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

Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 700 posts

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#661

Post by andrewflnr »

puffoflogic wrote: post #605
andrewflnr wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masses of people are, to all appearance anyway, incapable of understanding anything even as slightly nuanced as "vaccines are probably a worthwhile risk compared to COVID as we understand it today". It gets flattened to one of "vaccines are 100% safe, you must take them" or "vaccines are evil, you must not take them". I really hope that's only an appearance, that we can learn to do better, because otherwise civilizat…

And if the truth was actually "vaccines are probably not a worthwhile risk for a young adult without comorbidities?" Would that change your analysis? Or did you just feel the need to prove your COVID orthodoxy?

You mean my orthodox position of "the pro-vax side is also dumb"?

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#662

Post by edmundsauto »

alvah wrote: post #616
edmundsauto wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of taking action was compared against the risk of not taking action. I imagine most scientists would have loved to have developed this vaccine 10+ years ago and done long term studies, but that wasn’t an option. It may have been influenced by the bias for action, but the trade off was the death and disruption we saw in 2020-21, compared to a future risk that scientists projected as minimal. It still seems li…

Enforcing vaccination before it's possible to know the long-term effects, for all groups including those at low risk from Covid, was and is a terrible idea. Offering it to the elderly, obese and otherwise-at-risk, where there's a clear and obvious net benefit, was all that should have been done.

I disagree. The information at the time was the vaccine was massively impactful at reducing spread. They got that part wrong, but the decision to require vaccination was rational IMO.

The decision didn't have a great result because the assumptions didn't hold. Good process, bad outcome.

(Not to mention that if everyone had actually just gotten the shot, we might have stalled the viral evolution into the delta + subsequent variants. My understanding is those mutations reduced vaccine transmission efficacy. If people hadn't turned public health into politics, we could have possibly avoided the endemic nature of the virus, which I think we can all agree would have been a far superior outcome versus where we are today.)

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#663

Post by edmundsauto »

nradov wrote: post #589
edmundsauto wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be because lifestyle factors in the US put more u30 at risk of dying from Covid than in Canada? Or that the most vulnerable populations in Canada still have access to healthcare if they do need a ventilator? Genuinely hypothesizing, I am not sure of the answer but that’s what came to mind when I read your question.

Access to ventilators or lack thereof has no significant impact on death rates. Very few patients are put on ventilators now since those are considered salvage therapy only used when all else has failed. The initial focus on ventilators early in the pandemic was misguided and not based on any reliable evidence.

> The initial focus on ventilators early in the pandemic was misguided and not based on any reliable evidence.

Was there reliable evidence to the contrary during the initial infection window (2020)? (IE, anything showing that vents don't help)

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#664

Post by Shocka1 »

oezi wrote: post #649
Shocka1 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose this is where someone who actually knows what they are talking about should chime in. Myocarditis is actually extremely serious, whether deemed "mild" or not. Once an inner chamber or valve in the heart has been inflamed, the damage is permanent and that area is hardened from scar tissue or fibrosis, which is not reversible. Pericarditis (which I've had for many years since being a young person) isn't as se…

And why would you know more about this than the next internet stranger? And again: becoming exposed to Covid without vaccination has even higher risk for myocarditis.

I'm chiming in to your intellectually lazy comment claiming any kind of myocardits being mild, so I can guarantee it's at least one internet stranger. Also, I never claimed being exposed to COVID without vaccination doesn't carry higher risk. It feels as though you are attempting some kind of HS debate class tactic here, so I'll give you an upvote for your efforts.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#665

Post by asveikau »

exodust wrote: post #637
asveikau wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody I know is getting boosters or is worried about it anymore Your San Francisco social circles are different from mine. Most people I talk to about this got the bivalent booster and got the old booster last year. But people do not seem super worried at this phase. The booster is something routine like a flu shot.

Last I checked only about 50% of people ever get the flu shot routinely. And isn't the idea of flu shot that it prevents symptomatic infection? The whole reason why people get the flu shot is they don't want to get the flu. Covid vaccine doesn't stop symptoms the same way.

> And isn't the idea of flu shot that it prevents symptomatic infection?

