5 ms·

Statistically, based on the paper you linked longer testing to pick up this side effect would have been the wrong decision. It seems to me that longer testing w

Statistically, based on the paper you linked longer testing to pick up this side effect would have been the wrong decision. It seems to me that longer testing would have caused more deaths than would have prevented RVO. From your paper: Based on the official COVID-19 death reports, it is estimated that vaccinations have prevented 14.4 million excess COVID-19 deaths worldwide between December 2020 and December 202139. Thus, vaccination is the most effective method for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The number of reported ophthalmic complications has remained low, and vaccine-related retinal vascular occlusion is very rare, although the number of COVID-19 vaccinations is enormous.

revelio 3y ago
That paragraph is a logical fallacy. To compute a cost/benefit analysis for something you have to include all the costs, not just one. There are many papers like that one covering many different side effects. Note that there was an attempted discussion of that paper on HN but it was immediately flagged to death. It always happens for every such paper. People still aren't ready to do a full and honest accounting. Probably they never will be.
- Entinel 3y ago
  I want to comment on this because you are phrasing it as if people who got the vaccine are in denial and not wanting to talk about it. Topics like this are hard to discuss because they are immediately polarizing and everyone who has a strong opinion but very little understanding of the science feels the to get their quip in about how right they are and how wrong the other people are. You can especially since it in threads relating celebrity deaths with comments like "well we know what REALLY killed them wink wink"
  - revelio 3y ago
    How else do you interpret insta-flagging any research papers that discuss vaccine injuries, other than people who got it not wanting to talk about it?
- flangola7 3y ago
  People flag conspiratorial antivax comments, news at 11. Personally, I already spent two years dealing with physical threats and violence from antimask/antivax crazies, I'm not about to give them the time of day when they crawl out of the woodwork on the internet.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Like everyone else, you're not reading what you don't want to see. I said people flag stories that are research papers. As in, published by doctors. Not comments, not conspiracies, just collected data. Doesn't matter. People (like you?) flag them anyway to try and keep everyone else at the same intellectual darkness.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Dr Oz and Jordan Peterson are doctors too, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to flag their quackery and words-shaped toxic waste every time I see it. The ability to receive a doctorate and publish a paper does not preclude a person from being an acidic blockhead or from receiving a thusly befitting amount of attention.

revelio 3y ago

That paragraph is a logical fallacy. To compute a cost/benefit analysis for something you have to include all the costs, not just one. There are many papers like that one covering many different side effects. Note that there was an attempted discussion of that paper on HN but it was immediately flagged to death. It always happens for every such paper. People still aren't ready to do a full and honest accounting. Probably they never will be.

Entinel 3y ago
I want to comment on this because you are phrasing it as if people who got the vaccine are in denial and not wanting to talk about it. Topics like this are hard to discuss because they are immediately polarizing and everyone who has a strong opinion but very little understanding of the science feels the to get their quip in about how right they are and how wrong the other people are. You can especially since it in threads relating celebrity deaths with comments like "well we know what REALLY killed them wink wink"
- revelio 3y ago
  How else do you interpret insta-flagging any research papers that discuss vaccine injuries, other than people who got it not wanting to talk about it?
flangola7 3y ago
People flag conspiratorial antivax comments, news at 11. Personally, I already spent two years dealing with physical threats and violence from antimask/antivax crazies, I'm not about to give them the time of day when they crawl out of the woodwork on the internet.
- revelio 3y ago
  Like everyone else, you're not reading what you don't want to see. I said people flag stories that are research papers. As in, published by doctors. Not comments, not conspiracies, just collected data. Doesn't matter. People (like you?) flag them anyway to try and keep everyone else at the same intellectual darkness.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Dr Oz and Jordan Peterson are doctors too, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to flag their quackery and words-shaped toxic waste every time I see it. The ability to receive a doctorate and publish a paper does not preclude a person from being an acidic blockhead or from receiving a thusly befitting amount of attention.