4 ms·
I can add my experience to this thread, as I was diagnosed with "atypical" pericarditis a little over a week after my first Pfizer shot. This started with ches
by shingle 4y ago
I can add my experience to this thread, as I was diagnosed with "atypical" pericarditis a little over a week after my first Pfizer shot.
This started with chest pains, gradually increasing over the course of a day or two before I went to the hospital. I had to ask them to test for myopericarditis, because they were pretty much only considering an embolism or a panic attack. In that sense I was lucky that I had read a paper a month or so before, indicating young men (such as myself) as having an increased risk after Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccination. After diagnosis I had to go through a 3-month medication regimen which, I'll be honest, wasn't all that fun for my intestinal tract.
Thankfully I was deemed healthy after half a year, with low probability of lasting damage. Yet, the psychological weight of being confronted with heart disease in your mid-twenties is heavy. My opinions on vaccinations haven't really changed, though I think the legal and societal pressure to get everyone vaccinated was out of line and that opinion has gotten stronger. Especially after knowing that vaccination doesn't affects transmission as much as they hoped, I expected them to focus much more heavily on the at-risk groups, but that didn't happen.
The worst part about all of this though is the obstinate denial my cardiologists had of any possible relation between my Pfizer shot and the pericarditis. They'd point to the fact that young men can develop myopericarditis without vaccination. This is true, though it's almost always the result of an infection, and in my region of the world the vast majority of these cases result from flu infections. However, when I had my diagnosis there were barely any flu cases in the country, it just wasn't the season, and most of all I wasn't ill. Pointing to the close proximity to the vaccination was met with immediate and absolute denial.
I think that's what bothered me most: I did my part, I tried to protect society by getting a shot, but when confronted with negative fall-out I had to fight for a diagnosis and was pretty much laughed out of the room for suggesting a relation to the booster. I don't think I've processed this yet. It really feels like I did everything I was told, giving up much of my hobbies, social life etc., but when my health was on the line... "Ho pal, can't be saying anything that could be contorted into criticism of vaccination".
Little of it seemed "fair".
- oliv__ 4y ago
- shingle 4y agoI understand where you're coming from, I really do. It's rough to give up personal liberties for the "greater good", even though we already do on a daily basis. You can't run red light, you can't dodge taxes, ... I don't think there was much malice in these new COVID-related laws. Sure there was some cronyism for financial gain in their execution, but that's not the point. I think they were motivated by an seemingly ever-increasing aversion to any form of risk and responsibility, both on governmental as well as societal level. I'd love to understand and internally evaluate every law and practice that is put upon me, take my own responsibilities based on a thorough understanding of the issue. However, the world has grown too complex for any individual to understand why we are supposed to do the things that we are told to. It has become impossible to even be aware of every law. I don't know what the "solution" to this extreme risk aversion is. I wonder if there is some historical precedent of a society undergoing the same tendencies and how that eventually got solved. Or didn't.
- mach1ne 4y ago>I think that's what bothered me most: I did my part, I tried to protect society by getting a shot, but when confronted with negative fall-out I had to fight for a diagnosis and was pretty much laughed out of the room for suggesting a relation to the booster. I don't think I've processed this yet. I recently came to believe that it's not accurate to model random humans as reflections of self. Situations like this make much more sense if you think the humans to be not much more but nodes of some greater societal 'meme' (as in infectious idea/ideology). Almost everyone is such a node in almost every respect. Better to drop the belief that you're operating in a world of copies of yourself, and rather embrace the model that you're operating in a world of memes, the nodes of which the people around you are. At least when it comes to explaining behavior which you have trouble understanding.
- nonethewiser 4y agoThat's a complicated way of saying "people are individuals."
- mach1ne 4y agoNo, that's the opposite of what I'm saying.