6 ms·

Between the 2nd dose putting me in the ER with myocarditis which no one warned me about the risk of, and a $3500 medical bill due, being told I could be maskles

Between the 2nd dose putting me in the ER with myocarditis which no one warned me about the risk of, and a $3500 medical bill due, being told I could be maskless and free if I got the "vaccine"[1], getting covid anyways and it being nbd, and then learning that the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) -- yeah I'm done. I'm not risking another ER visit, not paying $3500 more for "societal good", and I've lost trust/faith in the establishment to not play bait and switch. [1] - California had a brief period where if you got vaccinated you could be maskless in gyms and restaurants, this was rescinded in August 2021 [2] - https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126... The redefinition undermines what most would colloquially understand as a vaccine -- much like a "cure" something that to a major extent stops one from getting the disease, which the vaccine does not. Yes it's 80% effective at eliminating _hospitalization_ but vaccinated people still get Covid, still go through fever & long covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell anyone?), and still must quarantine else infect others.

groggo 5y ago
> myocarditis which no one warned me about the risk of I agree, it's now known as a "rare" side effect, but I wasn't aware either until after I got the vaccine. How did you know something was wrong? I think a lot of people (including myself) feel heart pain after the vaccine but aren't sure if it's worth going to a doctor about it.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I had heart/chest pain that slowly got more and more intense over the span of about 3-4 days after most of the 2nd dose side effects wore off. In hindsight I should have gone to the hospital much sooner for Heart attack symptoms, but I had an inkling it wasn't a heart attack because it entirely would go away if I laid on my side just so after about 60 seconds... and magically come back if I sat or stood up, and go away when I laid down again like a switch --> not heart attack symptoms.. anyways I digress. after EKG, xrays, bloodwork, a big scare and such the doctors put me on ibuprofen and it subsided after another ~3 days
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    I cant edit, so I'd add this anecdata from those i've spoken with who had the same issue I think they should add this warning for Men (especially really fit men) under 40 -- "Do not engage in strenuous exercise for 1 month after getting your 2nd dose (maybe boosters too)" . All the cases i've heard they have been exercise onset. Mine was shortly after a I returned to the gym too, albeit for weight lifting.
    - penjelly 5y ago
      one month would be an insane ask
      - maerF0x0 5y ago
        personally I would prefer the ask/caveat versus the unexpected ER visit.
    - nsainsbury 5y ago
      I started developing chest pain two days after my Pfizer shot and actually still experience some chest pain at times now, many months later. For me the pain started after exercising as well. The cardiologist I went to see about the issue said he's seeing people like me daily.
    - groggo 5y ago
      singapore recommends 2 weeks: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/no-strenuous-activity-for-two-weeks-after-vaccination-those-with-mild-reactions-can-get https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/no-strenuous-activity...
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Got the shot (J&J) on May 1st. A bit later in May, I noticed that while playing ultimate frisbee, I was getting winded more easily compared to two weeks earlier, and it was taking me longer to recover. Further investigation found a coronary artery blocked 90%, and another blocked 80%. I now have two stents in my heart. So, the last sentence in the first paragraph is "how you know" (or at least one way you know). Note well: I am not claiming that the vaccine caused my blocked arteries. Did it contribute all of the problem? The last 5%? None, and it's just a coincidence in timing? I don't know. And that really bugs me, because it affects whether I should get a booster or not.
  - aldebran 5y ago
    That just sounds like regular clogged arteries to me. Not a doctor but I don’t think that has anything to do with any vaccine.
C19is20 5y ago
Anyone got a conversion of $3500 to Euro?
- Shrimpist 5y ago
  Google does
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&From=USD&To=EUR https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&Fr... :)
conception 5y ago
The CDC's explanation "interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered" is totally on point and correct. People didn't really think about vaccines before and it wasn't a political thing where people are looking for gotchas like "They changed the definition of vaccine!" Before this age, you could just simply say "Yeah, vaccines give you immunity" and didn't need to be hyperacurrate but now everything is scrutinized, even when they provide a better definition apparently.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > and it wasn't a political thing Where you see "a political thing" I see "a trust thing". I have been burned too many times to sanely remain trusting . It's not politics I dont care if red/blue/pink/pirate team is pushing it, I have lost blind faith and now scrutinize as I'm able. And there used to be a time when I just trusted whatever came under the banner of "Science" thinking that smarter people than me were benevolently doing the best for all. But since I've experienced unexpected costs I've done more research and been shocked at what I found, for example Pfizer the maker of my vaccine has been fined ~$5Bn over 75 separate situations over the past 20 years [1]. Or Merck paying out 4.7Bn in damages , $1Bn in fines -- but gathered $12Bn in sales[2] ... No one went to jail. There is too much corporatism[3] for me to trust. [1]: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=pfizer&order=pen_year&sort=desc https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=p... [2]: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/joe-rogan-new-years-eve-tutorial-on-corporate-crime-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/ https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/joe-rogan-ne... [3]: (i'm not against other strains of capitalism)
