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

Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#41

Post by VagueMag »

dubcee349 wrote: post #40
VagueMag wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you break it down by age group, you find that the vast majority of people at significant risk from COVID voluntarily took vaccines shortly after they became available, so mandates could have had little effect in that cohort. Meanwhile, the mandates have lasted the longest on college campuses, where the risk calculus tilts most strongly against vaccination for COVID. So even if we're going to engage in a kind of…

I am struggling to see how the risk calculus tilts strongly against vaccination for college campuses. What are you saying? College campuses have staff and students of all ages. They should be a safe place for people even that are unable to get vaccinated due to medical issues. The risk of myocarditis is higher with a COVID infection than the vaccine.

> I am struggling to see how the risk calculus tilts strongly against vaccination for college campuses. What are you saying?

Adolescents and young adults are at highest risk for complications from the vaccine, and at the same time at almost the lowest risk of a severe case, a reduction in the odds of which is the only benefit conferred by the vaccines.

> They should be a safe place for people even that are unable to get vaccinated due to medical issues.

Mandates have nothing to do with this, because the vaccines do not prevent transmission or confer any herd immunity benefit whatsoever.

> The risk of myocarditis is higher with a COVID infection than the vaccine.

I don't believe this is true, given that a massive population study in Israel in 2020 pre vaccines found no heightened risk of myocarditis (although it does seem clear COVID infection can raise risks of cardiac/vascular issues more generally). However, even granting that it was the case, the comparison is rather pointless because the risks are not mutually exclusive, but rather additive.

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#42

Post by GeekyBear »

worrycue wrote: post #33
the_third_wave wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Later it's confirm that masks are effective vs COVID This has never been proven in any real sense, certainly not enough to justify mandatory masking. Now that the smoke is starting to clear a bit it is becoming clear that "There is not enough evidence to suggest medical-grade face masks protect vulnerable people from Covid" [1] and that "There is just no evidence that they — masks — make any difference ... There’s…

It's fact that masks help prevent the transmission of diseases that spread from the nose and mouth (and to my knowledge COVID is one of those) - that's why healthcare workers wear them; they have worn them for decades. > certainly not enough to justify mandatory masking This is the part that I don't get. People like you act like wearing a breathable fabric over your nose and mouth is some kind of huge sacrifice. Heal…

> It's fact that masks help prevent the transmission of diseases that spread from the nose and mouth

It's true for diseases with a droplet based spread, like the flu.

Disposable masks are good enough to catch the droplets people spray out when they sneeze or cough preventing them from falling onto surfaces that people will later touch and then touch a mucous membrane, infecting themselves.

All the early Covid advice was based on the false theory that Covid had a droplet based spread.

With a fully airborne disease, like Covid, you need something capable of filtering the virus out of the air you breathe. At a bare minimum, that would ba a n95 mask fitted so tightly to your face that unfiltered air cannot come in through the sides.

Perhaps you remember all the pictures online of medical professionals with with pressure sores from where the masks pushed into their face from 2020?

A disposable mask held on with two rubber bands over your ears simply isn't capable of preventing you from being infected by a virus floating in the air you are breathing.

>Two years after the pandemic began, we finally have a good understanding of how COVID-19 is transmitted: some infected people exhale virus in small, invisible particles (aerosols). These do not fall quickly to the ground, but move in the air like cigarette smoke. Other people can get infected when breathing in those aerosols, either in close proximity, in shared room air, or less frequently, at a distance. But the journey to accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of how COVID-19 spread was far too slow and contentious. Even today, the updated guidance and policies of how to protect ourselves remain haphazardly applied

https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-conf...

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#43

Post by kaba0 »

tpoacher wrote: post #32
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #3

I skimmed through the study, but didn't read the whole thing. It appears that they called it vaccine related if it happened within 42 days of being vaccinated. What would the normal incidence be for unvaccinated people in a typical 42 day period? And what is the incidence for people who get infected with covid? Without those to compare with its hard to know what to think about these numbers.

I don't have numbers at hand at the moment, but the expectation is that its background rate is effectively zero in the absence of viral illness (COVID or otherwise), and presumably VRM is still lower compared to COVID-induced cardiac events. However, the latter point doesn't make this finding trivial; there was considerable debate during the pandemic, whether people who had recently contracted COVID (and thus had nat…

Where did you draw the conclusion that vaccination after contacting the virus and getting some natural immunity would still incur a risk of heightened myocarditis?

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#44

Post by Choco31415 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #42
worrycue wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fact that masks help prevent the transmission of diseases that spread from the nose and mouth (and to my knowledge COVID is one of those) - that's why healthcare workers wear them; they have worn them for decades. > certainly not enough to justify mandatory masking This is the part that I don't get. People like you act like wearing a breathable fabric over your nose and mouth is some kind of huge sacrifice. Heal…

> It's fact that masks help prevent the transmission of diseases that spread from the nose and mouth It's true for diseases with a droplet based spread, like the flu. Disposable masks are good enough to catch the droplets people spray out when they sneeze or cough preventing them from falling onto surfaces that people will later touch and then touch a mucous membrane, infecting themselves. All the early Covid advice…

Wasn’t the goal not to prevent infection, but instead to reduce the spread of the disease? If I remember correctly hospitals were overburdened at the time.

Also no I (personally) have not seen anyone have any sores or issues with wearing a mask, medical professionals, students, or otherwise.

