4 ms·

The author forgot to include statistical significance in the data. A difference of 1-5 parts per million is statistically insignificant for the study sample siz

The author forgot to include statistical significance in the data. A difference of 1-5 parts per million is statistically insignificant for the study sample size. Also, while focusing on myocarditis he forgets to count actual deaths from covid19 which is increasing for younger people with the new variants. https://theconversation.com/younger-adults-can-get-very-sick-and-die-from-covid-too-heres-what-the-data-tell-us-165250 https://theconversation.com/younger-adults-can-get-very-sick... Death rate per million for age 25 is 100. Yet the author complains about a non statistically significant difference of 1-5 per million of myocarditis for under 40?! Does the author have an agenda you are aware of?

timr 5y ago
> Death rate per million for age 25 is 100. ...and even this miniscule risk is divided by 10 after primary vaccination (a 90% risk reduction in serious illness). So yeah, now you're in the 10-per-million realm, where risk of myocarditis starts to matter. You're confusing "booster mandates" with "vaccination". Neither the author nor I are questioning vaccination in general. We're questioning mandates for young people -- and in particular, mandates of booster doses that have no proven clinical benefit.
- random314 5y ago
  > and even this miniscule risk is divided by 10 after primary vaccination (a 90% risk reduction in serious illness). This risk doesn't get reduced by 10. Which is why the booster is required. If you have followed any of the research the 95% efficacy starts waning dramatically 6 months in, as Israel found out. So this is a false argument. > So yeah, now you're in the 10-per-million realm, where risk of myocarditis starts to matter. Let me get this straight - 1. 100 deaths in a million is a "minuscule risk" 2. Non statistically significant 1-5 in a million incremental risk of myocarditis, NOT DEATH is a cause for grave concern. I repeat non statistically significant increase in NON FATAL MYOCARDITIS is a cause of grave concern. Irrespective of the increased protection from spreading infections to elderly or deaths. 100 deaths with no vaccine protection === whatever. 1-5 non stat sig incremental myocarditis for the same population vaccinated - GRAVELY CONCERNING I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument.
  - timr 5y ago
    > This risk doesn't get reduced by 10. Which is why the booster is required. Incorrect. There is no evidence of reduction in efficacy against severe illness or death. As Paul Offit said in the New York Times article that I linked and quoted above, which you clearly didn't bother to read: > Boosters are likely to provide the best protection against infection with Omicron. But for most healthy young people, the original two-shot series — or one dose of Johnson and Johnson — should be sufficient to prevent hospitalization and death, Dr. Offit said. If that’s the purpose of vaccination, then “these vaccines continue to hold up,” Dr. Offit said. https://archive.fo/b3raO https://archive.fo/b3raO The benefit of boosters for the young is unproven -- likely zero. The harm is proven, and non-zero.

timr 5y ago

> Death rate per million for age 25 is 100. ...and even this miniscule risk is divided by 10 after primary vaccination (a 90% risk reduction in serious illness). So yeah, now you're in the 10-per-million realm, where risk of myocarditis starts to matter. You're confusing "booster mandates" with "vaccination". Neither the author nor I are questioning vaccination in general. We're questioning mandates for young people -- and in particular, mandates of booster doses that have no proven clinical benefit.

random314 5y ago
> and even this miniscule risk is divided by 10 after primary vaccination (a 90% risk reduction in serious illness). This risk doesn't get reduced by 10. Which is why the booster is required. If you have followed any of the research the 95% efficacy starts waning dramatically 6 months in, as Israel found out. So this is a false argument. > So yeah, now you're in the 10-per-million realm, where risk of myocarditis starts to matter. Let me get this straight - 1. 100 deaths in a million is a "minuscule risk" 2. Non statistically significant 1-5 in a million incremental risk of myocarditis, NOT DEATH is a cause for grave concern. I repeat non statistically significant increase in NON FATAL MYOCARDITIS is a cause of grave concern. Irrespective of the increased protection from spreading infections to elderly or deaths. 100 deaths with no vaccine protection === whatever. 1-5 non stat sig incremental myocarditis for the same population vaccinated - GRAVELY CONCERNING I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument.
- timr 5y ago
  > This risk doesn't get reduced by 10. Which is why the booster is required. Incorrect. There is no evidence of reduction in efficacy against severe illness or death. As Paul Offit said in the New York Times article that I linked and quoted above, which you clearly didn't bother to read: > Boosters are likely to provide the best protection against infection with Omicron. But for most healthy young people, the original two-shot series — or one dose of Johnson and Johnson — should be sufficient to prevent hospitalization and death, Dr. Offit said. If that’s the purpose of vaccination, then “these vaccines continue to hold up,” Dr. Offit said. https://archive.fo/b3raO https://archive.fo/b3raO The benefit of boosters for the young is unproven -- likely zero. The harm is proven, and non-zero.