3 ms·

>your reply does not address my argument at all Yes, it does. I pointed out that the chance of getting Myocarditis is 0.002%, i.e. near zero. I also pointed

>your reply does not address my argument at all Yes, it does. I pointed out that the chance of getting Myocarditis is 0.002%, i.e. near zero. I also pointed out, and I repeat myself, that there have been 2,630 deaths from COVID-19 for 18-29 year olds (never mind the suffering COVID-19 causes people in this age range) [1]. Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital visits. I also observe you’re quoting stuff which uses estimated risks. The 229 number is a real risk: That’s the number of people who actually got Myocarditis after being vaccinated, a fact you conveniently ignored. To argue that a theoretical risk buried in a report (which correctly felt the risk was very small and approved the vaccine) trumps a real world figure we now have is downright disingenuous bad faith arguing. Going back to your parent post, you allege that the pre-print paper https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998 doesn’t “consider that actual COVID infections may be undercounted [sic]” (your words). Did you even read the paper?? Let me quote it: “In the United States, there is no national data on infection rate by age. According to a systematic review and the working assumption of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children may have infection rates similar to adults, with younger people having more mild or asymptomatic cases. Accordingly, we used the estimated 9.2% population infection rate for April 2020 - March 2021.” In other words, no they didn’t just look at case numbers, they made a reasonable estimate of actual infection figures, and based on those estimated figures said that one is six times more likely to get Myocarditis from COVID-19 itself than from a vaccination. Now, it’s possible that a random Ycombinator poster has a better estimate for the number of total COVID-19 infections than a team of scientists writing a paper about COVID-19 and submitting it to peer review, but I’m not holding my breath here. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

incrudible 5y ago
I still get the impression that you did not carefully read my reply, because it already addresses all the points you just made. > Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital visits. This over-represents the risk groups. As you can see from the source[7] I posted, there's a massive difference between those with risk factors and those without. > I also observe you’re quoting stuff which uses estimated risks. The 229 number is a real risk The "229 number" is a number you took out of an outdated newspaper article. The FDA has recorded[2] (not estimated) a risk of 0.0065%. > To argue that a theoretical risk buried in a report (which correctly felt the risk was very small and approved the vaccine) trumps a real world figure we now have is downright disingenuous bad faith arguing. Let's not go down that "bad faith" route. You've been throwing around plenty of misleading numbers, but I don't think you're doing it in bad faith. The FDA itself has found a "worst case" scenario[2] of low incidence that showed the risk/benefit ratio was not in favor of the vaccine, using efficacy estimates that may or may not reflect reality further down the road. This was then pushed aside by purported risks of longer observed hospital stays, but ignoring the long-term risk factors of Myocarditis. This is entirely speculative, at which point people risk believing whatever they want to be true, not what is actually true. [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24) [7] https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19-fatality-rates-based-age-sex-comorbidities-and-health-system-capacity.pdf https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19... (Page 6)
- strenholme 5y ago
  As per your FDA figure 65 per million cases of Myocarditis in 12-17 year olds vaccinated: At https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-Demographics-in-the-United-St/km4m-vcsb https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-Demog... we see 11,776,463 vaccines administered to 12-17 year olds. Using math: 765 cases, which are generally non-fatal. Using https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex... we get 1,131 fatalities among 15-24 year olds. This, again, is 12-17 year olds; I was using figures for young adults before, where the chance of getting Myocarditis is smaller and the chance of dying from COVID-19 is larger. The worst case figures for vaccine side effects you have been able to come up with is that the number of Myocarditis cases is about the same as the number of COVID-19 deaths in the adolescent age group, as as per the FDA paper you brought up “available data from short-term follow up [of Myocarditis cases] suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms”. Even here, I would prefer a condition which gets resolved over something which would kill me. I know you don’t like me making bad faith assumptions, but in the real world, people who argue against getting vaccinated usually argue in bad faith, and the results of their arguments are increased deaths because people didn’t get the vaccine. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, it’s well known that, in the US, skepticism of vaccines and public health measures, unfortunately, are bad faith arguments being made with a political bias, and, lo and behold, people with a “COVID denial” political bent are much more likely to get a case of COVID-19 significant enough to report: https://i.redd.it/4o4i7arucpj71.png https://i.redd.it/4o4i7arucpj71.png [1] Also, well over 95% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are from unvaccinated people: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Qts7/9/ https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Qts7/9/ [1] The image is on Reddit, but the figures are from New York Times’s COVID-19 tracker and MIT Election Lab figures. My own graphs comparing COVID-19 infection rates in red states (states with right-wing governors) vs. blue states (left-wing governors) shows a much smaller COVID-19 Delta surge in places less “vaccine skeptical”; compare https://samiam.org/COVID-19/redStates.html https://samiam.org/COVID-19/redStates.html and https://samiam.org/COVID-19/blueStates.html https://samiam.org/COVID-19/blueStates.html So, before we talk any further, I need to know this: Did you get the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not? I will not reply to you until I know whether you have been vaccinated.

