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

281–290 of 662 posts

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

#281

Post by vikingerik »

shagie wrote: post #231
tempsy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

These numbers are useless going forward if they are based on the original Covid-19 strains and not the Omicron strains, which now account for virtually every case and are tens of times less lethal.

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

#282

Post by Daishiman »

pexabit wrote: post #129
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,…

Quoted post unavailable.

You are so astoundingly wrong that I'm just glad people like you get coerced into getting vaccinated so society doesn't have to live your terrible risk assessments.

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

#283

Post by mrtksn »

bena wrote: post #279
mrtksn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completel…

I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users…

Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content.

Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.

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

#284

Post by [deleted] »

ethanbond wrote: post #244
danhak wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that there were coercive government mandates. "Almost everyone should get vaccinated" does not mean the government should coerce everyone into making the correct medical decision by barring them from employment or access to private establishments. Absent a very compelling reason, people should be free to go against medical advice. People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. People h…

You don't get to dismiss an argument by just declaring that it "didn't pass the smell test." That guidance was exactly in line with every counter-pathogen campaign since, Idk, before germ theory?

[deleted]

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

#285

Post by nradov »

ajross wrote: post #269
nradov wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No that's not P-hacking. The majority of US residents have been infected at this point. The sizes of those population groups both with and without serious pre-existing conditions are so huge that there is minimal chance of an incorrect random result.

Your link is not relevant to this issue so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

To be clear I support vaccination. But patients should make their own decisions free of coercion based on informed consent with full knowledge of the risks on both sides. Don't presume to patronize them with spurious, bad faith comments about "P-hacking". Let's see the actual data.

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

#286

Post by kennend3 »

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…

There is also the "Canadian doctors" story the anti-vax group continue to flog yet it has being proven wrong over and over again.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/07/why-wont-a-de...

One of the doctors drowned in a river attempting to save his kids, yet the anti-vax group elect to leverage his tragedy for their narrative.

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

#287

Post by tiahura »

fzeroracer wrote: post #80

The discussion here is absolutely rancid. So here are the actual the salient points from the study: > Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an u…

We don't know whether or not Myocarditis is a result of the infection or the immune response; in either scenario people who are predisposed to myocarditis would likely have similar reactions during either infection or vaccine.

This is the most straightforward conclusion. Some people’s hearts don’t like the immune response to Covid. Since everyone is going to get it eventually, avoiding the vax seems based on myocarditis seems illogical.

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

#288

Post by ajross »

nradov wrote: post #285
ajross wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No that's not P-hacking. The majority of US residents have been infected at this point. The sizes of those population groups both with and without serious pre-existing conditions are so huge that there is minimal chance of an incorrect random result. Your link is not relevant to this issue so I don't know what point you're trying to make. To be clear I support vaccination. But patients should make their own decisions…

Right, you have a hypothesis. But you don't have data. Trying to tease out evidence for your hypothesis from existing data by slicing the data set up is the very definition of p-hacking. If you refuse to believe existing work on the basis of an unmeasured hypothesis, well, that's a different sort of logical fallacy on top of the bad statistics.

And FWIW, if you want a more complete (but much less amusing) explainer on the subject, wikipedia always comes through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

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

#289

Post by dang »

blue039 wrote: post #77
Eisenstein wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We require young people to get vaccinated as a rule in order to obtain education. Every medical intervention involves risks. So does taking a shower or taking the bus to school. We all have to take risks and some of them are mandated for the good of society. There were very good indications that the vaccine would prevent spread. Public policy decisions which cost lives are not unusual and although tragic, are often n…

Quoted post unavailable.

Could you please not fulminate and call names in HN comments? You can make your substantive points without any of that, and it would be in your interest, because comments like this only discredit your viewpoint.

I realize how frustrating it is to hold a minority/contrarian view, but why hand people flaming reasons to dismiss you? All it does is weaken your own position, and you're poisoning the ecosystem by doing it. You can weaken your position if you want to, but it's not ok to poison the ecosystem.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#290

Post by manv1 »

People will believe whatever they want to believe.

They only found 5 deaths that had no other real issue besides the vaccine. At that level more people died from shower accidents than vacccine-induced myocarditis (assuming that there was a causal link, which the authors are careful to say they didn't do that analysis).

Post reply on HN