I don't recall it ever being sold to me as that, and though I regularly get them, I've never gotten a flu shot with that expectation. It reduces your odds and makes the thing more mild. That's the point. That's what I've been told my whole life. They're not magic solutions to everything in your life, they can't even be 100% sure about how to tweak them for the dominant strains that season, but they help.

This stuff makes people go a little crazy with unreasonable expectations. I remember people complaining in pre-pandemic years ... "the flu shot is only x% effective so why bother?" And the reason has always been that x > 0, any two-digit number for x is pretty worth it, even if it intuitively sounds small. It's pretty similar for COVID.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#666

Post by tomjakubowski »

tekknik wrote: post #594
tomjakubowski wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid was hardly the start of the conservative antivax or alternative medicine movement. Naturalnews.com has been right-wing and antivax since 2008.

How is this a rebuttal? A single site exists and this is evidence? The antivax movement started on the left. The right very much didn’t want the COVID vax specifically. Pointing out once site that disagrees is too easy.

It's one example. Nobody given any evidence that anti-vax had been a mostly left-wing thing before covid, so there's nothing for me to rebut.

Other examples abound if you just look a little bit. Infowars has been running anti-MMR content for years. And for decades, polls have shown that anti-vax views are independent of the political spectrum.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-arent-new-t...

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#667

Post by nradov »

edmundsauto wrote: post #663
nradov wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to ventilators or lack thereof has no significant impact on death rates. Very few patients are put on ventilators now since those are considered salvage therapy only used when all else has failed. The initial focus on ventilators early in the pandemic was misguided and not based on any reliable evidence.

> The initial focus on ventilators early in the pandemic was misguided and not based on any reliable evidence. Was there reliable evidence to the contrary during the initial infection window (2020)? (IE, anything showing that vents don't help)

You're not quite asking the right question. In 2020 there was no reliable evidence to favor early use of invasive mechanical ventilation over other therapies. Some clinicians were quick to put patients on invasive ventilators because they wrongly assumed that non-invasive devices would increase the risk of virus transmission to hospital workers.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2021/non-invasive-ventilat...

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30181-8

As with most other aspects of pandemic management, people made bad assumptions and jumped to incorrect conclusions based on little real evidence.

No one is claiming that ventilators don't help. They have been an effective salvage therapy in some cases where less aggressive treatments failed. But at the population level the number of patients who actually survived only because they were put on a ventilator is so small that it didn't have a major impact on survival rates.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#668

Post by trog »

exodust wrote: post #638
trog wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It boggles my mind that despite inflicting obvious and severe harm on your very own kids, people still believe in "vaccines". Let alone $10k. it boggles my mind that despite being plugged into an information network people can be this staggeringly ignorant about the wild success of vaccines

"Wild success"? That isn't helpful. While I don't agree with previous comment implying obvious and severe harm from vaccines, it's well known that kids rarely get sick from covid. It's well known the vaccine effectiveness wanes in a short time, and doesn't stop symptomatic infection, and is doing very little to stop transmission. It's only real benefit is prevention of serious illness in those most vulnerable. Given…

Assumed GP was talking about vaccines in general. But the COVID vaccines alone has an order of magnitude impact on body count, before you even look at reducing severity, reducing spread, and the other benefits.

Hard for me to consider that anything other than a wild success. Is it perfect? Of course not. Do I wish it was better? Obviously. But it reduced the risk of COVID significantly for a huge number of people.

Those of us in countries that had successful lockdowns look at the mortality rate of those that were not able or willing to do so & pretty thankful we were able to postpone the virus until the vaccine was deployed.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#669

Post by hotpotamus »

momo_O wrote: post #650
hotpotamus wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an uninsured friend who just gives them a fake name. Seems very non-confrontational to me.

How has they worked out for them?

I would say acceptably? I don't suppose it matters that much since he's uncollectible in the best of circumstances, but he seems to like avoiding the pretense that he'll be paying back any medical providers.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#670

Post by nomel »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #618
nomel wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is polio related to covid?

That vaccines actually work.

I don't think polio and kids is a good example here, since the COVID vaccine isn't sterilizing like polio, meaning boosters are required, which were never approved for kids because they failed to prove reasonable efficacy. Most kids haven't been vaccinated for COVID in years, and have little protection against it, beyond the continuous exposure now present in the school systems.
Post reply on HN