9 ms·

What about those that took the vaccine?

by azth 5y ago

blueline 5y ago
> This study was done before vaccination was widely available. Is there any indication that, for example, breakthrough infections would have a different result long term? > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that publicly as soon as we can.
- smegsicle 5y ago
  neat! that first quoted line has css text-transform:uppercase in the article, so firefox copies as original, lowercase text, but chromium copies as all caps!
lapetitejort 5y ago
> THIS STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE VACCINATION WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE. IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT RESULT LONG TERM? > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that publicly as soon as we can.
exo-pla-net 5y ago
If you're referring to cases of myocarditis caused by vaccination itself, the cases are negligible: 2.3 per 100,000 [1]. Compare that with the apparent near-certainty of heart damage (and likely brain damage) if you contract COVID while being unvaccinated, and the decision to not get vaccinated is not just selfish but self-destructive. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
- vikingerik 5y ago
  Heart damage from Covid is nothing like a "near-certainty". The vast majority don't experience it, upwards of 95% depending on the study. Framing this as "near-certainty" or "spares no one" is irresponsible fear-mongering.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    The study is not saying that 95% of people who get COVID do not experience heart damage. It is only saying that 95% of people who get COVID did not have a heart-related acute event in the time period examined. That doesn't mean they had no heart damage at all. Their hearts were not directly examined. The point of this study was to assess whether people who have had COVID are at increased risk for heart-related problems (and the conclusion was that yes, they are), not to assess what percentage of them had actual heart damage.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    95% is not a "vast majority"; that's 5% of the population with quantifiable degradation in heart function. I fear for the catastrophe it will cause 20 years down the line in increased disease burden.
  - exo-pla-net 5y ago
    Near-certainty is literally the finding of the linked article. You're confusing your numbers. Heart damage != heart attacks.
  - runako 5y ago
    This claim really requires a citation of some sort. In particular, > don't experience it is reckless, given that we know the vast majority of heart disease is undiagnosed until there are symptoms.
- j16sdiz 5y ago
  It's 1 in 10,000 according to NHS's vaccine factsheet.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  > near-certainty of heart damage (and likely brain damage) if you contract COVID while being unvaccinated This is the first I've seen it presented as a near-certainty. Where is this documented?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I think they are referring to the paper in the OP.
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      There is no indication that vaccination changes that. You still get it and and if i had to guess, lung antibodies will likely help as much for heart problems as they do for upper respiratory symptoms.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        There's no indication either way because the reseach was done before widespread vaccination. > if i had to guess Your guesses are worthless (as are mine), unless you have some expertise. The last thing we need is more BS on the Internet about Coronavirus.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
        drugstorecowboy 5y ago
        Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Please knock it off with the "selfish" nonsense. Even if everyone got vaccinated, the virus would still get passed around. Then, when the next variant inevitably arises, and everyone's immunity wears off, we're back at square one. The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this point.
  - usefulcat 5y ago
    You have a valid point, but hospital beds are still a finite resource. So in that sense, yeah, it is selfish to not get vaccinated in the absence of other mitigating factors, since vaccination prevents hospitalization in a large majority of cases.
    - EricE 5y ago
      What's even more selfish is not treating COVID but just telling people to wait until it is bad enough to go into the hospital before doing anything, when we absolutely knew very early on that anyone going on a ventilator was essentially a 50/50 death sentence. Keeping everyone off of ventilators at all costs should have been the number one goal instead of futilely trying to stop the spread of a highly contagious arial virus that is in the same family as the common cold. I know few people who would think you were rational if you prescribed any of the COVID "solutions" to try to prevent cold viruses - yet somehow we were going to be effective with COVID? What's beyond evil is demonizing any treatment other than vaccination - but that's still going on even today, as evidenced by posts like yours. I got COVID and was (and still am) unvaccinated, yet I did not get anywhere near a hospital; and that is what happened to just about anyone who wasn't in one of the well known and well understood risk groups. Treating everyone the same instead of focusing on those most at risk was and still is particularly dumb, but here we are with people like you still making completely baseless claims that are certainly not backed by any actual medical science. Before baselessly judging everyone else as selfish you might want to spend more time looking in a mirror.
      - usefulcat 5y ago
        What I'm saying is that maybe some people who have been hospitalized due to covid wouldn't be in the hospital if they had gotten vaccinated. Hospital beds are not an unlimited resource, and there are plenty of other conditions apart from covid that may also require hospitalization. I genuinely fail to see what is unreasonable, selfish or factually wrong about any of the above statements.

What about those that took the vaccine?

by azth 5y ago

What about those that took the vaccine?

