Hacker News Reader

Comment by ifyoubuildit | Hacker News Reader

So this shows a short window of time where a seronaive person had higher risk of myocarditis after getting covid than if they first got the shot, right? *

That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots?

* I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). That we see a signal at all in those conditions is frightening.

View on HN

> * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc).

None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.

I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them.

There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally.

edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.

> None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.

That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do).

> There's no grand conspiracy

I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists?

Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.

> I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines.

No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.

I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.

> Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.

No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.

My argument is much simpler than what you are reading: in a world where you get punished for doing a thing (even rightly so), less of that thing will happen. In our world, people are punished for saying things less than positive about vaccines (you can make the argument that this is a good thing, but you can't argue that this isn't true).

I'm making no claim on whether or not you should be punished for saying less than positive things about vaccines, I'm not making any claims about shadowy forces making this true. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact true.

This and only this is my argument. If you think that is downright insane or has no logical basis, well there isn't much else for me to say.

BTW, in case you missed it, I was somewhat convinced by your point that maybe this doesn't impact metrics like we are discussing above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com