3 ms·

I have no idea, I'm no doctor. I find it surprising that a doctor would advise him to play at a competitive level nevertheless if he has some cardiac problem bu

I have no idea, I'm no doctor. I find it surprising that a doctor would advise him to play at a competitive level nevertheless if he has some cardiac problem but who knows. Anyway I want to say that as a matter of fact if a court allows him to enter and play he should be allowed. Not interfering with court decisions is much more important than whether or not a player plays tennis, I don't care if it's an important player on an important tournament, because for me it's not important. I think also he should not enter if he is not vaccinated but for me the "why" is much more important than the "what". We always ask politicians "what" are they going to do, not "why" and "how" and so we keep rewarding luck. So the thing is not if politicians did this or that when the pandemic started, the question is if they were motivated by political interest or followed doctors advice. In this case politicians should follow courts decisions.

ls15 5y ago
> he has some cardiac problem but who knows He doesn't. He want's to avoid them. For males under 40 the risk for getting myocarditis is higher than for getting it from covid. That has been discussed on HN.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  If that bothers him perhaps he should stay out of Australia.
  - ls15 5y ago
    That would be ok, if there were an option for him to defend his title somewhere else or at a different time. This way it is like: "Take this vaccine against a strain that is not spreading anymore, that you also already had, while we cannot really prove efficacy against the current dominant strain and where you have a higher risk of side effects than others, or just give up your title. Your choice." They are blackmailing him.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  In the past when your risk of getting the disease was perhaps smaller maybe you could start doing this math. Now that it's clear that everyone will get the disease (multiple times) it's not so easy. Not least because even if you are a "make under 40", you eventually won't be. Besides there are numerous other side effects from the virus than myocarditis. Focusinig on this particular one and ignoring all the others is pretty strange. Relevant passage from the article I believe you are refering to shows that the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups, and second it's not very different in the younger group. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... In males aged less than 40 years, we estimated an additional 3 (95%CI 1, 5) and 12 (95%CI 1, 13) myocarditis events per million in the 1-28 days following a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; an additional 14 (95%CI 8, 17), 12 (95%CI 1, 7) and 101 (95%CI 95, 104) myocarditis events following a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 13 (95%CI 7, 15) myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. This compares with 7 (95%CI 2, 11) additional myocarditis events in the 1-28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In older males, we estimated 3 (95% CI 2, 4) and 73 (95% 71, 75) additional myocarditis events per million following a third dose of BNT162b2 and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively.
  - ls15 5y ago
    > the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups Not by official WHO definitions. 101 in a million is equivalent to 1.01/10,000. With 1/10,000 it falls into the bracket for the definition of "rare", not "very rare" or "extremely rare". I wish the media would use these official definitions. https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_ef...
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Fair enough, I didn't know there was a formal definition of "extremely rare" vs. "rare". But it's "about equally rare" between vax and infection for the healthiest group, and rare for all groups. This is why I think it's so weird to avoid the vaccine due to that risk. It's not like people taking the vax are spinning a roulette wheel with 1/10000 risk of complication, and if they reject the vaccine they don't need to spin it. If that was the case, then I'd understand it.

ls15 5y ago

> he has some cardiac problem but who knows He doesn't. He want's to avoid them. For males under 40 the risk for getting myocarditis is higher than for getting it from covid. That has been discussed on HN.

Gibbon1 5y ago
If that bothers him perhaps he should stay out of Australia.
- ls15 5y ago
  That would be ok, if there were an option for him to defend his title somewhere else or at a different time. This way it is like: "Take this vaccine against a strain that is not spreading anymore, that you also already had, while we cannot really prove efficacy against the current dominant strain and where you have a higher risk of side effects than others, or just give up your title. Your choice." They are blackmailing him.
alkonaut 5y ago
In the past when your risk of getting the disease was perhaps smaller maybe you could start doing this math. Now that it's clear that everyone will get the disease (multiple times) it's not so easy. Not least because even if you are a "make under 40", you eventually won't be. Besides there are numerous other side effects from the virus than myocarditis. Focusinig on this particular one and ignoring all the others is pretty strange. Relevant passage from the article I believe you are refering to shows that the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups, and second it's not very different in the younger group. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... In males aged less than 40 years, we estimated an additional 3 (95%CI 1, 5) and 12 (95%CI 1, 13) myocarditis events per million in the 1-28 days following a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; an additional 14 (95%CI 8, 17), 12 (95%CI 1, 7) and 101 (95%CI 95, 104) myocarditis events following a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 13 (95%CI 7, 15) myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. This compares with 7 (95%CI 2, 11) additional myocarditis events in the 1-28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In older males, we estimated 3 (95% CI 2, 4) and 73 (95% 71, 75) additional myocarditis events per million following a third dose of BNT162b2 and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively.
- ls15 5y ago
  > the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups Not by official WHO definitions. 101 in a million is equivalent to 1.01/10,000. With 1/10,000 it falls into the bracket for the definition of "rare", not "very rare" or "extremely rare". I wish the media would use these official definitions. https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_ef...
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Fair enough, I didn't know there was a formal definition of "extremely rare" vs. "rare". But it's "about equally rare" between vax and infection for the healthiest group, and rare for all groups. This is why I think it's so weird to avoid the vaccine due to that risk. It's not like people taking the vax are spinning a roulette wheel with 1/10000 risk of complication, and if they reject the vaccine they don't need to spin it. If that was the case, then I'd understand it.