is important and we should figure it out.

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

#265

Post by nulld3v »

mrtksn wrote: post #212
nulld3v wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I also currently believe that the statistics work out in favor of the vaccine. I am curious though, on how those 3 people died. My biggest concern is in long-term effects. I understand that it is difficult to study them but that is why I am advocating for continued research. So basically: - I understand that in a pandemic situation, you can't wait for research into long-term effects to come out. - Hence, in a p…

Is there anything make you believe that the research doesn't continue?

I am worried how the discussion around the vaccine has turned political and how there are a lot of strong opinions around it. I worry it might affect funding and also "politically taint" people who publish research about it.

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

#266

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

LarryMullins wrote: post #219
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These type of complaints has actually been really enlightening for me regarding how many people can't even be bothered to get the flu vaccine or their tetanus shots.

I got a tetanus shot a year ago and they didn't ask me to wait around afterwards. They just handed me the paperwork and showed me the door (this was after they had already stitched me up.) I see the CDC website says that a 15 minute wait after getting a tetanus shot is recommended due to a fainting risk. But I bet this is not widely observed. I surmise they had already judged me to not be a fainting risk, since I did…

The CDC discusses anaphylaxis as a possible side effect of the tetanus shot too[1]. It would seem the difference between the two is an adherence to protocol as opposed to risk profiles.

According to the CDC the rate of anaphylaxis is incredibly low with the COVID shot[2].

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/adve... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

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

#267

Post by Mikeb85 »

brianshaler wrote: post #201
Mikeb85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but aren't the side-effects of covid well established, on average more severe, and much more common? You forgot to account for the risk of getting the virus. If you choose to get the vaccine, the probability is 1. But what's the probability of getting Covid? Definitely less than 1. For certain age groups (young men), the risk of complications * probability of getting the vaccine (1) was more than the risk of compli…

> let's say 0.25 or so Where did you get this data? > Remember, COVID hasn't been shown to be particularly dangerous to young people... What are the top 3 leading causes of health-related deaths in your choice of demographic (15-24? 25-49?) in your choice of 2020 or 2021?

> What are the top 3 leading causes of health-related deaths in your choice of demographic (15-24? 25-49?) in your choice of 2020 or 2021?

Covid was only #3 for all age groups in the USA during the pandemic (and remember, old people are the mostly likely to die at any given point, because, well, they're old). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Meanwhile, Covid is far behind accidents, suicide, drug overdoses and homicide for young people:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/levels-and-...

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

#268

Post by westmeal »

bb88 wrote: post #167
vannevar wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since the Musk takeover, conspiracy theorists on $8Chan have talked about Grant Wahl dying suddenly because of the "clot shot". Then we find out he died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm. Then people still refuse to believe it because it doesn't fit their narrative they're pushing. And anyone who dies suddenly must have died because of the vaccine. https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1603103342481342465 This killed…

People will believe whatever they want to believe, just let them stew.

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

#269

Post by ajross »

nradov wrote: post #245
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…

How do those numbers change when you adjust for presence or absence of pre-existing conditions such as obesity and type-2 diabetes?

Please don't. What you are doing is called "P-hacking". Yes, if you keep selecting for subsets of a dataset you'll eventually find one that, just due to random chance, looks like a statistically significant result that proves whatever it is you want to see. That's not the way you do science.

As always, xkcd explains it best: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant

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

#270

Post by bryanlarsen »

ceejayoz wrote: post #257
driggs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to others... I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.

Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's, but they're not perfect either.

If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.

Post reply on HN