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

Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 415 posts

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#361

Post by weaksauce »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #286
weaksauce wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination so you would rather be at between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group + a much higher risk than that of some long covid symptoms that are debilitating/unknown if they will ever get better vs. a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance you get something that might be bad but is likely survivable... I don't understan…

Not OP but the chance of hospitalization in that age bracket is about 0.2% [0] There appears to be at least a 20% chance that post-vaccine someone of that age will feel rough enough to take medication [1]. People who are currently healthy choosing to avoid the risk of immediate short-term pain when presented with a small, remote gain seems like classic prospect theory! [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/…

you are conflating "rough enough to take a medication" with being "so sick you are in the hospital with covid." crazy comparison. I got my vaccine and the second shot hit me hard enough that I had to take some ibuprofen. Not a single regret and it wasn't that bad.

you are comparing apples to oranges.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#362

Post by weaksauce »

incrudible wrote: post #331
weaksauce wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination so you would rather be at between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group + a much higher risk than that of some long covid symptoms that are debilitating/unknown if they will ever get better vs. a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance you get something that might be bad but is likely survivable... I don't understan…

I don't necessarily disagree that the known risks outweigh the known benefits for that age group, but your numbers are way off. You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence. In the end, you arrive at a low known risk either way. It then depends on how you weigh the unknown risks. There's a strong incentive to dow…

> You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence.

and you are playing your part knowingly or unknowingly in possibly causing the mutation and spread of a new variant that is not effectively controlled by the current crop of vaccines which could lead to another lockdown and mass deaths.

When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying... the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin. It's not going away and you will likely get covid if you are unvaccinated since it spreads so well and life is going back to maskless soon enough.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#363

Post by trhway »

weaksauce wrote: post #360
trhway wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group your post is an example of the "logic" that is abundant and has highjacked the info space especially when it comes to covid. The numbers you use are aggregated across the whole age group and not adjusted for health status/risks. There are orders of magnitude difference of risk between different people with different health conditions even in the same…

There have been plenty of perfectly healthy people with low risk factors in that age bracket that have died from covid.

You're substituting anekdata for statistical data - just another example of the "logic".

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#364

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #288
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is wrong to make such a claim without data. However, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, either. The simple truth is that there hasnt been enough time to really understand the long term effects of covid, or the vaccine. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying.

And no one understands the effects the Russell teapot orbiting Earth right now has on the human body, either.

Unlike the Russell Teapot, the claim on whether vaccines are safe, or not, is verifiable.

I am sure this is uncomfortable to many, but you are taking the position that many did take with tobacco, or asbestos. They were safe. Until they weren't.

Human life is limited in length. The burden of proof rests on those tampering with the natural (ie the human body) over the un-natural.

The counterfactual. Should we feed supermarket milk to babies ? At least in this case, milk is proven to be safe for humans long term. Would you give supermarket milk to babies ?

If you did, the burden of proving this is safe rests on you, not on the person stating they want to continue to provide breast milk to the baby

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#365

Post by adamiscool8 »

weaksauce wrote: post #361
adamiscool8 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but the chance of hospitalization in that age bracket is about 0.2% [0] There appears to be at least a 20% chance that post-vaccine someone of that age will feel rough enough to take medication [1]. People who are currently healthy choosing to avoid the risk of immediate short-term pain when presented with a small, remote gain seems like classic prospect theory! [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/…

you are conflating "rough enough to take a medication" with being "so sick you are in the hospital with covid." crazy comparison. I got my vaccine and the second shot hit me hard enough that I had to take some ibuprofen. Not a single regret and it wasn't that bad. you are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not conflating anything? I'm only pointing out, under prospect theory, people value avoiding a loss over a risk for a gain.

It's rational for someone who is currently healthy, in an age group with a 0.2% of COVID turning into anything more than a standard cold/flu, to turn down an immediate risk (orders of magnitude larger) that they will feel unhealthy for a couple days.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#366

Post by incrudible »

weaksauce wrote: post #362
incrudible wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree that the known risks outweigh the known benefits for that age group, but your numbers are way off. You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence. In the end, you arrive at a low known risk either way. It then depends on how you weigh the unknown risks. There's a strong incentive to dow…

> You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence. and you are playing your part knowingly or unknowingly in possibly causing the mutation and spread of a new variant that is not effectively controlled by the current crop of vaccines which could lead to another lockdown and mass deaths. When masks come off there wil…

Again, you're making a speculative "for the greater good" argument. That's all fine and well, but that's a different question as to whether my personal risk outweighs the benefit or not.

We already have the situation that vector-virus COVID vaccines are likely deadlier to younger women than the virus itself. Of course, having all these women vaccinated may well have saved more lives in total, but it would still be immoral to recommend it to them, if their personal risk from the vaccination is higher than from the virus.

> When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying...

In relative terms, but probably not in absolute terms.

> ...the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin.

That's neither here nor there. If you vaccinated 90% of the population, at an idealized 90% efficacy, half the COVID deaths would be in the vaccinated group. What does that tell you about individual risk? Nothing, because it doesn't take into account prevalence in a population that is 90% vaccinated.

