3 ms·

My friend, I think you are assuming that everyone shares equal risk and that is simply and unequivocally untrue. When biostats does a project, we have to strat

My friend, I think you are assuming that everyone shares equal risk and that is simply and unequivocally untrue. When biostats does a project, we have to stratify our patient comparison groups on age, gender, and sometimes even 'approximate cash' as all of these change risks and outcomes. The outcome for healthy < 40 year olds is vastly different than the outcome for healthy > 60 year olds. The question is not 'is the vaccine better than the infection' - its 'for healthy women in child bearing age, is the impact of a vaccine better than the impact of an infection on their fertility.' I am guessing that you don't have quite the eye roll for this more nuanced question.

moistly 4y ago
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  With all due respect, I am not attempting to be rude with you and it would be nice to be afforded the same courtesy. As bluntly as I can say it - it will be years before we have peer reviewed studies published that detail the effect (or lack thereof) of the vaccines on pregnancy. It is an unknown and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. What we do know, though, is the outcomes of people who have covid stratified by age/race/sex/etc. What we find is that covid is heavily impacted by age and existing comorbidities. If you look at the mortality rate stratified by age alone, you will see drastic outcome differences between < 40 women and > 60 women. To suggest that an injection is always better than possible infection, when we know the outcomes of possible infection on the average person in the 'having a child' demographic, seems disingenuous. Losing a child is a hard thing, losing a child in the womb is hard as well. Trying to have a child before age takes it from you is difficult. Some of us have went through this pain. To laugh off the risks in a group that was not well tested during the vax approval process does not really make me feel good.
  - moistly 4y ago
    With all due respect, you invited the eye roll. There is simply no plausible way for the virus to be less harmful to the population, or even just the ‘having a child’ subpopulation, than the vaccine.
    - dang 4y ago
      Please omit swipes and flamebait from your comments here. They break the site guidelines, and they also discredit what you're arguing for, which is really bad if you happen to be right. You can make your substantive points without any of that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - moistly 4y ago
        You wouldn’t happen to be anti-vax, would you? Because holy cow, you sure are allowing the anti-vax, fear-promoting front page posts to proliferate these days, which only encourages loons to brigade the site and downvote any comment that counters their bullshit narrative. Your toleration for anti-vax nuttery serves to encourage it. It’s a variation of Popper’s maxim.
        dang 4y ago
        We moderate accounts that break HN's rules regardless of what they're arguing for, and regardless of how right they are or feel they are. Being right is no license to break the rules. Quite the contrary—the more right you are, the more responsibility you have. Routinely, when people see moderation happening to accounts they happen to agree with, they overlook and excuse how those accounts were breaking the rules (no matter how extreme it was!) and jump to the conclusion that the mods must secretly be in cahoots with the other side. Of course, the other side feels exactly the same way. It's cognitive bias in both cases. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
        4y ago

moistly 4y ago

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
With all due respect, I am not attempting to be rude with you and it would be nice to be afforded the same courtesy. As bluntly as I can say it - it will be years before we have peer reviewed studies published that detail the effect (or lack thereof) of the vaccines on pregnancy. It is an unknown and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. What we do know, though, is the outcomes of people who have covid stratified by age/race/sex/etc. What we find is that covid is heavily impacted by age and existing comorbidities. If you look at the mortality rate stratified by age alone, you will see drastic outcome differences between < 40 women and > 60 women. To suggest that an injection is always better than possible infection, when we know the outcomes of possible infection on the average person in the 'having a child' demographic, seems disingenuous. Losing a child is a hard thing, losing a child in the womb is hard as well. Trying to have a child before age takes it from you is difficult. Some of us have went through this pain. To laugh off the risks in a group that was not well tested during the vax approval process does not really make me feel good.
- moistly 4y ago
  With all due respect, you invited the eye roll. There is simply no plausible way for the virus to be less harmful to the population, or even just the ‘having a child’ subpopulation, than the vaccine.
  - dang 4y ago
    Please omit swipes and flamebait from your comments here. They break the site guidelines, and they also discredit what you're arguing for, which is really bad if you happen to be right. You can make your substantive points without any of that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - moistly 4y ago
      You wouldn’t happen to be anti-vax, would you? Because holy cow, you sure are allowing the anti-vax, fear-promoting front page posts to proliferate these days, which only encourages loons to brigade the site and downvote any comment that counters their bullshit narrative. Your toleration for anti-vax nuttery serves to encourage it. It’s a variation of Popper’s maxim.
      - dang 4y ago
        We moderate accounts that break HN's rules regardless of what they're arguing for, and regardless of how right they are or feel they are. Being right is no license to break the rules. Quite the contrary—the more right you are, the more responsibility you have. Routinely, when people see moderation happening to accounts they happen to agree with, they overlook and excuse how those accounts were breaking the rules (no matter how extreme it was!) and jump to the conclusion that the mods must secretly be in cahoots with the other side. Of course, the other side feels exactly the same way. It's cognitive bias in both cases. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
        4y ago