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

341–350 of 662 posts

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

#341

Post by kbenson »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #311
ajross wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

This is not at all correct. By your definition looking at anything in greater detail is P hacking. For example, peanut allergies don't exist because most people don't have reactions to them. You absolutely can ask the question for if peanuts are good or bad for a subpopulation. The alternative is just sticking your head in the sand.

The difference is in the motivations for asking the question and what's done with the answer (so agenda). People are assuming and agenda of others in this thread, and are crafting responses to head of that perceived agenda without actually answering the question, which is rarely productive, IMO. Better to ask than assume, or if the answer is known, provide it with a caveat that it doesn't actually support the specific cases you're worried it might be used for erroneously.

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

#342

Post by bscphil »

ceejayoz wrote: post #278
bryanlarsen wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same. If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still worth getting for the protection from severe illness and death.

> If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them.

No? If they were the best form of contraception we had (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), of course people would use them! It would make abstinence marginally more appealing, of course, but there are already people who don't want or can't afford a pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception. There would certainly be an enormous number of people who would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex entirely.

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

#343

Post by felipellrocha »

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…

Same. The impact rate of myocarditis might be extremely small, but if it's caused by the vaccine, it should be investigated, while at the same time, people should get vaccinated. Luckily, the scientific community understands that. Unluckily, the non-scientific community doesn't on both ends. The supporters of the vaccine think you're attacking the vaccine. The detractors think you're suddenly supporting them. No. EVERYONE should be vaccinated. The vaccine has been given to billions, it is exceedingly safe. Can we do better? Yes. Is it marginal? Also yes, but I don't wish miocarditis on anyone.

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

#344

Post by TheCrownedFox »

oneoff786 wrote: post #339
TheCrownedFox wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would posit that the special privilege has been given to the non-religious, in that they have been able to openly discriminate against religious people in violation of existing laws. I would suggest looking into the EEOC regulations mentioned by someone else in this thread and Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act.

By posting that you have discriminated against my religious beliefs. So you’re just as bad as an offender. So it’s really a moot point.

Is it your position then that it's either your personal belief or a divine communication from your God that the government should be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs, against existing human rights legislation?

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

#345

Post by bscphil »

vannevar wrote: post #178
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.

Because a) the risk from covid, while small, is still greater than the risk from the vaccines and b) unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.

> unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.

I'd add to this the fact that it was especially true earlier in the pandemic, and at that time COVID was significantly more likely to be fatal. Even if someone rejects the idea of getting a fourth dose of the vaccine (rightly or wrongly), it's possible to think that the first two doses were an entirely reasonable one-time intervention into an ongoing pandemic that saved many thousands of lives.

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

#346

Post by woodruffw »

nradov wrote: post #325
woodruffw wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spread is just one social effect. I think the GP meant that there are plenty of other civic motivations, like not overloading medical institutions and minimizing the extent to which society needs to be halted to prevent particularly harmful spread.

By all means I would encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated. But there was never any valid reason to halt society in the first place, so your comment is a non sequitur . Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was routine for medical institutions to be overwhelmed by respiratory viruses. We didn't halt society, we just accepted the consequences and moved on. https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu…

There's a significant difference in kind between "a nasty cold or flu season" and the excess mortality rate we've seen during COVID, particularly earlier in the pandemic[1].

There's no non sequitur here: getting vaccinated reduces every demographic's risk of serious illness (even when serious illness is not especially likely!), which in turn reduces the burden on healthcare institutions. That is a good civic reason to get vaccinated that has nothing to do with transmission.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

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

#347

Post by mrguyorama »

ajross wrote: post #318
kyleblarson wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the resentment comes out of "the experts" changing their narratives a dozen times about the efficacy of the vaccines over the last 3 years while browbeating anyone who voiced any amount of skepticism.

Quoted post unavailable.

These people also seem to ignore that CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT over the entire pandemic. Of COURSE recommendations made when the vaccine first came out might need to be modified or updated as more gets learned about possible side effects and how it interacts with different variants.

These people never seem to have a problem with the changes in the polio vaccine over the years, or chickenpox

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

#348

Post by merpnderp »

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…

I keep hearing vaccination being promoted, but the last major study I saw showed no statistically significant difference in natural immunity + vaccination versus simple natural immunity. This also seems to be a topic treated as a fringe conspiracy theory instead of an extremely serious health issue worthy of a large amount of resources dedicated to giving us an answer. One certainly could be forgiven for thinking the vaccine has become a larger political issue than health issue for both sides.

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

#349

Post by Eisenstein »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #224
Eisenstein wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything we allow parents to do to or for their children or force their children to do qualifies.

We generally don't allow parents to force risky irreversible things onto their children. But also, the view of all citizens as simple children of the State seems...problematic.

> We generally don't allow parents to force risky irreversible things onto their children.

We absolutely do, but that is a completely different conversation.

If that doesn't work for you I am sure you can't object to conscription as a societal burden.

Where are you going with this line of discussion? Or did you just want me to think of something that wasn't medical?

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

#350

Post by simonsarris »

Ensorceled wrote: post #84
danhak wrote: post #8

We coerced young, low-risk people into receiving these treatments despite known side effects on pain of losing their education or employment or being able to enter privately-owned establishments (irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those privately-owned establishments). We justified it with the specious argument that they were putting other people at undue risk by remaining unvaccinated. We claimed that vacci…

> We claimed that vaccinated people would not spread the virus. Who is "we", I have never seen anything other the claims that there were claims. Can you point me to an epidemiologist that made this claim. > And we gave the companies producing these vaccines blanket legal immunity from any potential liability. We have ALWAYS given vaccine companies blanket legal immunity. This isn't a new thing and there are good reas…

Do you truly not remember? That was exactly the claim made at the start of vaccination. From December 2020:

Fauci Predicts U.S. Could See Signs Of Herd Immunity By Late March Or Early April

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/1...

> "I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact," Fauci said. "But I would say 75 to 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that blanket of herd immunity."

Months later, May 2021:

Masks off? Fauci confirms ‘extremely low’ risk of transmission, infection for vaccinated

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/dr-fauci-confirms-extreme...

Post reply on HN