> This study was done before vaccination was widely available. Is there any indication that, for example, breakthrough infections would have a different result long term? > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that publicly as soon as we can.

smegsicle 5y ago
neat! that first quoted line has css text-transform:uppercase in the article, so firefox copies as original, lowercase text, but chromium copies as all caps!

lapetitejort 5y ago

> THIS STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE VACCINATION WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE. IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT RESULT LONG TERM? > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that publicly as soon as we can.

exo-pla-net 5y ago

If you're referring to cases of myocarditis caused by vaccination itself, the cases are negligible: 2.3 per 100,000 [1]. Compare that with the apparent near-certainty of heart damage (and likely brain damage) if you contract COVID while being unvaccinated, and the decision to not get vaccinated is not just selfish but self-destructive. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737

vikingerik 5y ago
Heart damage from Covid is nothing like a "near-certainty". The vast majority don't experience it, upwards of 95% depending on the study. Framing this as "near-certainty" or "spares no one" is irresponsible fear-mongering.
- pdonis 5y ago
  The study is not saying that 95% of people who get COVID do not experience heart damage. It is only saying that 95% of people who get COVID did not have a heart-related acute event in the time period examined. That doesn't mean they had no heart damage at all. Their hearts were not directly examined. The point of this study was to assess whether people who have had COVID are at increased risk for heart-related problems (and the conclusion was that yes, they are), not to assess what percentage of them had actual heart damage.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  95% is not a "vast majority"; that's 5% of the population with quantifiable degradation in heart function. I fear for the catastrophe it will cause 20 years down the line in increased disease burden.
- exo-pla-net 5y ago
  Near-certainty is literally the finding of the linked article. You're confusing your numbers. Heart damage != heart attacks.
- runako 5y ago
  This claim really requires a citation of some sort. In particular, > don't experience it is reckless, given that we know the vast majority of heart disease is undiagnosed until there are symptoms.
j16sdiz 5y ago
It's 1 in 10,000 according to NHS's vaccine factsheet.
andrew_ 5y ago
> near-certainty of heart damage (and likely brain damage) if you contract COVID while being unvaccinated This is the first I've seen it presented as a near-certainty. Where is this documented?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I think they are referring to the paper in the OP.
  - cf141q5325 5y ago
    There is no indication that vaccination changes that. You still get it and and if i had to guess, lung antibodies will likely help as much for heart problems as they do for upper respiratory symptoms.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      There's no indication either way because the reseach was done before widespread vaccination. > if i had to guess Your guesses are worthless (as are mine), unless you have some expertise. The last thing we need is more BS on the Internet about Coronavirus.
      - cf141q5325 5y ago
        Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
        drugstorecowboy 5y ago
        Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
the_doctah 5y ago
Please knock it off with the "selfish" nonsense. Even if everyone got vaccinated, the virus would still get passed around. Then, when the next variant inevitably arises, and everyone's immunity wears off, we're back at square one. The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this point.
- usefulcat 5y ago
  You have a valid point, but hospital beds are still a finite resource. So in that sense, yeah, it is selfish to not get vaccinated in the absence of other mitigating factors, since vaccination prevents hospitalization in a large majority of cases.
  - EricE 5y ago
    What's even more selfish is not treating COVID but just telling people to wait until it is bad enough to go into the hospital before doing anything, when we absolutely knew very early on that anyone going on a ventilator was essentially a 50/50 death sentence. Keeping everyone off of ventilators at all costs should have been the number one goal instead of futilely trying to stop the spread of a highly contagious arial virus that is in the same family as the common cold. I know few people who would think you were rational if you prescribed any of the COVID "solutions" to try to prevent cold viruses - yet somehow we were going to be effective with COVID? What's beyond evil is demonizing any treatment other than vaccination - but that's still going on even today, as evidenced by posts like yours. I got COVID and was (and still am) unvaccinated, yet I did not get anywhere near a hospital; and that is what happened to just about anyone who wasn't in one of the well known and well understood risk groups. Treating everyone the same instead of focusing on those most at risk was and still is particularly dumb, but here we are with people like you still making completely baseless claims that are certainly not backed by any actual medical science. Before baselessly judging everyone else as selfish you might want to spend more time looking in a mirror.
    - usefulcat 5y ago
      What I'm saying is that maybe some people who have been hospitalized due to covid wouldn't be in the hospital if they had gotten vaccinated. Hospital beds are not an unlimited resource, and there are plenty of other conditions apart from covid that may also require hospitalization. I genuinely fail to see what is unreasonable, selfish or factually wrong about any of the above statements.