  - conception 5y ago
    Almost all of those violations are violations of marketing practices. Not that Pfizer is a panacea of Good or anything but the list of violations generally have nothing to do with the science of their products or science in general. And of course, 75 situations over 20 years is meaningless. One situation was a $7,500 workplace safety issue. These aren’t “Pfizer killed people with their products!” violations. Should someone go to jail? Seems odd to throw that out without talking about what the violations were.
dpark 5y ago
> the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) -- yeah I'm done. What is it with antivaxxers and their complaints about the definition of vaccination? They complained that the definition was changed to include a new way of conferring immunity. They complained that the definition was posted to be more accurate. Vaccines have never been 100% effective for any disease I’m aware of. It’s entirely reasonable that the CDC would change the definition to be clearer. Edit: “Immunotherapy” is also definitely not a more understandable word. Half of immunotherapy is dedicated to making the immune system do less.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  You're not entirely wrong that terms need to be updated from time to time and to match new technological details. I agree with redefining the difference between weakened portions of a virus vs (as i understood it) spike proteins produced within us ... What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. I'm not an antivaxxer per se, people should do what they want, but I'm pretty unimpressed with what we got in the box that said "Vaccine".
  - dpark 5y ago
    > What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). Where are these part of the definition? This isn’t something they put in their definition so far as I can see. Anyone who thought that the previous definition meant “100% effective, no symptoms” was woefully misinformed. Indeed, if people thought that before, then it’s really, really good that the CDC updated their definition. > The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. Then, again, the public was woefully (willfully?) misinformed. Vaccines have never given perfect immunity to all recipients. I don’t know anyone in my personal life who has ever indicated that they thought vaccines were 100% protective, though. I also don’t know who should be defining the word vaccine if not medical professionals. It also looks like Webster agrees with the CDC, though for all I know they’ve changed their definition recently. I question the intellectual honesty of the people spreading these complaints, because many of these same people talk about “natural immunity”. Someone who thinks “immunity” means “0% chance of infection” shouldn’t be talking about “natural immunity”, either. (I’m not saying you, here, to be clear.)
ostenning 5y ago
Same here. Still have heart inflammation 4 months after my second dose of Pfizer. I remember when the statistics were “1/1000000”, and now its 1/10000 for boys 12-17 [1]. In my opinion its insanity to give this to children, especially now that omicron is here. [1] - Table 2, https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-12-2021 https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safe...
- JSoet 5y ago
  I mean, I'm not an expert by any means, but the link you shared also says "Myocarditis is seen much more commonly in people who become infected with COVID-19 than in people who are vaccinated. A preliminary study from the United States(link is external) found the rate of myocarditis in young men after COVID-19 is approximately 45 cases per 100,000 infections"... So, a higher incidence among people with infections than vaccinations, so if you're suggesting to just let everyone get infected... Anyway, I think it's really difficult to weigh the risk when we're dealing with such small numbers (0.045% vs 0.01%), and we don't know all the data.
  - nightowl_games 5y ago
    > Myocarditis is seen much more commonly in people who become infected with COVID-19 than in people who are vaccinated. A preliminary study from the United States. Recent data from Ontario has effectively ended this debate. Myocarditis is definitely more common from dose 2 moderna than from covid in young boys, and the same is probably true for Pfizer mostly because we don't actually know how many people have caught covid. https://youtu.be/xzVoS-1TIWI https://youtu.be/xzVoS-1TIWI
- treelovinhippie 5y ago
  There's also a side effect that isn't reported at all in the TGA's weekly reports and risk stats: costochondritis and/or myalgia. I had 3 weeks of intense chest pains after 1st Pfizer and another week of mild chest pains after the 2nd dose. All tests normal. Four separate doctors said it was a common side effect and they had no idea what it was. Now 3 months after my 2nd dose I still get chest discomfort after lifting weights, and have had to quit caffeine entirely as it results in days of chest pains after physical activity. Didn't have those issues prior. Vaccine-induced costochondritis seems to fit best.