incrudible 5y ago

I still get the impression that you did not carefully read my reply, because it already addresses all the points you just made. > Something that causes 2,630 deaths is more risky than something causing 229 non-fatal hospital visits. This over-represents the risk groups. As you can see from the source[7] I posted, there's a massive difference between those with risk factors and those without. > I also observe you’re quoting stuff which uses estimated risks. The 229 number is a real risk The "229 number" is a number you took out of an outdated newspaper article. The FDA has recorded[2] (not estimated) a risk of 0.0065%. > To argue that a theoretical risk buried in a report (which correctly felt the risk was very small and approved the vaccine) trumps a real world figure we now have is downright disingenuous bad faith arguing. Let's not go down that "bad faith" route. You've been throwing around plenty of misleading numbers, but I don't think you're doing it in bad faith. The FDA itself has found a "worst case" scenario[2] of low incidence that showed the risk/benefit ratio was not in favor of the vaccine, using efficacy estimates that may or may not reflect reality further down the road. This was then pushed aside by purported risks of longer observed hospital stays, but ignoring the long-term risk factors of Myocarditis. This is entirely speculative, at which point people risk believing whatever they want to be true, not what is actually true. [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24) [7] https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19-fatality-rates-based-age-sex-comorbidities-and-health-system-capacity.pdf https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19... (Page 6)

strenholme 5y ago
As per your FDA figure 65 per million cases of Myocarditis in 12-17 year olds vaccinated: At https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-Demographics-in-the-United-St/km4m-vcsb https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-Demog... we see 11,776,463 vaccines administered to 12-17 year olds. Using math: 765 cases, which are generally non-fatal. Using https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex... we get 1,131 fatalities among 15-24 year olds. This, again, is 12-17 year olds; I was using figures for young adults before, where the chance of getting Myocarditis is smaller and the chance of dying from COVID-19 is larger. The worst case figures for vaccine side effects you have been able to come up with is that the number of Myocarditis cases is about the same as the number of COVID-19 deaths in the adolescent age group, as as per the FDA paper you brought up “available data from short-term follow up [of Myocarditis cases] suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms”. Even here, I would prefer a condition which gets resolved over something which would kill me. I know you don’t like me making bad faith assumptions, but in the real world, people who argue against getting vaccinated usually argue in bad faith, and the results of their arguments are increased deaths because people didn’t get the vaccine. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, it’s well known that, in the US, skepticism of vaccines and public health measures, unfortunately, are bad faith arguments being made with a political bias, and, lo and behold, people with a “COVID denial” political bent are much more likely to get a case of COVID-19 significant enough to report: https://i.redd.it/4o4i7arucpj71.png https://i.redd.it/4o4i7arucpj71.png [1] Also, well over 95% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are from unvaccinated people: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Qts7/9/ https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5Qts7/9/ [1] The image is on Reddit, but the figures are from New York Times’s COVID-19 tracker and MIT Election Lab figures. My own graphs comparing COVID-19 infection rates in red states (states with right-wing governors) vs. blue states (left-wing governors) shows a much smaller COVID-19 Delta surge in places less “vaccine skeptical”; compare https://samiam.org/COVID-19/redStates.html https://samiam.org/COVID-19/redStates.html and https://samiam.org/COVID-19/blueStates.html https://samiam.org/COVID-19/blueStates.html So, before we talk any further, I need to know this: Did you get the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not? I will not reply to you until I know whether you have been vaccinated.