4 ms·

I can’t believe there is going to be a serious conversation that this is vaccine caused vs. virus caused when we know the virus attacks many of these systems an

I can’t believe there is going to be a serious conversation that this is vaccine caused vs. virus caused when we know the virus attacks many of these systems and were getting data back now that 12 month post infection has caused massive cardiac problems for unvaccinated. By all means, prove it out…but it’s a complete delusion to start with the shot vs. the virus.

roenxi 5y ago
It is unlikely to be the vaccine. This is probably some combination of hospital overload with a small dose of the lock-downs, business closures and mass firing of workers.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  When you say "unlikely," do you mean according to your Bayesian priors or according to an analysis you'd like to share with us?
  - shlant 5y ago
    (not original commenter) according to all the best data we have on the safety profiles of the vaccines, and the data we have on covid, it would make much more sense for it to be covid. This is on the front page right now: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      I'm skeptical that there's such a thing as "best data" when clinical trials were intentionally rushed. Don't misunderstand me, I supported and continue to support Operation Warp Speed and I'm glad we got a vaccine quickly. But let's not now pretend that we have the same kind of data fidelity we normally get with more carefully vetted vaccines.
      - shlant 5y ago
        nothing about the trials were "rushed" in a way that compromised quality. Please stop parroting that talking point. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines-rushed https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines...
        torstenvl 5y ago
        I'm not parroting a talking point, and personal attacks are inappropriate. None of the assertions on the propaganda page you linked changes the simple and indisputable fact that it's impossible to know what effects something will have in a longer timeline unless your study covers a longer timeline. Science has no room for claims of being psychic. EDIT: To be clear, the page is propaganda because it (a) is intended to influence public opinion and (b) is clearly dishonest, in that the concern is about the abbreviated clinical trials, but none of the explanations address the length of clinical trials.
        shlant 5y ago
        from one parroted talking point to another... not surprising considering your use of the word "propaganda". No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible as the components of the vaccines are all broken down and eliminated by the body in weeks. At what timeline would be be satisfied that there are no long term effects and what would that be based on?
        torstenvl 5y ago
        Let me know when you can engage without making personal attacks. I'm interested in discussing the science and policy, not having a flamewar. > No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. The OP is about adverse events in a timeline less than a year from the availability of the vaccines. Whether there's any link is an open question. > There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible That is patently false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      You will never convince the people that want it to be the vaccine. Do I know that the vaccine could possibly have side effects? sure, maybe, highly unlikely though. These articles on questionable sites like most of the right wing pundit machine, I just have lots of experience with, and they are quick to insight fear and slow to correct their information as new information comes out.
- codechad 5y ago
agentgumshoe 5y ago
Can you share a study showing where Covid is responsible for such rises in this particular age bracket? As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid, so is it not worth properly investigating the vaccines and other stress factors (lockdowns etc)? It is only delusional to start with something outside Covid if the data on Covid reflects the 40% clearly already.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid When people say things like "not a high risk group for covid" it's shorthand for "not at immediate risk of serious respiratory covid symptoms should they contract the virus." It doesn't say anything about longer-term impacts (nor, confusingly for some people I guess, transmission); for that you need, well, studies like this. (But without the antivax scam noise around it.)
  - agentgumshoe 5y ago
    It's an interesting thing though that I often see these two views provided simultaneously: > Long Covid symptoms are most likely caused by Covid (even if barely symptomatic from the initial infection! - example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asymptomatic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asympto...). > Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine, but stress, hospital restrictions, lockdowns, prior infections, less exercise, bad diet, etc. Not really a consistent baseline or set of controls there.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      The control part is an interesting problem. If everyone gets vaccinated we have no control group. Which would be helpful for long term comparisons on outcomes.
    - morelisp 5y ago
      > "Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine" Nobody says this. Vaccine side effects are of course the vaccine, by definition. Stop obfuscating what you really mean, which is "an enormously broad range of symptoms present in people who took the vaccine, and also many who did not, which no serious medical professional will attribute completely to a vaccination." But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that: It's perfectly consistent if you believe that COVID is poorly-understood and mutating, and the vaccines are well-understood and consistent over time. Which are both true.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Welcome to the 21st century. It’s a lot like the 19th.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 5y ago

