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

381–390 of 662 posts

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

#381

Post by lamontcg »

pexabit wrote: post #333
lamontcg wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how smal…

That isn't relevant because there is no evidence that the vaccine reduces your risk of suffering from myocarditis after infection. (It isn't even necessarily true, but that is a separate matter).

> The risk of COVID-19 infection-related myocarditis risk was cut in half among people infected after vaccination (received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine).

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...

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

#382

Post by failuser »

blub wrote: post #362
skissane wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In some cases, it may well be true that the vaccine is a greater risk than the virus. For example, in Australia, the official recommendation is that healthy people under 30 not receive a fourth dose of COVID-…

I’ve been watching the vaccine discussions on HN these years and one can see that too many people are stuck fighting vaccination windmills from days gone by, while downplaying vaccine risks which by now are established and continue to be investigated as this publication shows. Meanwhile many EU countries have understood that heart problems are a real risk and have adjusted recommendations accordingly. They’ve also st…

So you argue that you should increase the risk of death or disability by COVID by not vaccinating. Got it.

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

#383

Post by nyolfen »

rednerrus wrote: post #275
aaomidi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people keep thinking young people have no risk of ending up in the hospital for Covid? So many people have, and so many have died?

~26,000 people under 30 have died of COVID since the epidemic began.

how many of them had an existing underlying condition? the broad numbers suggest ~85% https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

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

#384

Post by flutas »

ceejayoz wrote: post #210
hammock wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it coincides closely with the spikes in COVID cases we've seen. Aren't there about 100 other confounders that could be in the mix there

Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring?

> Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring?

I can give one example, which happened to my dad...

"Sorry, we have to reschedule that surgery to remove the tumor because we're anticipating a covid spike and need the bed availability."

Repeat until he died due to cancer spreading.

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

#385

Post by shagie »

VancouverMan wrote: post #352
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…

We have to be extremely cautious when considering any of the death-related statistics for this particular situation. For example, we know that a dubious methodology was used for counting deaths in Toronto (Canada's most populous city, and the fourth most populous city in North America). This was publicly admitted to by Toronto Public Health itself, as early as June 2020: "Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but…

The paper those numbers are based on is Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721859/

The meta-analysis is looking at that question that you are asking.

It also has all the papers that it cites for analysis and an analysis of its own limitations.

> The systematic review encompassed 113 studies, of which 27 studies (covering 34 geographical locations) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.

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

#386

Post by Mawr »

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…

> "Converting this to micromort language, an individual living in New York City has experienced roughly 50 additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly deadly year."

This is highly misleading. The average individual may be at such risk, just like humans have ~1.9 legs on average, but that doesn't mean that everyone walks around with their 1.9 legs.

So those statistics are based on the risk to the general population and therefore have approximately zero relevance to any single person.

Almost by definition, the disease will claim those most vulnerable first, so questioning whether vaccination is worth it for those less vulnerable is valid.

What're the risks of vaccination vs covid for a healthy 25 year old who works from home?

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

#387

Post by brianshaler »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #267
brianshaler wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, suicid…

I apologize, when I said your choice of demographic I meant your choice of demographic that encompasses "young" as per the topic of your original comment.

Yes, when including the elderly, cancer and heart disease are greater causes of health-related deaths. Is COVID-19 not the #1 health-related cause of death for "young" people?

> accidents, suicide, drug overdoses and homicide

Not long ago this discussion was about health risks, such as infectious diseases or medical complications. But yes, young people can be pretty reckless.

We were doing arithmetic, such as multiplying the risk of myocarditis and hitherto uncorrelated medical complications by 1.0, and then a number that is likely several orders of magnitude larger (death by COVID, not even the much, much more likely disablement of "long covid") by a number you erroneously claimed was 0.25 and was perhaps around 0.6 almost a year ago (anti-body study, 9/2021-2/2022).

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

#388

Post by TrispusAttucks »

claytongulick wrote: post #369
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…

Many other people have replied with great information, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with: > 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. I believe the problem is that we were so convinced that our solution to covid was infallible that we removed…

Yep.

Fuck authoritarians!

Never forget.

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

#389

Post by librish »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #338
librish wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking at your link but I can't find anything about serious events controlled for age group (to make it a fair comparison to your covid hostpitalisation number). Is the data in there somewhere?

Would be nice, but all they volunteer is that the adverse event rate is highest in the 30-50 year olds. Given that, I don’t think it makes a material difference

What makes you think that? Serious events for regular covid was heavily skewed towards the elderly.

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

#390

Post by librish »

daneel_w wrote: post #163
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,…

Every person I've asked (here in Sweden) who opted out of COVID-19 vaccination made their decision based on one year of case data covering the two first waves, which to them concluded that statistically they were at no risk based on their age and health status. Despite taking e.g. tetanus boosters, TBC vaccine etc., they are still being referred to as "antivaxxers".

At no risk for what?
Post reply on HN