standardUser 5y ago
"The redefinition undermines what most would colloquially understand as a vaccine" It's very common for people outside of a profession to misunderstand terms from within that profession. That generally doesn't mean we get to redefine it on the fly. The Covid vaccines are vaccines because it is the correct and appropriate terminology to use within the fields that develop and administer vaccines. In terms of not being a "cure" and needing boosters, that is true to varying degrees for most vaccines. Flu vaccines - which for years have uncontroversially been called vaccines - are often less effective than the Covid vaccines.
- Thorentis 5y ago
  And yet there was very few attempts to remedy this mischaracterization from the onset. Government willfuly led people to believe that the covid vaccine would be like any other - it would inoculate the population, and all this would blow over.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I recall when the first results came out and though they were good, they were never 100%. And I certainly understand that no one was able to predict the way in which variants would develop, and to what degree they would reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines. In the end, vaccines have been more about reducing hospitalizations and deaths (which they do really well) than reaching herd immunity, but how was anyone supposed to know that a year ago?
    - Thorentis 5y ago
      And yet the majority of reporting focuses on case numbers, as if this is the number we need to monitor to track our progress through the pandemic. And when that number increases rathee than decreases, despite high rates of vaccination, people are confused. And the government does nothing to correct thus.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > and needing boosters, Nothing wrong with needing boosters (eg you get one multiple years apart for MMR, you get one, what every decade with Tetanus?) , but every 6 months for only reduced risk of hospitalization is quite the stretch... And my understanding is flu vaccines give great protection of getting anything from very specific strains, and lesser effects to varyingly differences in those strains[1]. This "vaccine" doesn't give great protection to any strain, unless "protection" just means you still get covid, but not hospitalized. It's pretty disheartening to hear you essentially say that the professionals get to redefine words to benefit themselves to the detriment of the public... [1]: https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-vaccine-works https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-...
madjam002 5y ago
Does anyone have any experience of dealing with this in the UK? I’ve waited 7 months to get a date for an echocardiogram appointment for further investigation, previously the doctors just put it down as anxiety. When I thought I was having a heart attack I was told the ambulance would be 3 hours.
phailhaus 5y ago
> then learning that the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) This has literally always been the definition of "vaccine". Flu vaccines work like this. Polio vaccines work like this. Smallpox vaccines work like this. I don't think you can blame the CDC if you didn't know how vaccines work. The point of vaccines has always been to drastically reduce the chances that you get sick at all, and if you do, the chances that you will get hospitalized or die. Given that the chance of getting myocarditis from these vaccines is far less than the chances of you getting hospitalized/dying due to COVID, it's the smarter option.
honkycat 5y ago
85% of COVID-19 hospitalizations were among those not fully vaccinated.[0] 90% of people who are dying from covid are unvaccinated.[1] 10 in 100,000 people in your likely age range experience myocarditis.[2] However, yeah, if you have had a bad reaction before, you are likely to have another bad reaction. I'm sorry you went through that. > Yes it's 80% effective at eliminating _hospitalization_ but vaccinated people still get Covid, still go through fever & long covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell anyone?), and still must quarantine else infect others. I would argue 80% effective at eliminating hospitalization is not a trivial number. That is extremely effective. I will take those odds vs the chance of having an extremely rare myocarditis episode. 0: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/characteristics-of-vaccinated-patients-hospitalized-with-covid-19-breakthrough-infections/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/characteristics-of... 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omicron-vaccination-rashomon/621199/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omic... 2: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  Your myocarditis source seems to be off?
  - honkycat 5y ago
    How so? ``` Among more than 2.5 million vaccinated HCO members who were 16 years of age or older, 54 cases met the criteria for myocarditis. The estimated incidence per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.70). The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. ``` seems pretty clear cut to me.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      Unsure if edit or my off by 1 issue when I looked at them (I thought you referred the atlantic source)
- 5y ago

