5 ms·

Nothing is free. Some things are just paid for in other ways like taxes, debt, and inflation. Also, I know zero people personally who've been seeiously affecte

Nothing is free. Some things are just paid for in other ways like taxes, debt, and inflation. Also, I know zero people personally who've been seeiously affected by COVID. However,I personally know one pro vaccine person who was hospitalized by a heart attack immediately after his third shot. To date there has only been a single prospective study on post vaccination myocarditis: https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 The study estimates that risk of myocarditis is much, much higher than previously reported. We simply don't have the data because reporting has not been stringent and no one is doing the appropriate research: https://youtu.be/2mWZY6vmdBM https://youtu.be/2mWZY6vmdBM

spoils19 4y ago
This is the salient point here. Despite the data showing effectiveness of vaccines, all it takes is one personal connection to have a negative response to make me swear to never take one again. Much like this user, I think the pandemic was a blessing in disguise to show me who the real free thinkers are, and who is simply a sheep following what others say is best.
- pupppet 4y ago
  Are you a sheep if those 'others' are the majority of medical professionals?
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    It depends? Medical professionals are certainly not some kind of infallible bloc. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand washing before delivering babies, was mocked and derided by doctors at the time. Then there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252712000854 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
dickersnoodle 4y ago
From the abstract: "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." And as for your example, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote", so saying you don't know anyone who's been seriously affected by COVID isn't very clear. How many people do you know who have had it? How do you know they weren't seriously affected by COVID? Were they related, or were they random individuals? Sampling error is a real thing. 2) Correlation does not equal causation. One person hospitalized with a heart attack after his third shot could be due to lots of things, including random chance or a hidden heart condition that was just pushed over the edge by his body's immune response to the vaccine.
- madman2890 4y ago
  Actually, the risk is stratified by age. With this entire pandemic, risk has been stratified by age, co-morbidities, etc. If you're a male under 40 years old your risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccines. Not to mention, if you don't have co-morbidities, your risk of death from COVID is quite low. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, really. According to a linked study (ahajournals.org link), risk of cardiac related issues from vaccine for males under 40, like myself, is 1/10000 or 0.0001. Risk of cardiac related issues from covid-19 for males under 40 is about 0.0000016, so about a factor of 6 lower risk. Additionally, as we know from more recent studies, especially with the Kraken XBB variant, vaccines offer virtually no protection and almost everyone will get infected. So we can code probability of infection post-vaccination and post-natural infection as equal for the sake of simplicity. Additionally, there is a growing body of research discussing reinfection issues during a subsequent infection by vaccination status, and the latest numbers I extracted from the paper are coded below. In summary, for me, a 32 year old male, we get the following risks profiles: vaccine risk = P(problem | vaccine, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | vaccine immunity) * P(problem second infection | vaccine immunity) vaccine risk = 0.0001 * 0.95 * 0.51 vaccine risk = 0.000004845 natural immunity risk = P(problem | covid-19, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | natural immunity) * P(problem second infection | natural immunity) natural immunity risk = 0.0000016 * 0.95 * 0.47 natural immunity risk = 0.00000007144 vaccine risk vs. natural risk Vaccine 67X more risky than natural route (FOR ME) Myocarditis risk vaccines vs. natural immunity males under 40: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.1... XBB 1.5 Kraken likelihood of infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/ Serious issues associated with subsequent infection by vaccination status: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(22)00287-7/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." The sample size of the study was far too small to estimate risk of serious illness, and, if you took the time to read the study, you would know that already. The point was to estimate the overall risk of myocarditis using a prospective study and compare it to contemporary estimates, and, unsurprisingly, the study showed that the risk may be much, much higher than currently reported. > "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote Thanks for the unneeded lecture! Notice that I: 1) supplied a study with data to back up my anecdote. 2) pointed out that there is actually a dearth of high-quality data which would prevent anyone from concluding anything in either direction based on data alone. 3) The prospective study I linked already addressed correlation versus causation. It looks to me like, when you see scientific evidence that contradicts your current biases, you reach for some very weak tools to try to justify ignoring the evidence. That's not surprising, frankly. Most people are that way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

spoils19 4y ago

This is the salient point here. Despite the data showing effectiveness of vaccines, all it takes is one personal connection to have a negative response to make me swear to never take one again. Much like this user, I think the pandemic was a blessing in disguise to show me who the real free thinkers are, and who is simply a sheep following what others say is best.

pupppet 4y ago
Are you a sheep if those 'others' are the majority of medical professionals?
- VagueMag 4y ago
  It depends? Medical professionals are certainly not some kind of infallible bloc. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand washing before delivering babies, was mocked and derided by doctors at the time. Then there's this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252712000854 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

dickersnoodle 4y ago

From the abstract: "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." And as for your example, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote", so saying you don't know anyone who's been seriously affected by COVID isn't very clear. How many people do you know who have had it? How do you know they weren't seriously affected by COVID? Were they related, or were they random individuals? Sampling error is a real thing. 2) Correlation does not equal causation. One person hospitalized with a heart attack after his third shot could be due to lots of things, including random chance or a hidden heart condition that was just pushed over the edge by his body's immune response to the vaccine.

madman2890 4y ago
Actually, the risk is stratified by age. With this entire pandemic, risk has been stratified by age, co-morbidities, etc. If you're a male under 40 years old your risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccines. Not to mention, if you don't have co-morbidities, your risk of death from COVID is quite low. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, really. According to a linked study (ahajournals.org link), risk of cardiac related issues from vaccine for males under 40, like myself, is 1/10000 or 0.0001. Risk of cardiac related issues from covid-19 for males under 40 is about 0.0000016, so about a factor of 6 lower risk. Additionally, as we know from more recent studies, especially with the Kraken XBB variant, vaccines offer virtually no protection and almost everyone will get infected. So we can code probability of infection post-vaccination and post-natural infection as equal for the sake of simplicity. Additionally, there is a growing body of research discussing reinfection issues during a subsequent infection by vaccination status, and the latest numbers I extracted from the paper are coded below. In summary, for me, a 32 year old male, we get the following risks profiles: vaccine risk = P(problem | vaccine, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | vaccine immunity) * P(problem second infection | vaccine immunity) vaccine risk = 0.0001 * 0.95 * 0.51 vaccine risk = 0.000004845 natural immunity risk = P(problem | covid-19, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | natural immunity) * P(problem second infection | natural immunity) natural immunity risk = 0.0000016 * 0.95 * 0.47 natural immunity risk = 0.00000007144 vaccine risk vs. natural risk Vaccine 67X more risky than natural route (FOR ME) Myocarditis risk vaccines vs. natural immunity males under 40: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.1... XBB 1.5 Kraken likelihood of infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/ Serious issues associated with subsequent infection by vaccination status: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(22)00287-7/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." The sample size of the study was far too small to estimate risk of serious illness, and, if you took the time to read the study, you would know that already. The point was to estimate the overall risk of myocarditis using a prospective study and compare it to contemporary estimates, and, unsurprisingly, the study showed that the risk may be much, much higher than currently reported. > "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote Thanks for the unneeded lecture! Notice that I: 1) supplied a study with data to back up my anecdote. 2) pointed out that there is actually a dearth of high-quality data which would prevent anyone from concluding anything in either direction based on data alone. 3) The prospective study I linked already addressed correlation versus causation. It looks to me like, when you see scientific evidence that contradicts your current biases, you reach for some very weak tools to try to justify ignoring the evidence. That's not surprising, frankly. Most people are that way.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]