4 ms·

Straight from Reuters: NEW YORK, April 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not found a link between heart inflammation

Straight from Reuters: NEW YORK, April 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not found a link between heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines, the agency’s Director Rochelle Walensky said on Tuesday. "We have not seen a signal and we've actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we've given," Walensky said in a press briefing.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
That same article says they were still investigating it, so anybody who isn't a conspiracy theorist trying to rewrite history would read that as "not seen a signal [yet]." > "It is a different demographic than we normally see and we will be working with DOD to understand what is happening in those 14 cases," Walensky said.
- blueyoda 4y ago
  So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout. Shouldn't this have been caught beforehand? How is it ethical to mandate a product whose risks are not even fully known yet? The big issue during the pandemic is that "no evidence that" was treated as "does not exist", especially by social media moderators. So I do agree with your point that the CDC did not explicitly state that such a link does not exist (thank you for pointing that out to me). However, there are times that the CDC was flat out wrong, such as when Walensky initially said that vaccinated individuals cannot spread COVID to others. One day they say the science is settled. The next day they say that science changes according to new data. If that's the case, then I would rather sit back and wait until the science gets settled. I will do my best and follow all recommended guidelines to keep others and myself healthy. However, I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion).
  - themitigating 4y ago
    For 14 cases of millions given?
    - blueyoda 4y ago
      14? I do recall seeing numbers around 1 per 3000-6000 from several studies (I recall one was from Israel, see: "Israel reports link between rare cases of heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccination in young men"). This means that for young men, it is around 166-333 per million. Although anecdotal, I personally know of someone who developed a serious heart condition after vaccination, and their issue was not linked to vaccination by their doctor as they claimed that it just a "coincidence". Not sure how severe symptoms within 24 hours are a coincidence... Regardless, you have the freedom to assess the risk-benefit ratio and make the decision that you deem best for your health. I respect that. However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical. Your employer isn't obligated to pay your higher healthcare costs because you were duped by antivax conspiracy theorists. In fact, your employer can use the fact that you were swayed by those blogs as a signal that your decision-making ability is poor.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID. That's how drug approval has worked from the beginning of time, but the conspiracy theory blogs you read won't tell you that. > I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion). SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine, but instead, you chose to believe conspiracy theories because of your reductionist idea of freedom.
    - blueyoda 4y ago
      > "They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID" COVID has numerous variants. Which variant are you discussing? Indeed, the first variant was serious. But what of the later variants like Omicron? Virtually all research I have read about vaccination risk includes cases from 2020 in their assessment, as opposed to separately comparing vaccination risk to each variant. > "SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine" I'm not sure what you mean here, for I already got COVID and it was extremely mild given that I am young and healthy. The risk-benefit ratio varies for each individual, and note that it also depends on the Covid variant. Why should I get vaccinated when I already have natural immunity, which is at least as good, if not superior, to protection from vaccination (from a peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet)?
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > COVID has numerous variants. Which variant are you discussing? Obviously the variants that were spreading at the time the vaccine was rolled out. Which other variants would they compare it to? > Why should I get vaccinated when I already have natural immunity, I never said you should. I said you made a bad decision by getting infected prior to vaccination.
        blueyoda 4y ago

lern_too_spel 4y ago

That same article says they were still investigating it, so anybody who isn't a conspiracy theorist trying to rewrite history would read that as "not seen a signal [yet]." > "It is a different demographic than we normally see and we will be working with DOD to understand what is happening in those 14 cases," Walensky said.

blueyoda 4y ago
So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout. Shouldn't this have been caught beforehand? How is it ethical to mandate a product whose risks are not even fully known yet? The big issue during the pandemic is that "no evidence that" was treated as "does not exist", especially by social media moderators. So I do agree with your point that the CDC did not explicitly state that such a link does not exist (thank you for pointing that out to me). However, there are times that the CDC was flat out wrong, such as when Walensky initially said that vaccinated individuals cannot spread COVID to others. One day they say the science is settled. The next day they say that science changes according to new data. If that's the case, then I would rather sit back and wait until the science gets settled. I will do my best and follow all recommended guidelines to keep others and myself healthy. However, I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion).
- themitigating 4y ago
  For 14 cases of millions given?
  - blueyoda 4y ago
    14? I do recall seeing numbers around 1 per 3000-6000 from several studies (I recall one was from Israel, see: "Israel reports link between rare cases of heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccination in young men"). This means that for young men, it is around 166-333 per million. Although anecdotal, I personally know of someone who developed a serious heart condition after vaccination, and their issue was not linked to vaccination by their doctor as they claimed that it just a "coincidence". Not sure how severe symptoms within 24 hours are a coincidence... Regardless, you have the freedom to assess the risk-benefit ratio and make the decision that you deem best for your health. I respect that. However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical. Your employer isn't obligated to pay your higher healthcare costs because you were duped by antivax conspiracy theorists. In fact, your employer can use the fact that you were swayed by those blogs as a signal that your decision-making ability is poor.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID. That's how drug approval has worked from the beginning of time, but the conspiracy theory blogs you read won't tell you that. > I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion). SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine, but instead, you chose to believe conspiracy theories because of your reductionist idea of freedom.
  - blueyoda 4y ago
    > "They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID" COVID has numerous variants. Which variant are you discussing? Indeed, the first variant was serious. But what of the later variants like Omicron? Virtually all research I have read about vaccination risk includes cases from 2020 in their assessment, as opposed to separately comparing vaccination risk to each variant. > "SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine" I'm not sure what you mean here, for I already got COVID and it was extremely mild given that I am young and healthy. The risk-benefit ratio varies for each individual, and note that it also depends on the Covid variant. Why should I get vaccinated when I already have natural immunity, which is at least as good, if not superior, to protection from vaccination (from a peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet)?
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > COVID has numerous variants. Which variant are you discussing? Obviously the variants that were spreading at the time the vaccine was rolled out. Which other variants would they compare it to? > Why should I get vaccinated when I already have natural immunity, I never said you should. I said you made a bad decision by getting infected prior to vaccination.
      - blueyoda 4y ago