Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swenrekcah | Hacker News Reader

For those getting worried like I was, it’s 0.002% or one in 50,000, not 0.02% or one in 5,000.

I don’t have the exact figures to hand but a rough googling seems to suggest a 1 in 100k risk for clotting in the AZ vaccine for young adults which of course, in many countries has been withdrawn for such rates in those groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/a...

I think in general percentages less than 0.1% should be reported as "1-in-XXX". Certainly when I create pages to measure packet loss I put 1 in 50,000 rather than 0.002%

As a data oriented person I would prefer if the percentage is always available, otherwise I have to calculate it to use with other numbers.

For example: (chance of getting covid) * (chance of specific side effect) = chance of getting covid and experiencing side effect.

All percentages should be reported as "1-in-XXX".

The difference (in "certainty", not "risk") between 90% (1-in-10) and 95% (1-in-20) is the same as the difference between 98% (1-in-50) and 99% (1-in-100).

Yes, let's all look at statistics and not recognize these are real people who are developing heart damage from 'safe' vaccines.

A 0.002% risk of experiencing myocarditis due to the vaccine seems a better deal than catching COVID, which brings a ~0.3% risk of experiencing (symptomatic) myocarditis in a (to my non-expert understanding) similar demographic[1]. Many experts assume COVID will become endemic, so this is not a theoretical risk.

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...

You aren't factoring in the likely substantial underreporting of this, the fact that this could be a symptomless issue until it isn't (i.e. young athletes suddenly having fatal heart failure), the fact that many people just got the vaccine, the possibility that the onset of this takes longer than they think, the low chance of catching covid in the first place, or the fact that the vaccine doesn't even guarantee protection against covid. Not to mention unknown unknowns.

I'm not anti-vaccines, I'm anti this experimental & rushed vaccine. Buy hey let's create vaccine passports and try to force everyone to get it because of politics.

In the same vein you might not be factoring in under-reporting of covid cases or the frequency of bad long-term effects of covid.

>I'm not anti-vaccines, I'm anti this experimental & rushed vaccine. Buy hey let's create vaccine passports and try to force everyone to get it because of politics.

The vaccines were not rushed irresponsibly. The schedule was accelerated and they are under emergency use approval, because of the, you know, emergency.

Also the reason governments want you to get it is not politics but economics.

Its an acute issue that is rare. In this case, its rarer than the normal rate from getting COVID isn't it? The chance of catching COVID is high, not low, without the vaccine. The vaccine does not guarantee protection in the sense that no vaccine does, but thus far it appears to work at least as well or better than any other vaccine. For the health issues, most of your same concerns apply to COVID which by definition carries at _least_ as much risk as the vaccine given its modus operandi. For the symptom in question the risk appears to be lower -- by a LOT -- than if people were to get the virus naturally. Its only being reported at all because the monitoring is good -- did you look at how few cases and the deviation they detected? Its on the order of normal: 100, now: 200, amongs _millions_ of vaccine doses. And presumably that's _after_ they rule out COVID. Per your "not guaranteed protection" line of reasoning, these cases might not even be from the vaccine in the first place, but from people who got COVID right around the same time. I can understand apprehension about new medicine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com