I don't doubt that the vaccine is effective, but the absolute risk reduction, for my age group, at current prevalance is probably around 1% (like in the trials). In Israel, the vaccination rate is below 60%, but prevalence is close to zero.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#367

Post by mike_hearn »

cloverich wrote: post #355
mike_hearn wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that's technically true, but what I mean is that injecting e.g. water would not cause cell death. Yes if you attach yourself to a IV water pump then you can kill yourself by totally de-balancing your body chemistry, but water is not itself a toxin. It doesn't cause cell death or attack the body in any way. By the way, the fact that the body can flush it out doesn't mean it's not a toxin. Alcohol is gone fro…

Toxin has a real meaning and its not the meaning you are using. mRNA as such isn't toxic, its how your cellular machinery functions. Its removed from your body because that's the mechanism your body uses to produce the effect size it wants and not more, as mRNA production is used as a communication mechanism by your cells. A real toxin disrupts your normal cellular fucntion and / or causes direct damage in some way.…

I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing. Expressing spike protein and being destroyed by the immune system is a disruption of the normal cellular function. No, mRNA in general is not toxic but the mRNA vaccines specifically absolutely are. That's the entire point of them, to train the immune system by actually giving it targets to practice on. However the targets are our own cells, in this case.

We could go the non mrna route and grow it as a virus, but that is going to be less accurate, more costly, and take longer.

These are things that concern vaccine makers for understandable commercial reasons, but what you're saying is that there's effectively no difference to the recipient beyond the fact that the artificial self-replicating mRNA might be higher "quality" in some way.

Let's put it like this: given the apparently low probability of being infected (for people my age, in a way that we actually notice, at current prevalence levels etc), most of us actually can choose "no vaccine and no virus". Or put another way we can choose between guaranteed cell damage from vaccines, or the chance of cell damage from virus the exact probability of which is some integral of prevalence, individual risk behavior, how quickly you get treated (e.g. with ivermectin), and how many people around you are vaccinated. To me it looks like a good tradeoff to not take the vaccine, especially when so many other people are: the chance of avoiding cell damage entirely is really quite high, and I like my body spike-free. Stories like the Reuters article this thread is about just reinforce that decision.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#368

Post by AshamedCaptain »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #364
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And no one understands the effects the Russell teapot orbiting Earth right now has on the human body, either.

Unlike the Russell Teapot, the claim on whether vaccines are safe, or not, is verifiable. I am sure this is uncomfortable to many, but you are taking the position that many did take with tobacco, or asbestos. They were safe. Until they weren't. Human life is limited in length. The burden of proof rests on those tampering with the natural (ie the human body) over the un-natural. The counterfactual. Should we feed supe…

It seems that you are arguing that human life span being finite makes every medical assertion effectively testable, but it does not. You still don't have an infinite population and you still do not have an repeteable way to measure "life span".

And the claim that there is a "natural" and "un natural" order of things is as unscientific as it gets.

I am not going to expect anyone with a half brain to verify the health effects of mixing milk powder with and without a Bible below it, even though a large magnitude of people claim it has an effect. Nor I am going to ask for a full medical study to show that there is no difference.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#369

Post by cloverich »

mike_hearn wrote: post #367
cloverich wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toxin has a real meaning and its not the meaning you are using. mRNA as such isn't toxic, its how your cellular machinery functions. Its removed from your body because that's the mechanism your body uses to produce the effect size it wants and not more, as mRNA production is used as a communication mechanism by your cells. A real toxin disrupts your normal cellular fucntion and / or causes direct damage in some way.…

I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing. Expressing spike protein and being destroyed by the immune system is a disruption of the normal cellular function. No, mRNA in general is not toxic but the mRNA vaccines specifically absolutely are. That's the entire point of them, to train the immune system by actually giving it targets to practice on. However the targets are our own cells, in this case. We could go the…

> Expressing spike protein and being destroyed by the immune system is a disruption of the normal cellular function.

That’s how the immmune system works in general, with or without the vaccine.

> what you're saying is that there's effectively no difference to the recipient beyond the fact that the artificial self-replicating mRNA might be higher "quality" in some way

It’s the difference between taking a known dose with quality control or an unknown dose with no quality control.

> Let's put it like this: given the apparently low probability of being infected (for people my age, in a way that we actually notice, at current prevalence levels etc), most of us actually can choose "no vaccine and no virus".

Let’s put it like this. you can take vaccine and have an extremely rare chance if pericarditis, or eventually get the virus (it’s not going away) and have a higher chance of pericarditis.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#370

Post by ppf »

JamisonM wrote: post #351
ppf wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, they also have the choice to get vaccinated themselves. Also, I have yet to see any concrete data on how much the various vaccines reduce transmission. It would seem to me tehre isn't much difference between a person not displaying symptoms of Covid, and a vaccinated person.

If you haven't seen any data of reduced transmission it is because you are intentionally avoiding it. Look ay the case numbers in the nations that are vaccinating at a high rate, if you don't know how to draw appropriate conclusions from that data then obviously you are not interested in forming an honest opinion. The evidence is just sitting out there, everywhere, you don't even need a proper study.. although there…

Reduced case numbers is not the same as reduced transmission. As the vaccines have only been tested to reduce symptoms, it would not be surprising that we are seeing fewer cases. In fact, it would be expected, as people don't generally test unless they have symptoms.
Post reply on HN