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

Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

jamanetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 360 posts

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#261

Post by mritterhoff »

jibal wrote: post #250
tedd4u wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, what's the overlap here between people who believe a) the unborn have a "right to life" (or forced birth as some others call it, where the parent has no choice but to take the pregnancy to term and give birth), and b) those who think the parents have every right to decide not to vaccinate their children? If you believe (a), shouldn't you believe (not b)? And if you believe (b), shouldn't you believe (not a)?

Indeed. A lot of antivaxxers mockingly say "my body, my choice" but they are highlighting their own hypocrisy, not anyone else's. One critical difference between the cases is that pregnancy is not contagious.

Agree. Also I don't think any adults were forcibly vaccinated again their will, they just lost out on certain societal privileges.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#262

Post by biophysboy »

alex989 wrote: post #255
margalabargala wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which disease is that? I'm not aware of any disease that's commonly vaccinated against that has a 0% death rate in children.

The Covid deaths were measured in thousands before they could find a single individual under 18 yrs old who died from it. The only reason to vaccinate kids was to try to prevent them from spreading it to adults. Right from the beginning (eg. With the cruise ship that was infected), it was extremely obvious that the main factor in survivability was age. The younger you were, the safer it was. Weight was also very impo…

No, we also vaccinate children to prevent non-fatal illness, which is a reasonable choice to make if adverse effects of the vaccine are very small (they are). People get flu shots annually for this same reason.

Edit: I would also add that parents regularly make choices for their children that involve larger amounts of risk.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#263

Post by btilly »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #244
btilly wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a general problem in many technical fields. People in a technical field, learn to "chunk" complex phrases. Their natural communication style becomes complex. Which makes them hard to understand to those outside of the field. If they want to be understood, the solution isn't to try to educate the world. It is to educate themselves. To learn how to write simply and directly. Depending on the readability test us…

Papers like this are designed to fit into the conventions that allow knowledge to compound. Not that the conventions are perfect at doing this. I would suggest that rather than changing this convention in a big way, there needs to be good pathways for communicating the most important takeaways to the general public. Unfortunately, there's kind of a chasm between academia and popular science.

With all due respect, I disagree.

You are providing the standard excuse. It is our job to advance knowledge. It is someone else's job to communicate it to a broader audience. It's just too bad that nobody is stepping up and doing that other job.

I don't buy it. In my experience, most scientific papers can easily be rewritten into simpler language. The act of trying to do so often catches mistakes - thereby immediately improving how well we are advancing knowledge. The resulting paper is easier to read. This makes it more likely to become better known. Both within its subfield, and in a broader audience.

The habit of doing this makes us better communicators. Which also helps academics in various other parts of their job. Including teaching the next generation.

Furthermore, easier to read papers are easier for science popularizers to understand. Which makes it more likely that the work will be popularized.

Yes, it is tempting for academics to deflect responsibility for their role in being understandable. But it is a mistake for them to do so. Their ability to communicate in an understandable way is their responsibility. The few that take up that responsibility benefit themselves.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#265

Post by margalabargala »

alex989 wrote: post #255
margalabargala wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which disease is that? I'm not aware of any disease that's commonly vaccinated against that has a 0% death rate in children.

The Covid deaths were measured in thousands before they could find a single individual under 18 yrs old who died from it. The only reason to vaccinate kids was to try to prevent them from spreading it to adults. Right from the beginning (eg. With the cruise ship that was infected), it was extremely obvious that the main factor in survivability was age. The younger you were, the safer it was. Weight was also very impo…

Considering there have been over 7 million deaths directly from covid, saying "covid deaths measured in the thousands before X" is another way of saying "X happened right at the beginning of covid".

Plus, there's a big difference between "young people tend to have less risk of death" and "young people have a 0% chance of death" like the person I replied to claimed.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#266

Post by vkou »

trts wrote: post #257
vkou wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when you do, the critics will just shift the goal posts, again.

most of the critics of this particular vaccine are the ones that took it. either the people who got covid anyway or were injured by it. it was incredibly destructive for trust in the medical establishment to oversell / mandate it and market aggressively as "safe and effective". while most vaccine risks are in the 10s per 100k or 1M, nearly everybody knows somebody else who had an adverse reaction to one of the covid…

> who got covid anyway

I took it in 2020, and have taken booster shots. I got COVID... This year. I felt like shit for two weeks, was fatigured for a month, and had a lingering cough for two.