groggo 5y ago

> myocarditis which no one warned me about the risk of I agree, it's now known as a "rare" side effect, but I wasn't aware either until after I got the vaccine. How did you know something was wrong? I think a lot of people (including myself) feel heart pain after the vaccine but aren't sure if it's worth going to a doctor about it.

maerF0x0 5y ago
I had heart/chest pain that slowly got more and more intense over the span of about 3-4 days after most of the 2nd dose side effects wore off. In hindsight I should have gone to the hospital much sooner for Heart attack symptoms, but I had an inkling it wasn't a heart attack because it entirely would go away if I laid on my side just so after about 60 seconds... and magically come back if I sat or stood up, and go away when I laid down again like a switch --> not heart attack symptoms.. anyways I digress. after EKG, xrays, bloodwork, a big scare and such the doctors put me on ibuprofen and it subsided after another ~3 days
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I cant edit, so I'd add this anecdata from those i've spoken with who had the same issue I think they should add this warning for Men (especially really fit men) under 40 -- "Do not engage in strenuous exercise for 1 month after getting your 2nd dose (maybe boosters too)" . All the cases i've heard they have been exercise onset. Mine was shortly after a I returned to the gym too, albeit for weight lifting.
  - penjelly 5y ago
    one month would be an insane ask
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      personally I would prefer the ask/caveat versus the unexpected ER visit.
  - nsainsbury 5y ago
    I started developing chest pain two days after my Pfizer shot and actually still experience some chest pain at times now, many months later. For me the pain started after exercising as well. The cardiologist I went to see about the issue said he's seeing people like me daily.
  - groggo 5y ago
    singapore recommends 2 weeks: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/no-strenuous-activity-for-two-weeks-after-vaccination-those-with-mild-reactions-can-get https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/no-strenuous-activity...
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Got the shot (J&J) on May 1st. A bit later in May, I noticed that while playing ultimate frisbee, I was getting winded more easily compared to two weeks earlier, and it was taking me longer to recover. Further investigation found a coronary artery blocked 90%, and another blocked 80%. I now have two stents in my heart. So, the last sentence in the first paragraph is "how you know" (or at least one way you know). Note well: I am not claiming that the vaccine caused my blocked arteries. Did it contribute all of the problem? The last 5%? None, and it's just a coincidence in timing? I don't know. And that really bugs me, because it affects whether I should get a booster or not.
- aldebran 5y ago
  That just sounds like regular clogged arteries to me. Not a doctor but I don’t think that has anything to do with any vaccine.

C19is20 5y ago

Anyone got a conversion of $3500 to Euro?

Shrimpist 5y ago
Google does
maerF0x0 5y ago
https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&From=USD&To=EUR https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&Fr... :)

conception 5y ago

The CDC's explanation "interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered" is totally on point and correct. People didn't really think about vaccines before and it wasn't a political thing where people are looking for gotchas like "They changed the definition of vaccine!" Before this age, you could just simply say "Yeah, vaccines give you immunity" and didn't need to be hyperacurrate but now everything is scrutinized, even when they provide a better definition apparently.