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#45

Post by TMWNN »

worrycue wrote: post #24
generalizations wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> see the usage of masks The modern public doesn't have patience for lies. The messaging around the masks was explicitly untruthful, as we now know. Once the public picked up on that, the CDC etc. lost the benefit of the doubt, and that got us to where we are now. What you're referencing is the effect, not the cause.

See ... At the beginning it was "don't hog masks" because there was a shortage, it's effectiveness vs COVID was unknown, and healthcare workers needed them to do their job - it would be a problem if Nurse Nancy breathed additional germs onto Little Timmy who is already weaken because he is sick. Later it's confirm that masks are effective vs COVID and the shortage has ceased so you should definitely wear them. But to…

>At the beginning it was "don't hog masks"

As gfodor said, this is an utter lie. The Powers that Be explicitly told us that masks did not help against COVID-19, then completely reversed itself and told us that everyone should wear masks while claiming either a) "We never said masks did not help against COVID-19", or b) "We said 'masks don't help' to avoid a shortage for medical personnel". Now, as geekybear and the_third_wave said, it seems like TPTB was right at the start, albeit for completely the wrong reason, but that doesn't take away the seriousness of the initial lie that led to more.

Just before COVID-19 became widespread in the US, I discussed with my dentist brother the advice media was giving about how masks wouldn't help. Hearing his skepticism about said advice was my first clue about how the media was being used to spread falsities about the epidemic.

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#46

Post by kaba0 »

dmart wrote: post #19

Look at this user's submission history - nothing but inflammatory political posts, almost nothing related to technology. This is one of the only aggregation websites yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber, disappointing to see users actively try to push it in that direction.

I for one would really prefer more tech content. On certain days I barely see any interesting one, and while the discussion on non-tech topics can at times still be interesting, it is often prone to the typical ego-disease of IT people (I’m also guilty of that), who overestimate their knowledge on foreign topics.

I still think that a tagging system would greatly benefit the site.

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#47

Post by GeekyBear »

Choco31415 wrote: post #44
GeekyBear wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fact that masks help prevent the transmission of diseases that spread from the nose and mouth It's true for diseases with a droplet based spread, like the flu. Disposable masks are good enough to catch the droplets people spray out when they sneeze or cough preventing them from falling onto surfaces that people will later touch and then touch a mucous membrane, infecting themselves. All the early Covid advice…

Wasn’t the goal not to prevent infection, but instead to reduce the spread of the disease? If I remember correctly hospitals were overburdened at the time. Also no I (personally) have not seen anyone have any sores or issues with wearing a mask, medical professionals, students, or otherwise.

If the goal was to reduce the spread of the disease, then the mitigations in place need to be based on what will be effective against an airborne disease, not what will be effective against a disease with a droplet based spread.

> no I (personally) have not seen anyone have any sores or issues with wearing a mask, medical professionals, students, or otherwise

We aren't talking about wearing a cloth mask, as those are ineffective. We're talking about wearing an n95 mask (or better), fitted tightly enough to your face to prevent unfiltered air from leaking in through the sides, and wearing it day after day. You end up with bruising and pressure sores.

For instance, here's the CDC guidence on how to know if your n95 mask is fitted properly.

> To conduct a negative pressure user seal check, cover the filter surface with your hands as much as possible and then inhale. The facepiece should collapse on your face and you should not feel air passing between your face and the facepiece

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2018-130/pdfs/2018-130.pdf

As far as Doctors and Nurses posting pictures of the results of properly wearing PPE day after day, they were all over the internet.

> Exhausted doctors and nurses post images of their bruised faces after long shifts wearing protective gear

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-health-care-bruised...

> Healthcare professionals around the world are sharing photos of their exhausted faces, sometimes bruised from masks, after harrowing shifts treating coronavirus patients

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-doctors-and-nurses...

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#48

Post by oldgradstudent »

hayst4ck wrote: post #12

1.08 in 100,000 cases of vaccine related myocarditis (VRM), 2.16 deaths per 1,000,000. Hard to take much meaning away from that without understanding the risk posed by not vaccinating. If vaccines can prevent long COVID or "post viral syndrome," that's another potential cost benefit analysis. (which would make sense from a laymen perspective, killing k random cells seems bad, but killing N random cells seems strictly…

> Hard to take much meaning away from that without understanding the risk posed by not vaccinating.

What's the benefit from vaccinating otherwise healthy young men against Covid? Not people in risk groups, but healthy young men.

It should be obvious that if your clinical trials cannot rule out major adverse events in 1 in N, you shouldn't vaccinate populations in which the benefit occurs in less than 1 in N.

> If vaccines can prevent long COVID or "post viral syndrome, that's another potential cost benefit analysis.

That's a big "If".

Re: Covid-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: A Korean nationwide study

#49

Post by tpoacher »

kaba0 wrote: post #43
tpoacher wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have numbers at hand at the moment, but the expectation is that its background rate is effectively zero in the absence of viral illness (COVID or otherwise), and presumably VRM is still lower compared to COVID-induced cardiac events. However, the latter point doesn't make this finding trivial; there was considerable debate during the pandemic, whether people who had recently contracted COVID (and thus had nat…

Where did you draw the conclusion that vaccination after contacting the virus and getting some natural immunity would still incur a risk of heightened myocarditis?

That's what the linked paper is about. Risk of myocarditis post mRNA-specific vaccination.
Post reply on HN