But I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article...

I just picked one randomly [0]:

> Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.

I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:

> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.

> The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

As many of us said at the time, the mandates weren't worth the destruction of public trust, especially because the vaccine wasn't even sterilizing.

The next time there's a crisis, resist the urge to use the government to achieve outcomes by brute force. It doesn't work and has generational adverse consequences.

Proceeds to raw dog a bunch of “research chemicals” cause some roided up bro talked about it on a podcast…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7gbFMWZWlo

They’re not vaccines though.

And we shouldn’t assume that all mRna vaccines are the same. The rna sequence that’s used potentially can matter as well.

Not in aggregate anyways.

But yes, there are instances of myocarditis from vaccines, but occurance was 4-5/100k as opposed to unvaccinated 200/100k.

Edit: in his words:

> MK: All the cases were hospitalised because we wanted to perform a detailed workup for them

> RR: So they didn't need to be there to, like, keep them alive.

> WZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. In fact, he said that that these these patients, they all cleared up with either painkillers[50] like ibuprofen …

> MK: Some of them even not require medications, and they just take a rest, and eventually they recover by themselves, and none of them got severe complications, and no cases of mortality, most importantly. And all of them recover and went back home. And so far, some patients are being followed up around 7 months[51] and they’re very good, no problem, so this is very good news.

After more than eight billion doses of the vaccine, about twenty deaths were causally linked to the vaccine. Five times as many people die every day from traffic in the US alone, many of them children.

What about gun ownership? How many people does that "kill for the common good"?

And by that measure, isn't not vaccinating people an even bigger atrocity? Aren't you also arguing to kill people "for the common good" by not mandating vaccination?

This is trying to play both sides. Appeal to emotion without having a rational thought process. Something bad happening is unfortunate and life changing. Then turning around and saying hundred grand isn’t life changing money for people.

What exactly is your remedy here - should people be not asked to provide proof for the harm and paid 10s of millions for every case? People have been asked proof for lesser things and paid even lesser for much bigger harm.

> My friend who was diagnosed, by multiple doctors in two hospitals with Myocarditis caused by the vaccine has yet to receive any money. It ruined his career.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of systematic wrongdoing. At least I wouldn’t expect to see on HN but here we are.

-Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

You know damn well that wasn’t even remotely the normal process.

It’s ok, you don’t need to pretend anything about Covid was “by the book”.

But by this logic, this is exactly what pro-vax people advocate as well. If a child die right after vaccination, they will still advice people to vaccinate their other kids, because this was just an anomaly?

So are all the pro-vax people maintaining the attitude that they would rather have their kid die or suffer life long than NOT getting the vaccine?

The fallacy in your logic is that you think people reject vaccines because they think the diseases does not have the potential to be dangerous. They do not think that. It is the same reason why you can continue driving despite knowing that accidents can be fatal.

People take a chance, and sometimes they get unlucky. Does not mean that taking the chance was wrong. In the same way you are not wrong if you go out for a pleasure trip in a car and get in a fatal accident.

Trump one had a sane (terrible, but sane) cabinet that largely controlled his wilder impulses.

This time he went for loyalty above all else.

Which turns "fixing the regulator to use facts" back into "convincing enough people to elect a President who believes in the scientific method."

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey's_Executor_v._United_...

A lot of drugs have this test, particularly drugs that should be injected in fat or muscle.

Not saying this about parent, but am absolutely saying it about the vaccine skeptic community in general.

If the barrier to asking a question is zero (i.e. someone without a high school biology education can ask a question and be listened to) but the barrier to answering any question to the community's satisfaction is high (i.e. a full study, on exactly that question, controlled for all variables, that shows a clear result) then the effort asymmetry leads to many unanswered questions.

... which the skeptic community then points to to support the belief that there are many legitimate unanswered questions.

"vapor trails" - well, if helps you sleep better.

It’s not very complicated.

trials ok => drug most likely ok

trials not done => we don’t really know.

I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.