maerF0x0 5y ago
> and it wasn't a political thing Where you see "a political thing" I see "a trust thing". I have been burned too many times to sanely remain trusting . It's not politics I dont care if red/blue/pink/pirate team is pushing it, I have lost blind faith and now scrutinize as I'm able. And there used to be a time when I just trusted whatever came under the banner of "Science" thinking that smarter people than me were benevolently doing the best for all. But since I've experienced unexpected costs I've done more research and been shocked at what I found, for example Pfizer the maker of my vaccine has been fined ~$5Bn over 75 separate situations over the past 20 years [1]. Or Merck paying out 4.7Bn in damages , $1Bn in fines -- but gathered $12Bn in sales[2] ... No one went to jail. There is too much corporatism[3] for me to trust. [1]: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=pfizer&order=pen_year&sort=desc https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=p... [2]: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/joe-rogan-new-years-eve-tutorial-on-corporate-crime-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/ https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/joe-rogan-ne... [3]: (i'm not against other strains of capitalism)
- conception 5y ago
  Almost all of those violations are violations of marketing practices. Not that Pfizer is a panacea of Good or anything but the list of violations generally have nothing to do with the science of their products or science in general. And of course, 75 situations over 20 years is meaningless. One situation was a $7,500 workplace safety issue. These aren’t “Pfizer killed people with their products!” violations. Should someone go to jail? Seems odd to throw that out without talking about what the violations were.

dpark 5y ago

> the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) -- yeah I'm done. What is it with antivaxxers and their complaints about the definition of vaccination? They complained that the definition was changed to include a new way of conferring immunity. They complained that the definition was posted to be more accurate. Vaccines have never been 100% effective for any disease I’m aware of. It’s entirely reasonable that the CDC would change the definition to be clearer. Edit: “Immunotherapy” is also definitely not a more understandable word. Half of immunotherapy is dedicated to making the immune system do less.

maerF0x0 5y ago
You're not entirely wrong that terms need to be updated from time to time and to match new technological details. I agree with redefining the difference between weakened portions of a virus vs (as i understood it) spike proteins produced within us ... What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. I'm not an antivaxxer per se, people should do what they want, but I'm pretty unimpressed with what we got in the box that said "Vaccine".
- dpark 5y ago
  > What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). Where are these part of the definition? This isn’t something they put in their definition so far as I can see. Anyone who thought that the previous definition meant “100% effective, no symptoms” was woefully misinformed. Indeed, if people thought that before, then it’s really, really good that the CDC updated their definition. > The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. Then, again, the public was woefully (willfully?) misinformed. Vaccines have never given perfect immunity to all recipients. I don’t know anyone in my personal life who has ever indicated that they thought vaccines were 100% protective, though. I also don’t know who should be defining the word vaccine if not medical professionals. It also looks like Webster agrees with the CDC, though for all I know they’ve changed their definition recently. I question the intellectual honesty of the people spreading these complaints, because many of these same people talk about “natural immunity”. Someone who thinks “immunity” means “0% chance of infection” shouldn’t be talking about “natural immunity”, either. (I’m not saying you, here, to be clear.)

ostenning 5y ago

Same here. Still have heart inflammation 4 months after my second dose of Pfizer. I remember when the statistics were “1/1000000”, and now its 1/10000 for boys 12-17 [1]. In my opinion its insanity to give this to children, especially now that omicron is here. [1] - Table 2, https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-12-2021 https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safe...

JSoet 5y ago
I mean, I'm not an expert by any means, but the link you shared also says "Myocarditis is seen much more commonly in people who become infected with COVID-19 than in people who are vaccinated. A preliminary study from the United States(link is external) found the rate of myocarditis in young men after COVID-19 is approximately 45 cases per 100,000 infections"... So, a higher incidence among people with infections than vaccinations, so if you're suggesting to just let everyone get infected... Anyway, I think it's really difficult to weigh the risk when we're dealing with such small numbers (0.045% vs 0.01%), and we don't know all the data.
- nightowl_games 5y ago
  > Myocarditis is seen much more commonly in people who become infected with COVID-19 than in people who are vaccinated. A preliminary study from the United States. Recent data from Ontario has effectively ended this debate. Myocarditis is definitely more common from dose 2 moderna than from covid in young boys, and the same is probably true for Pfizer mostly because we don't actually know how many people have caught covid. https://youtu.be/xzVoS-1TIWI https://youtu.be/xzVoS-1TIWI
treelovinhippie 5y ago
There's also a side effect that isn't reported at all in the TGA's weekly reports and risk stats: costochondritis and/or myalgia. I had 3 weeks of intense chest pains after 1st Pfizer and another week of mild chest pains after the 2nd dose. All tests normal. Four separate doctors said it was a common side effect and they had no idea what it was. Now 3 months after my 2nd dose I still get chest discomfort after lifting weights, and have had to quit caffeine entirely as it results in days of chest pains after physical activity. Didn't have those issues prior. Vaccine-induced costochondritis seems to fit best.