It is unlikely to be the vaccine. This is probably some combination of hospital overload with a small dose of the lock-downs, business closures and mass firing of workers.

torstenvl 5y ago
When you say "unlikely," do you mean according to your Bayesian priors or according to an analysis you'd like to share with us?
- shlant 5y ago
  (not original commenter) according to all the best data we have on the safety profiles of the vaccines, and the data we have on covid, it would make much more sense for it to be covid. This is on the front page right now: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    I'm skeptical that there's such a thing as "best data" when clinical trials were intentionally rushed. Don't misunderstand me, I supported and continue to support Operation Warp Speed and I'm glad we got a vaccine quickly. But let's not now pretend that we have the same kind of data fidelity we normally get with more carefully vetted vaccines.
    - shlant 5y ago
      nothing about the trials were "rushed" in a way that compromised quality. Please stop parroting that talking point. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines-rushed https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines...
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        I'm not parroting a talking point, and personal attacks are inappropriate. None of the assertions on the propaganda page you linked changes the simple and indisputable fact that it's impossible to know what effects something will have in a longer timeline unless your study covers a longer timeline. Science has no room for claims of being psychic. EDIT: To be clear, the page is propaganda because it (a) is intended to influence public opinion and (b) is clearly dishonest, in that the concern is about the abbreviated clinical trials, but none of the explanations address the length of clinical trials.
        shlant 5y ago
        from one parroted talking point to another... not surprising considering your use of the word "propaganda". No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible as the components of the vaccines are all broken down and eliminated by the body in weeks. At what timeline would be be satisfied that there are no long term effects and what would that be based on?
        torstenvl 5y ago
        Let me know when you can engage without making personal attacks. I'm interested in discussing the science and policy, not having a flamewar. > No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. The OP is about adverse events in a timeline less than a year from the availability of the vaccines. Whether there's any link is an open question. > There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible That is patently false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    You will never convince the people that want it to be the vaccine. Do I know that the vaccine could possibly have side effects? sure, maybe, highly unlikely though. These articles on questionable sites like most of the right wing pundit machine, I just have lots of experience with, and they are quick to insight fear and slow to correct their information as new information comes out.
codechad 5y ago

agentgumshoe 5y ago

Can you share a study showing where Covid is responsible for such rises in this particular age bracket? As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid, so is it not worth properly investigating the vaccines and other stress factors (lockdowns etc)? It is only delusional to start with something outside Covid if the data on Covid reflects the 40% clearly already.

morelisp 5y ago
> As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid When people say things like "not a high risk group for covid" it's shorthand for "not at immediate risk of serious respiratory covid symptoms should they contract the virus." It doesn't say anything about longer-term impacts (nor, confusingly for some people I guess, transmission); for that you need, well, studies like this. (But without the antivax scam noise around it.)
- agentgumshoe 5y ago
  It's an interesting thing though that I often see these two views provided simultaneously: > Long Covid symptoms are most likely caused by Covid (even if barely symptomatic from the initial infection! - example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asymptomatic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asympto...). > Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine, but stress, hospital restrictions, lockdowns, prior infections, less exercise, bad diet, etc. Not really a consistent baseline or set of controls there.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    The control part is an interesting problem. If everyone gets vaccinated we have no control group. Which would be helpful for long term comparisons on outcomes.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > "Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine" Nobody says this. Vaccine side effects are of course the vaccine, by definition. Stop obfuscating what you really mean, which is "an enormously broad range of symptoms present in people who took the vaccine, and also many who did not, which no serious medical professional will attribute completely to a vaccination." But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that: It's perfectly consistent if you believe that COVID is poorly-understood and mutating, and the vaccines are well-understood and consistent over time. Which are both true.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

Welcome to the 21st century. It’s a lot like the 19th.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]