Remember when everyone was contributing spare dimes to fund a vaccine?

The game to compensate for that is to be to convince gullible investors that your commercially viable fusion plant, or quantum computer, or unrealistic space ambitions are just 5 years away! Invest now or miss out!

The line between research and scamming in an ultracapitalist economy becomes very blurry.

If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity?

It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated.

This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval.

And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.

We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.

And for clarity sake, it's way more people than just the military. Many cities and counties had mandates, including NYC. Everyone in nearly the entire health industry across the country. Many restaurant workers. A bunch of banks and many, many other companies in various industries had mandates just because their leadership was political or used it as a way to reduce labor without penalty. A lot of people were forced.

I don't think it's fair to try to minimize that. It's a major point of ongoing political contention and its among the many reasons why many people stopped voting left (including me).

Or take any cancer drug approval over the past decades, those all had phase 3 trials that succeeded before the drug was released.

I have to admit that I can even conceive of what your point is here, or why you are acting so emotional and indignant about the required step before drug approval, as if it doesn't exist.

Arguably so was the risk from the vaccine.

About 17400 people under 20 died of covid. According to this paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/ all the people who died from side effects of the covid vaccine were over 22 (its possible that is not exhaustive, but i can't seem to find any examples of confirmed deaths related to the vaccine for children. If there are any i think its likely the number is in the single digits).

So even if the risk of death from covid in kids is small, its still probably at least 1000 times higher than the risk from the vaccine, and possibly much higher.

> something that had the potential of side effects

Literally everything has potential side effects. Clean drinking water? Has side effects (e.g. less vitamin b12 from poop). All choices have consequences.

Yes they didn't want the hospitals to get full. That's when the younger healthy people who would have recovered can't get the medical care they need to survive.

You had to have spent covid in a pretty sad friendless hole not to know friends or family who ended up in hospital during the peaks.

That aside, they also command you to own both a car and a gun?

I suppose you could also argue other categories based on higher or lower ages and who gave themselves lower chances of ever catching covid could technically also fall into that group. You could also argue moral reasons not to get the vaccine but I'd say in any situation where you still expected to get healthcare that detracted from the healthcare of others (i.e when the hospitals were at capacity and your treatment could kill another) would be morally bankrupt.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/189670/death-rates-for-a...

The highest cause was heart disease (~680K) which has a best preventative step of maintaining at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly. Between 45% to 50% of Americans, of any age, are estimated to have done that.

But.

Each of us as individuals has only a little time each day to spend on things like this. You don't have a path to fixing national politics. You CAN help locally.

It's also somewhat irrelevant since the vaccines do not prevent transmission. At best they lower the chance to some degree and now you're in the weeds of trying to measure something that's too multivariate to measure.

Why wasn't that other person vaccinated?

They literally explicitely did. Ask them what is the bigger harm. Anti-vaccine circles have multiple flavors and interview did not went that deep.

But this "they could not possibly say X, because I disagree with X" is repeated pattern with conservative and right wing movements.

We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.

Also, for the record: very few (no?) vaccines are “mandated” by the federal government. Recommendations are made, and state and local governments do this, mainly through school districts.

Various agencies and the military will, of course, mandate things for their own staff.

Absolutely hate this framing. I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization.

But to say that because I have walked another path in life that I don’t care?!? Because I have chosen a different specialization?? Deeply insulting AND untrue AND unrealistic. Our society is based on specialization at this point. If we cannot rely on each other for these basic communication tasks, then society must be dead, eh?

Yet, whenever I try to look up anything with regards to health/medicine, I find dozens of people/orgs repeating the last bit, and the first bits are hard to come across if you dont already know where to look. Its so avoided that im not surprised some people think its intentionally hidden.

Saying something is safe is a declared risk tolerance, it is not actually communicating the risk. It only works if the people you are talking to already trust your judgement.

If it helps, substitute health officials and Healthcare with tech CEOs and tech products. Do you trust them when they claim that their products protect your privacy without laying out the evidence?