standardUser 5y ago

"The redefinition undermines what most would colloquially understand as a vaccine" It's very common for people outside of a profession to misunderstand terms from within that profession. That generally doesn't mean we get to redefine it on the fly. The Covid vaccines are vaccines because it is the correct and appropriate terminology to use within the fields that develop and administer vaccines. In terms of not being a "cure" and needing boosters, that is true to varying degrees for most vaccines. Flu vaccines - which for years have uncontroversially been called vaccines - are often less effective than the Covid vaccines.

Thorentis 5y ago
And yet there was very few attempts to remedy this mischaracterization from the onset. Government willfuly led people to believe that the covid vaccine would be like any other - it would inoculate the population, and all this would blow over.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I recall when the first results came out and though they were good, they were never 100%. And I certainly understand that no one was able to predict the way in which variants would develop, and to what degree they would reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines. In the end, vaccines have been more about reducing hospitalizations and deaths (which they do really well) than reaching herd immunity, but how was anyone supposed to know that a year ago?
  - Thorentis 5y ago
    And yet the majority of reporting focuses on case numbers, as if this is the number we need to monitor to track our progress through the pandemic. And when that number increases rathee than decreases, despite high rates of vaccination, people are confused. And the government does nothing to correct thus.
maerF0x0 5y ago
> and needing boosters, Nothing wrong with needing boosters (eg you get one multiple years apart for MMR, you get one, what every decade with Tetanus?) , but every 6 months for only reduced risk of hospitalization is quite the stretch... And my understanding is flu vaccines give great protection of getting anything from very specific strains, and lesser effects to varyingly differences in those strains[1]. This "vaccine" doesn't give great protection to any strain, unless "protection" just means you still get covid, but not hospitalized. It's pretty disheartening to hear you essentially say that the professionals get to redefine words to benefit themselves to the detriment of the public... [1]: https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-vaccine-works https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-...

madjam002 5y ago

Does anyone have any experience of dealing with this in the UK? I’ve waited 7 months to get a date for an echocardiogram appointment for further investigation, previously the doctors just put it down as anxiety. When I thought I was having a heart attack I was told the ambulance would be 3 hours.

phailhaus 5y ago

> then learning that the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) This has literally always been the definition of "vaccine". Flu vaccines work like this. Polio vaccines work like this. Smallpox vaccines work like this. I don't think you can blame the CDC if you didn't know how vaccines work. The point of vaccines has always been to drastically reduce the chances that you get sick at all, and if you do, the chances that you will get hospitalized or die. Given that the chance of getting myocarditis from these vaccines is far less than the chances of you getting hospitalized/dying due to COVID, it's the smarter option.

honkycat 5y ago

85% of COVID-19 hospitalizations were among those not fully vaccinated.[0] 90% of people who are dying from covid are unvaccinated.[1] 10 in 100,000 people in your likely age range experience myocarditis.[2] However, yeah, if you have had a bad reaction before, you are likely to have another bad reaction. I'm sorry you went through that. > Yes it's 80% effective at eliminating _hospitalization_ but vaccinated people still get Covid, still go through fever & long covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell anyone?), and still must quarantine else infect others. I would argue 80% effective at eliminating hospitalization is not a trivial number. That is extremely effective. I will take those odds vs the chance of having an extremely rare myocarditis episode. 0: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/characteristics-of-vaccinated-patients-hospitalized-with-covid-19-breakthrough-infections/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/characteristics-of... 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omicron-vaccination-rashomon/621199/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omic... 2: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737

maerF0x0 5y ago
Your myocarditis source seems to be off?
- honkycat 5y ago
  How so? ``` Among more than 2.5 million vaccinated HCO members who were 16 years of age or older, 54 cases met the criteria for myocarditis. The estimated incidence per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.70). The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. ``` seems pretty clear cut to me.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    Unsure if edit or my off by 1 issue when I looked at them (I thought you referred the atlantic source)
5y ago