Hacker News Reader

Comment by CodeWriter23 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The cut-off date of the analysed data was 2019.

Interesting. So they’re not looking at those at all.

Beware, the commentator is now going to argue that the covid vaccines were somehow secretly injected before 2020, because, you know, it was part of "The Plan (tm) (patent pending)"

> Beware, the commentator is now going to argue that the covid vaccines were somehow secretly injected before 2020, because, you know, it was part of "The Plan (tm) (patent pending)"

Did you read the HN guidelines?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think you comment is simply trying to discredit the "commentator" based on things he/she has not said, trying to make him/her look bad.

>based on things he/she has not said, trying to make him/her look bad.

They're making themselves look bad, and you're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who holds a belief that has long been established absolutely does not warrant the assumption of good faith.

Fair enough. (Sure, I read the guidelines, but that does not mean I'm immune to failing once in a while ;) )

If that were the case you would see rising rates of cancer across all cohorts.

That isn't necessarily true. Unless there are new data refuting the stuff from a year or two ago, vaccine related myocarditis was higher specifically in men under the age of 40.

Exposing a broad population to an intervention does not mean that everyone will be impacted by side effects similarly.

What makes you say that? Wasn't myocarditis mostly a problem for young men for example? Narcolepsy from the H1N1 vaccine was similar, you needed very specific genetics to get it. The body is complex.

"The body is complex"

Yet here you are on hacker news pretending that you understand it without giving any evidence to backup your assumptions.

They are not assumptions and I'm not here to publish a paper. I'm asking for clarification on a statement. Are you also trying to tell me genetics, lifestyle and basically any difference we humans have can't affect side-effects? What data do you have for that ridiculous claim?

You raise this as if there isn't a plethora of evidence pointing to an increased risk of myocarditis in men under 40 receiving at least one Covid vaccine. There's plant of confusing data out there on both sides of the Covid debate, but this isn't one of them.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...

"Myocarditis risk significantly higher after COVID-19 infection vs. after a COVID-19 vaccine"

I hope you realize this is the title of the link you posted?

Among nearly 43 million people in England, ages 13 and older, who received at least one dose and up to 3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, fewer than 3,000 people (0.007%) were hospitalized or died with myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, during the study period of December 1, 2020 through December 15, 2021.

So in other words, you're going to get Covid19 anyway, which means you might get myocarditis, yet getting the vaccines means you will get less sick overall, so statistically speaking, the vaccine is the smarter choice.

I can't believe we're still talking about this.

Your risk of getting sick is far lower than it is driving to the store, why not advocate for banning cars?

My point, though, wasn't comparing risks with and without the vaccine. I user it only as a very recent example of potential vaccine injury being focused in a subset of the population rather than being evenly distributed.

Why do you assume that my simply raising covid or what was found to be a still comparatively small chance of myocarditis as starting some larger debate? I purposely tried to be very targeted both in the stat I reached for and how I raised it to avoid starting some larger, and unnecessary, covid debate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com