A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.)

Let me know if I've misunderstood.

It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)

Please identify what pieces of data are missing for what specific drugs/trials.

1. There were no labs.

2. There was no gain of function research being funded.

3. The baseless lab leak conspiracy theory is hateful extreme far right Russian disinformation that is very dangerous to our democracy and it has already been debunked by the science and 72 intelligence agencies and CNN. Fauci is a Saint!

4. There was a lab leak and it's Trump's fault and you're still a dangerous conspiracy theorist for having previously questioned "the experts" integrity or the possibility of a lab leak.

I misread what you said, as well.

I never said that. I said that government inaction is also a mandate; look at the context for my comment.

If you're arguing that leaving the country makes government action (or inaction) acceptable, then by your own logic, all government action (or inaction) is acceptable, which supports my point: vaccine mandates are fine, because by your own logic, if you disagree with them, you can leave the country.

> You can drive into a wall or off a cliff, and yes, injured by own car (or tractor) is an actual not infrequent injury.

You're missing the point I'm making, which is that not driving a car does not mean I won't get run over by other people, which is the actual point I brought up.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you're responding to me, since you don't seem to be arguing against anything I actually said?

Regardless, as far as the statistics about things like how vaccines changed covid deaths, and any change in non-covid deaths, a study of tens of millions of people found a very large drop in covid deaths among the vaccinated... and actually no increase in other cause morbidity either (different study than the OP study). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air? Do you take any other medicines?

All of those are less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.

It was unclear what your gripe was.

With vaccination you're at 75/100k.

Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k.

Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc.

> We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

There are plenty of studies linked in this thread, that you're simply ignoring.

They publish information at every level of specificity and detail!

Anyone who is actually curious and not just doing this lazy meta-commentary game could find all the information they need at any level of specificity or technicality they want.

When you got your vaccine, were you told to report at VAERS if you have any problems? Most people does not even know such a thing exists.

Even then the reports from that database is not really considered trust worthy. It is often dismissed with a statement that "anyone can report anything there!"

Im not claiming data is never presented.

Im not claiming data is never available.

Ah, that makes perfect sense.

It is hard for a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.

> The pandemic had several high-profile examples of Public Health officials knowingly misleading and lying to the public. That's going to take a lot of work to undo

Not really. It had several high-profile examples of public health officials making mostly-reasonably hedged statements under conditions of uncertainty, and then people actually playing game-of-telephone into thinking they said things they didn't say.

Can you provide a few of these "several" examples of public health officials knowingly making false statements?

5% of symptomatic COVID cases. So now you have to compare that to only people with injuries from the vaccine.

Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to compare people who got the vaccine to people who didn't, then you need to include ALL people who didn't. Not just the ones who were symptomatic.

And no, you can't include those people who had previous symptoms in the "everyone" group. Obviously those people are way more likely to return for treatment than the average Joe. They are skewing the sample because they are immediately nearly 100% likely to return for treatment. That is not representative of a random sample of people in the general population.

The question was about the general population, and they didn't sample the general population. They sampled people who come to the hospital. That is, only people with symptoms of some sort or another that are bad enough to warrant a journey to get treatment.

So all you can conclude is that people who come to the hospital have a higher frequency of heart conditions. And even that claim is not firmly established by the data, it's just a sensible inference. We expect that people who need treatment are more likely to seek treatment than those that don't need it. But there are countless counter examples there too. Hypochondria, etc.

No doubt if we had the data we'd find more problems there.

Wu's statement is fine, because again, it's not ALL people with COVID. His statement holds for people seeking treatment with COVID which is what they sampled.

Wu has no clue how many people have COVID asymptomatically and how to separate them from people without COVID altogether, and makes no claim about that.

You're simply making a claim that isn't in the research. Vaccination for people without COVID or with asymptomatic COVID is not researched or compared here.

This research, if you want to use it for a comparison, is for vaccination of people already coming to a hospital with symptoms of some kind.

