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

601–610 of 662 posts

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

#601

Post by burner990 »

Bud wrote: post #499
TheCrownedFox wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not like that the exemption exists, but it's legal in the USA. Would you rather that religious beliefs were not respected by the government?

I'd prefer that we not all pretend that 2000-year-old religions somehow magically dictated that vaccines were bad. They obviously didn't. These obviously are not legitimate "religious" beliefs. Religion is transparently being used as a cloak for political beliefs fueled by misinformation. Taking covid-related "religious" beliefs seriously only undercuts societal respect for actual religious belief.

> I'd prefer that we not all pretend that 2000-year-old religions somehow magically dictated that vaccines were bad

You don't understand any of the religious arguments if you think its just because it's a vaccine. It could be because fetal tissue was used in manufacturing these vaccines (they were). There are many other such examples.

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

#602

Post by XiraceFulufuke »

bsder wrote: post #543
koolba wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unvaccinated were filling up the hospitals which was putting other people at risk. > Your right to gamble with your health ends when you expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes out badly. My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. That includes you feeling safe that the local hospital system will not be at capacity if you have to be admitted. It’s no different…

> My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid. But, see, that didn't happen. Instead what we wind up with are anti-vaxxers begging for the vaccine after they have been put on ECMO. Yeah, unfortunately it's too late at that…

Fortunately you can't stop the countdown till the moment you realize that the idiot was you.

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

#603

Post by autoexec »

skissane wrote: post #492
polynox wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust that when I drive over a bridge it won't collapse. But I cannot say I know that the bridge won't collapse. Knowledge is a true and justified belief. But trust is not a justification - quite the opposite. If you had a justification, you wouldn't need trust. Trust whomever you want, on whatever basis you want, but that's fundamentally not reason or rationality, it's just an argument from authority [1]. No state…

> Trust whomever you want, on whatever basis you want, but that's fundamentally not reason or rationality, it's just an argument from authority [1]. No statement becomes more true just because someone said it, regardless of who they are. A statement can become more likely to be true just because someone said it, depending on the nature of the statement and the person making it. For example, my brother is an oncologis…

> One problem with the frequent popular invocation of claimed "fallacies", such as "argument from authority", is many of them are only strictly speaking fallacious when used as purely deductive arguments,

There's a fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

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

#604

Post by koolba »

bsder wrote: post #543
koolba wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unvaccinated were filling up the hospitals which was putting other people at risk. > Your right to gamble with your health ends when you expect to be able to get treatment if the gamble comes out badly. My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. That includes you feeling safe that the local hospital system will not be at capacity if you have to be admitted. It’s no different…

> My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid. But, see, that didn't happen. Instead what we wind up with are anti-vaxxers begging for the vaccine after they have been put on ECMO. Yeah, unfortunately it's too late at that…

> No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid.

Why? Do you expect someone who doesn’t get a measles vaccine to sign a waiver refusing treatment if they get I’ll? Do you expect someone who refuses to wear a condom to refuse treatment if they contract an STD?

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

#605

Post by Mikeb85 »

librish wrote: post #400
Mikeb85 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> risk of the vaccine is higher? I said within a certain demographic... For old people, the vaccine is obviously worth it. Boys/men from age 10-30, probably not. Hell, a bunch of EU countries literally stopped giving young people the Moderna vaccine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-f...

Yes, I'm asking within the demographic of say 20-50 how are you coming to the conclusion that the risk is not worth it?

The same way multiple European governments determined the risk isn't worth it...

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

#606

Post by bsder »

koolba wrote: post #604
bsder wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid. But, see, that didn't happen. Instead what we wind up with are anti-vaxxers begging for the vaccine after they have been put on ECMO. Yeah, unfortunately it's too late at that…

> No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid. Why? Do you expect someone who doesn’t get a measles vaccine to sign a waiver refusing treatment if they get I’ll? Do you expect someone who refuses to wear a condom to refuse treatment if they contract an STD?

> Do you expect someone who doesn’t get a measles vaccine to sign a waiver refusing treatment if they get I’ll?

Perhaps? The advantage that we have with measles is that the vaccine can reach "herd immunity" and the measles vaccine is extremely effective. If enough people started dropping the measles vaccine because "Muh Choices!" that we fell below that and it started clogging the hospitals, yeah, maybe. The enclaves that refuse the measles vaccine find out about every 5-10 years why that's a bad idea.

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

#607

Post by blub »

yakak wrote: post #448
blub wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines don’t make a major difference against Long Covid. 14-25% reduction in risk I read. At this efficiency level they’re not an adequate preventive measure.

A 14℅ reduction in something that happens to 5%+ of people measurably and probably lowers your developmental outcome even if it is bellow the threshold of clear measure (a weaker school year that you never quite catch up from could just be random after all.) That's a much bigger deal than whether you have 12 in a million or 24 in a million chance of something that has a 5% chance of being fatal. Giving a population l…

You sound like somebody that likes to crunch numbers, but doesn’t understand how most parents decide on these things. Or if you happen to have children, you’re unusually clinical about their health…

Anyway, the children’s vaccine was authorized in the EU on the 19th of October 2022, after all Omicron strains were making rounds through the population.

In Germany at first one dose was recommended for 12-17 then one plus booster. Kids younger than 12 may be vaccinated on a case by case basis if there’s risk factors or the parent explicitly wants it. This means that the risk of Long Covid in this age range is not a “bigger deal” than the benefits and risk from the vaccine.

According to the RKI, there were 1500 vaccinated in the age range 0-4. And between In conclusion, your dogmatic approach is not supported by the competent health organizations. Neither is it supported by parents.

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

#608

Post by bsder »

XiraceFulufuke wrote: post #602
bsder wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My right to choose my own treatment outweighs any right you have to feel safer. No problem. Please sign this document stating that you will not seek treatment for Covid and that hospitals can legally refuse to treat you if you contract Covid. But, see, that didn't happen. Instead what we wind up with are anti-vaxxers begging for the vaccine after they have been put on ECMO. Yeah, unfortunately it's too late at that…

Fortunately you can't stop the countdown till the moment you realize that the idiot was you.

If contracting a bad case of Covid 19 is enough to get anti-vax people to change their beliefs, perhaps that's pretty good evidence that maybe they haven't thought out the consequences of their position very well, after all.

As the kids say: "Fuck around. Find out." Or, as the olds say: "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes."

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

#609

Post by XiraceFulufuke »

canadiantim wrote: post #4

I'm surprised this sort of post is even allowed to be discussed

That's because we're at the Big Unmasking Eve right now.

So many comments I see here today would be instantly [flagged] back in 2020/2021.

Clearly HN and its moderators are dancing to the tune of the global agenda.

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

#610

Post by XiraceFulufuke »

bsder wrote: post #608
XiraceFulufuke wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately you can't stop the countdown till the moment you realize that the idiot was you.

If contracting a bad case of Covid 19 is enough to get anti-vax people to change their beliefs, perhaps that's pretty good evidence that maybe they haven't thought out the consequences of their position very well, after all. As the kids say: "Fuck around. Find out." Or, as the olds say: "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes."

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN