4 ms·

Vaccines in general is probably one of the most important discoveries of modern science but i find it quite bizarre that people put so much trust into a very un

Vaccines in general is probably one of the most important discoveries of modern science but i find it quite bizarre that people put so much trust into a very unique fasttracked process and pharma companies that have a very visible history of deception and fraud. 7 pharma companies got "reprimanded" by the EU after the last 2010 flu pandemic because of astroturfing and "using a crisis to profit from vaccines" that the EU didn't need. Personally, though double vaxxed, i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.

unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
[dead]
chimprich 4y ago
> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.
- mikem170 4y ago
  Somebody elsewhere posted this reference: > But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0] [0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
  - chimprich 4y ago
    That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite: "The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows." The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      > That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. The original post you replied to said: > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. > It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August. The fact that this is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit. Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected. > The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine. Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against? Maybe you wanted more specifics?
      - 4y ago
- collyw 4y ago
  This wasn't what we were promised. Especially in the younger age groups. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
collyw 4y ago
Try hygiene and sewerage systems.

unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago

[dead]

chimprich 4y ago

> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.

mikem170 4y ago
Somebody elsewhere posted this reference: > But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0] [0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
- chimprich 4y ago
  That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite: "The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows." The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    > That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. The original post you replied to said: > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. > It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August. The fact that this is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit. Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected. > The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine. Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against? Maybe you wanted more specifics?
    - 4y ago
collyw 4y ago
This wasn't what we were promised. Especially in the younger age groups. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

collyw 4y ago

Try hygiene and sewerage systems.