EDIT: forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today. And it might be the case that during the pandemic it would have been a good idea to vaccinate everyone coming to a hospital from a statistical standpoint. But an even better take would be to identify what was common amongst the group with bad outcomes and vaccinate them, more specifically.

Regardless, nothing here implies better outcomes for everyone. It's not claimed by and it's not inferable from the research. And certainly not when there is a bunch of research showing contrary results to this study an example of which I linked earlier.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fda-must-disclose-m...

So, at least until then they continued to hide them.

Do you have a link to the documents, or any subsequent meta study?

And then we still need to resolve the issue of peer review.

Surprised you don't fall out of your own shoes in your upside-down world.

> They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).

In epidemiology, a cohort is simply a defined group of people followed over time. In a population-based cohort study (which this is), the cohort is the entire population of the health district (over 500,000 people).

The study did not just evaluate people treated at the hospital. It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).

> The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.

You are confusing PCR testing with serology. The "over-spinning" you are referencing relates to PCR cycle thresholds (Ct values), which are used to detect active viral RNA swabs. Seroprevalence studies—which track historic asymptomatic spread—do not look for active RNA. They test blood serum for antibodies using immunoassays (like ELISA). They do not use PCR amplification, and they are absolutely not "all retracted." They are the standard of how we track the infection rate of a population.

> Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want.

This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.

That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it?

I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that claim. You have provided no evidence other than your personal hearsay that the CDC and WHO agree on something that they never said. Go ahead and link to it if they did. I'll wait.

Separately you keep saying I misunderstand when it's clearly the opposite. Let me break it down for you clearly because, from my perspective, you are just plugging random bullshit into the wrong place in a math problem:

>The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise.

Right! But that's not what you're claiming. How does this tell us how many people were infected and asymptomatic? You are aware that "registered citizens in the district" is not the same is "infected people with no symptoms" right? So why are you plugging it into a math problem where "infected people with no symptoms" is the expected variable for substantiating your claim?

> Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study.

Great! So tell us how many people were infected with no symptoms in 2020 so that we can make an effort to believe your claim that vaccines are less harmful than infection! It's pretty simple math, you just need the data that you claim to already have but refuse to share!

You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge?

> The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form.

It implies something about the data, even if you twist like you did. I personally prefer to go with the exact quote, which I gave you. But your twist on it isn't any better for your argument. It, in both cases, draws significant doubt about the accuracy of the test.

Let's pretend I have an allergy to the COVID protein. Should I use that test to make a decision about my vaccination?

I think you should go to prison if you said yes. Don't you? You'd be a murderer.

But you're going to use it to make a broader, less evidence based claim than that?

Summary: Please provide the prevalence data. A bunch of people that you didn't test, whether you call them the cohort or not, does not establish prevalence. You need to include "asymptomatic infected" numbers to make your claim. As far as we know so far, you don't have those numbers. And, the CDC and the WHO don't even claim to have them, which is why your claim sounds so implausible. I mean, unless you're at the forefront of research at the CDC or something. But I don't see that this is the case.

First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance.

Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients, and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy.

You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false), with something completely unrelated, which is that governments generally create a first-order insurance fund for vaccines in order to prevent unpredictable litigation costs from completely obliterating the economic viability of making vaccines.

By the way, these public insurance funds do not cover cases of manufacturing defects, fraud, or negligence. So even giving you the benefit of the doubt on each of your points of confusion... it's still 100% irrelevant to whatever argument you think you're making.

Again: Some more curiosity about the world would really do you wonders!

I dare you, I double dare you...

>it's not worth my time trying to educate..

Exactly why I am not spending too much time to educate you...

The flaw in your reasoning is here

>You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false)

I didn't confuse anything. I went of slightly in a tangent because I don't want to spend too much time to educating you. Because ultimately our differences arise from what or what not we trust or what scale conspiracy we think is possible or not, or how broad or narrow our consideration of the reality is. You will never admit that and will go and on and on...Don't have time for that. Sorry.