4 ms·

I think I'm missing your point. This article is talking about the relative risk of developing myocarditis, but you are talking about the risk of hospitalization

I think I'm missing your point. This article is talking about the relative risk of developing myocarditis, but you are talking about the risk of hospitalization from COVID. Wouldn't the correct comparison be to look at the risk of myocarditis after catching COVID? Or going the other way, shouldn't we be comparing the risk of hospitalization due to COVID (if unvaccinated) to that of hospitalization after receiving the vaccine?

marvin 5y ago
The real ethical tradeoff is "what's your chance of contracting covid and getting complications in the one-week delay between cancelling your Moderna appointment and getting the Pfeizer vaccine instead" vs. "what's the chance of getting myocarditis from side effects of the Moderna vaccine". Seems like most people in this thread hear "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", when the recommendation is rather to switch vaccines for men under a certain age. The ethical consideration is not particularly complicated, and Scandinavian health authorities are not risk-averse idiots. They simply care about an equation that might lead to a couple of saved lives in total. I think this level of care speaks highly of the intentions of the healthcare systems in Scandinavia.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Seems like most people in this thread hear "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", when the recommendation is rather to switch vaccines for men under a certain age. > The ethical consideration is not particularly complicated, and Scandinavian health authorities are not risk-averse idiots. They simply care about an equation that might lead to a couple of saved lives in total. I think this level of care speaks highly of the intentions of the healthcare systems in Scandinavia. In a vacuum, I agree. The unfortunate reality is that many will take this in the "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", as you're seeing already here, and that confusion is likely to be weaponized by antivax activists.
  - marvin 5y ago
    That's a subtle point. My stance is that their ethical obligation in that regard stops at the border, given that the reason it's a consideration is malicious actors rather than a direct consequence. Otherwise you're letting external, malicious actors hold your population hostage. I don't have numbers for Scandinavia as a whole, but 95% of Norway's population have stated that they will get vaccinated, and we're approaching that number. Antivaxxer disinformation is not a problem that has significant effect here. While it's a tragedy that the USA and others have large populations that are susceptible to propaganda from malignant forces, it's ultimately a matter of US interior politics. It's a whole separate question that not something other countries should shape their politics to conform to. There's very little the international community can do about US poverty, its ridiculously polarized political climate, education system, power imbalances and so on. It's not that I don't care at all; I can see the mathematics of it. But that kind of butterfly effect consideration will quickly lead you down a rabbit hole that prevents you from doing the right thing because someone is holding a gun to a stranger's head.
jamps 5y ago
I agree with you, the correct way to look at any medical intervention is to assess the risk/benefits ratio. And it is therefore a personalized decision that needs to be taken by your doctor and with your consent. Blanket rules are often missing out the complexity that doctors can assess. And this ratio is indeed questionable for young people: "As a general rule, the ICU cardiac injury described in COVID-19 illness is subclinical and largely reflected by a minor elevation of cardiac troponin, whereas CIRM is characterized by a clinical syndrome often warranting hospitalization, dramatic ECG changes, and very large elevations of cardiac troponin that are sustained over time. " "Again, children are not a high-risk group for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are the high-risk group for CIRM." Source : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014628062...

marvin 5y ago

The real ethical tradeoff is "what's your chance of contracting covid and getting complications in the one-week delay between cancelling your Moderna appointment and getting the Pfeizer vaccine instead" vs. "what's the chance of getting myocarditis from side effects of the Moderna vaccine". Seems like most people in this thread hear "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", when the recommendation is rather to switch vaccines for men under a certain age. The ethical consideration is not particularly complicated, and Scandinavian health authorities are not risk-averse idiots. They simply care about an equation that might lead to a couple of saved lives in total. I think this level of care speaks highly of the intentions of the healthcare systems in Scandinavia.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Seems like most people in this thread hear "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", when the recommendation is rather to switch vaccines for men under a certain age. > The ethical consideration is not particularly complicated, and Scandinavian health authorities are not risk-averse idiots. They simply care about an equation that might lead to a couple of saved lives in total. I think this level of care speaks highly of the intentions of the healthcare systems in Scandinavia. In a vacuum, I agree. The unfortunate reality is that many will take this in the "Scandinavian authorities are stopping the vaccination program", as you're seeing already here, and that confusion is likely to be weaponized by antivax activists.
- marvin 5y ago
  That's a subtle point. My stance is that their ethical obligation in that regard stops at the border, given that the reason it's a consideration is malicious actors rather than a direct consequence. Otherwise you're letting external, malicious actors hold your population hostage. I don't have numbers for Scandinavia as a whole, but 95% of Norway's population have stated that they will get vaccinated, and we're approaching that number. Antivaxxer disinformation is not a problem that has significant effect here. While it's a tragedy that the USA and others have large populations that are susceptible to propaganda from malignant forces, it's ultimately a matter of US interior politics. It's a whole separate question that not something other countries should shape their politics to conform to. There's very little the international community can do about US poverty, its ridiculously polarized political climate, education system, power imbalances and so on. It's not that I don't care at all; I can see the mathematics of it. But that kind of butterfly effect consideration will quickly lead you down a rabbit hole that prevents you from doing the right thing because someone is holding a gun to a stranger's head.

jamps 5y ago

I agree with you, the correct way to look at any medical intervention is to assess the risk/benefits ratio. And it is therefore a personalized decision that needs to be taken by your doctor and with your consent. Blanket rules are often missing out the complexity that doctors can assess. And this ratio is indeed questionable for young people: "As a general rule, the ICU cardiac injury described in COVID-19 illness is subclinical and largely reflected by a minor elevation of cardiac troponin, whereas CIRM is characterized by a clinical syndrome often warranting hospitalization, dramatic ECG changes, and very large elevations of cardiac troponin that are sustained over time. " "Again, children are not a high-risk group for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are the high-risk group for CIRM." Source : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014628062...