Hacker News Reader

> the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits

This is not true, according to the CDC (as of August 18th) there at least 742 cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis associated with vaccination, potentially upwards of ~1,300 [1].

For males age 16-17 the reporting rate of myopericarditis after 2 doses of Pfizer is 71.5 per 1 million doses administered (0.0071%) [1].

Compared to natural infection, vaccination is likely still a favorable tradeoff for most people. However the tradeoffs are highly dependent on age, health, and gender. Stratifying by these factors is essential for any scientifically accurate discussion of risks.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

Personally, my heart & chest are still recovering from the second Pfizer shot, after having ECG, bloodwork and nearly going to the ER. Wont be getting a booster, thats for damned certain.

I suspect the number to be significantly higher than whats reported.

Literally billions of people around the world have been vaccinated against Coronavirus now. How high can the chance of serious short-term side effects be?

Again, depends on age, condition. I'm currently fighting long COVID symptoms that have showed up after vaccination. I never had COVID, but the vaccine has given me - chronic fatigue - chronic headaches - brain fog. From JJ vaccine.

If you look into the Australia, Canada and Norway data you see that the numbers are higher than initially expected. Serious side effects like TTS were thought to happen around 1 in 100k, but they now think it would be something like 1 in 20 000. Perhaps less, if you account for people that don't even realise they're getting it.

The vaccine are something like 5x reduction in mortality, but they are not perfect.

lol that's the same logic that resulted in 100M passwords and credentials being leaked....again and again and again.....

mistakes are normal, to assume none is truly unfathomably dense....

A large sample size provides more conclusive results than does a small sample size.

In the case of Coronavirus vaccines, the sample size is 1/3 the population of Earth.

If hundreds of millions of vaccinated people were developing heart problems it would be noticeable.

I note you conveniently left out "reported" cases from your sentence. You are citing numbers reported by VAERS which is not at all the same as confirmed cases. Please don't fear-monger on HN.

I cited numbers reported by the CDC who reviewed VAERS reports and determined that a subset met the CDC’s own criteria.

I accurately transcribed facts from an official CDC document, and even linked the source, nothing more. Do you really think that is fear-mongering?

The CDC is actively investigating many of the reports, dismissing them as not confirmed is a bit disingenuous at the very least.

I think parent is commenting here that the CDC is talking about self-reported data. We're not talking about a diagnosis from a doctor. Calling them "confirmed" is just as disingenuous, if I'm understanding the explanations in the slides you link.

Slide 11 appears to say that a large number of cases were hospitalized. If this interpretation is correct, we are talking about a diagnosis from a doctor, not self-reported data.

All the slides say is that there were 700ish reports that met case criteria as reported through VAERS, a self-reporting system. We are not told any information about which case criteria were met (objective vs subjective), comorbidities, reason for presentation (all vital information for a true diagnosis not report). We are not told about degree of hospitalisation or reason for hospitalisation. We are most certainly not given confirmed cases as GP claims, the stringent criteria for which are listed one link deep from the presentation. We are left with a misleading link to a scary-sounding number that is being posted by multiple accounts across HN with nebulous intent and in some cases history of posting blatant misinformation. I feel that calling this practice out when I see it helps if just a little bit.

In this case a look through GP's recent comment history reveals many comments with disinformation and fear-mongering.

Does the link https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7027e2-H.pdf on the same page 11 answer your concerns? That paper (from June) explains in some details what the CDC did, and I would assume that the slides are just an update of the numbers on the paper to a later date. At least the author of the slides was an author of the paper, so I would infer that they kept doing whatever they were doing in June.

One thing that the paper is pretty clear about is that in order to proclaim a "case", the CDC reviewed medical records and interviewed the healthcare provider looking for specific criteria. It seems like all criteria include at least one test, e.g. EKG, in addition to symptoms reported by the patient. It's not like they ran a SQL query over a bunch of dudes reporting chest pain---the CDC did their homework. If anything, I have more confidence in the CDC and the vaccines now than I had before reading these documents.

Of course I read through the link. It did not alter my reading of the slides in the slightest. The simpler tests recommended in the paper are not as objective as you might think. Again, the slides do not give us the information used and the interviews you mention did not happen for entire age categories. I'm glad you have confidence in the CDC and vaccines; GP does not and is actively trying to mislead users of HN. Appreciate the downvotes instead of discussion.

> The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated

Honest question, there were studies about the effect of the vaccine on hospitalizations. But is there any studies about the effect on long covid ? And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?

> I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.

Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it. It is not risk-benefit positive. It is just more aligned with some people feelings. Some people make preventing death as the almost most important things in their life, so they will take drugs, be careful in life and so on. While some people are just ok dying in certain conditions, and are not willing to engage in risk-free life

I don't know of studies directly studying the vaccine for prevention of long covid, but most of the studies coming out seem to indicate that long covid is more likely in severe infections. So since we know the vaccine is good at preventing severe infections, it makes sense that the vaccine would be good at preventing long covid.

I get where you are coming from on the default being not taking medicine. But to me, I just don't see a vaccine as quite the same as medicine. It's basically a training program for your immune system. It tells your immune system what to look for and then when covid does enter your system, it is prepared and your immune system naturally fights it off the same way it always would. It just has a headstart in creating antibodies.

> And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?

If you mean risk of long-covid after getting covid with vs. without the vaccine: of course we don't know, but it's pretty likely the vaccine significantly decreases the chance of long covid. Since long-covid correlates well with infection severity, and the vaccine is particularly good at preventing severe infections.

If you mean the chance of people who already have long-covid recovering after getting vaccinated - it's pretty low.

> Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it.

Ok. But still, "drug" is an arbitrary label, the vaccine consists of mRNA and other compounds which are in your body. I get taking risks and not being over-careful, like I definitely get why lockdowns / even masking in some situations is a bad idea. But the risk of not getting vaccinated is an unnecessary risk, kind of like driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet, except you only have to wear the helmet initially (idk I can't think of a better analogy).

People have a right to take that risk!

The govt has the right to protect public health.

The government does not have rights. In the United States the power resides in the individual citizens. The "government" are individual citizens selected to do the paperwork. When their corruption exceeds our disinterest, they're done.

And yet the majority of those citizens agree with vaccine mandates among other public health measures https://news.uchicago.edu/story/most-americans-support-vacci...

It’s almost like the government is still fulfilling the will of the people!

The government is not meant to be majority rule.

It was explicitly created to prevent majority rule. The Senate acted as a longer term, more stable body to counteract the more popularist House. Originally citizens didn't even vote for Senators, they were appointed by the states themselves.

An entire set of explicit rules restrained what the majority could do (Constitution and Bill of Rights).

Majority rule has a long history of abuses. We shouldn't abandon our system of limiting majority power because of a virus.

lemmie guess... “America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-consti...

“The government wasn’t meant to fulfill the will of the people... it was meant to fulfill the will of my people!”

Minority rule has a much longer and more gruesome history of abuses, and it never ends well for the rulers.

What a straw man argument in that article. "not a democracy" simply refers to avoiding decisions based on the public opinion that sways in the wind, sometimes dramatically. See vaccine and mask mandates.

Umm.. this is why we need civics classes because people Don’t actually understand what the purpose of government is and what we rights we give up to be governed.

We do need much better civics and history classes. We don't "give up rights," and we're not "governed" in this country. Look at the wording of the bill of rights. It's a list of limits on the government.

I think the Supreme Court disagrees with you. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-20/government-...