Nobody's promised them that they won't get COVID after taking it. What is promised is that on the whole, they'd be less likely to get sick, get milder symptoms if they do get sick, and be less likely to require hospitalization or a mortician if those milder symptoms are still serious.

It was and is safe and effective. You're doing exactly what I'm talking about - moving the goalposts.

If you think they need to be moved some more, I'll point out that the vaccine didn't come with a free pony, either, and that airbags and seatbelts kill ~50 people/year, and that you might still get ran over by a bus even if you look both ways before crossing the street.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#267

Post by stocksinsmocks »

velcrovan wrote: post #231
stocksinsmocks wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really aren’t going to know how this MRNA in egg and sperm cells are going to affect offspring until you have offspring to observe. Effects like wolbachia could take multiple generations to observe.

mRNA can't cause wolbachia. Wolbachia is a bacterium that actually lives inside cells and gets transmitted through eggs to offspring. it's a persistent organism that reproduces. There's not a way for mRNA to grow bacteria. mRNA is just a molecule that breaks down, and the mRNA in these vaccines is extremely fragile and temporary. Once injected it enters whatever cells are nearby (muscle cells)and ribosomes read it to…

I’m not suggesting comirnanty is wolbachia. If there is reproductive harm, or reproductive harm passed on to children, then we will not know for a long time.

I believe that you’re well read on the CDC’s messaging on this topic. I’d like to bring to your attention that glyphosate was scientifically shown to pose no harm, but that key paper was retracted 25 years later. Pfizer is making over $10B/yr on comirnanty and at one point it was over $50B. Would you lie for that kind of money? Could you imagine someone who would?

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#268

Post by HaZeust »

>"Exposure Exposure was defined as receiving a first mRNA dose between May 1 and October 31, 2021. Individuals who were unvaccinated by November 1, 2021, were assigned a random index date based on vaccinated individuals’ vaccination dates."

What?? So any first mRNA dose before May 1st and after Nov 1st 2021 was not considered an adequate exposure? Why are they only defining exposure as the initial dose being administered within a six-month period for a vaccine that was released (A) before that; and (B) still continually offered - though in much lower capacities?

I'm all pro-vax but what? Lol.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#269

Post by tavavex »

albeebe1 wrote: post #240
pjc50 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would win, the combined efforts of the best scientists in the field, or innuendo from a fancy markov model? You could at least paste the points here.

For me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.

That only works if:

1. You assume that your LLM of choice is perfect and impartial on every given topic, ever.

2. You assume that your prompt doesn't interfere with said impartiality. What you have written may seem neutral at first glance, but from my perspective, a wording like yours would probably prime the model to try to pick apart absolutely anything, finding flaws that aren't really there (or make massive stretches) because you already presuppose that whatever you give it was written with intent to lie and misrepresent. The wording heavily implies that what you gave it already definitely uses "persuasion tactics", "emotional language" or that it downplays/overstates something - you just need it to find all that. So it will try to return anything that supports that implication.

Re: Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality

#270

Post by HaZeust »

jibal wrote: post #248
sdo72 wrote: post #247

I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But I do have doubt in vaccines especially mRNA vaccines nowadays, and I wish these studies do more than just this. I have 4 kids, and 3 of them got vaccinated for the covid (1 is a baby 2 years old) for the very first time with Delta. They struggle for weeks to recover, they get tired, they seem to have heart related symptoms. Eventually, those went away after months. The baby…

> I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But you write anti-vax comments filled with the usual anti-vax post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

>"post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Appealing to an informal fallacy, and not even using it right. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy hinges on the fact that one's argument assumes that just because one event happened chronologically first, it must have caused the one(s) that chronologically came after.

GP did more than that and didn't simply say "X happened first, so I think it's responsible for Y." He gave correlative observations and suspected a possibility of causation OUTSIDE of chronological timeline. Regardless of whether I agree with him, it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.

Post reply on HN