3 ms·

>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive

>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people. I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period. And this is just regarding your study. Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots. One can go on endlessly.

estearum 2mo ago
Let's assume that it's correct that "no one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it." (It's not, but let's assume that it is) Was this knowably true in Q1 2021? Can you please share the specific, contemporaneously available information that made this knowably true? If you can't, then it's not "sunk cost" infecting someone else's thinking, it's hindsight bias infecting yours.
lern_too_spel 1mo ago
It was already recommended that healthy young men get the Pfizer vaccine instead of the Moderna vaccine. I'm not sure why you're bringing the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine into this. Keep your conspiracy theories straight.
- Argonaut998 1mo ago
  Until when? At what point? Where exactly? The Astra Zeneca (Oxford) vaccine is relevant because it was taken off the market almost immediately after the effects were found. The technology behind it is utterly irrelevant to the point that I am making. How am I a conspiracy theorist when I literally pointed out what the study said. Is it not a fact that the Oxford vaccine was taken off the market almost immediately after effects were concretely found.
  - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
    Let's get your theory straight. You posit a conspiracy where some cabal kept mRNA vaccines on the market despite harms while removing the AZ vaccine. This theory requires a conspiracy. Hence, conspiracy theory.

estearum 2mo ago

Let's assume that it's correct that "no one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it." (It's not, but let's assume that it is) Was this knowably true in Q1 2021? Can you please share the specific, contemporaneously available information that made this knowably true? If you can't, then it's not "sunk cost" infecting someone else's thinking, it's hindsight bias infecting yours.

lern_too_spel 1mo ago

It was already recommended that healthy young men get the Pfizer vaccine instead of the Moderna vaccine. I'm not sure why you're bringing the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine into this. Keep your conspiracy theories straight.

Argonaut998 1mo ago
Until when? At what point? Where exactly? The Astra Zeneca (Oxford) vaccine is relevant because it was taken off the market almost immediately after the effects were found. The technology behind it is utterly irrelevant to the point that I am making. How am I a conspiracy theorist when I literally pointed out what the study said. Is it not a fact that the Oxford vaccine was taken off the market almost immediately after effects were concretely found.
- lern_too_spel 1mo ago
  Let's get your theory straight. You posit a conspiracy where some cabal kept mRNA vaccines on the market despite harms while removing the AZ vaccine. This theory requires a conspiracy. Hence, conspiracy theory.