Hacker News Reader

Comment by lghh | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why death is the only thing we're trying to avoid. Currently, children's ICUs in Oklahoma are full in part due to the number of Covid patients. I'd rather my child not end up in the hospital, much less be turned away from one in a time of need.

View on HN

What is the baseline utilization of ICU space? I’m also curious what happened to those heroic efforts of retrofitting parking garages into field-expedient hospitals. Oh, and the notorious “gunshot victims are being left to die because of all the covid, bros!” misinformation that respectable journalists printed without any effort to check the facts.

>that respectable journalists printed without any effort to check the facts.

Journalists from the same publication (Rolling Stone) were responsible for the whole fabricated "A Rape On Campus" article as well. I would not give them the respectable journalist moniker anymore except in jest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

Then you should be concerned about the considerable risk they will end up there due to heart inflammation (in the case of male children).

Edit: I'm not going to respond to every comment below that points out that it's extremely rare, other than to ask that you compare that chance to the chance of hospitalization due to covid, which according to the link above is less likely.

Source for “considerable risk” needed.

It’s still considered extremely rare post vaccination.

The sources are literally three comments up! And the point is that the risk is higher than the risk from COVID!

“ Teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems from the vaccine than be hospitalised from Covid-19.”

This is comparing rates of myocarditis vs rates of hospitalization, which is two different things.

We would need to see rates of myocarditis due to vaccination vs rates of myocarditis due to natural infection.

Plus that's comparing one risk of the vaccine to one risk of the virus. You need a holistic comparison. COVID messes you up in lots of other ways too, ways in which the vaccine does not.

I'm curious how, in your mind, myocarditis is being diagnosed and reported in children if not at the hospital?

Heart inflammation is not typical in children or adolescents. This is not based on self-reporting.

Are you aware that UK regulators have not approved the vaccine for 12-15 year-olds (or any children younger), based on this risk, specifically?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669

> myocarditis is being diagnosed and reported in children if not at the hospital?

The vast majority of people who visit a doctor are diagnosed with no hospitalization and the recommended course for most myocarditis cases is not hospitalization. If the recommendation were hospitalization then many more infected young males would be hospitalized based on myocarditis diagnosis.

“Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.” [0]

So there’s a preprint stating that COVID-19 causes myocarditis at a higher rate than via vaccination. So it’s not quite clear to me whether or not, if looking at it from a risk of myocarditis, that not getting vaccinated is the better choice.

And according to the JCVI, it still is marginally beneficial to get vaccinated over not getting vaccinated. So it’s not like they are advising that natural infection is safer than vaccination.

“For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.” [1]

[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advic...

The part of the JCVI decision you omitted is:

"The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed." [1]

As a concerned parent, this is how I will be approaching vaccination for my sons.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advic...

The term hospitalization implies an inpatient (or at least observation) stay, as opposed to an outpatient encounter like the emergency department or a clinic. Most diagnoses made in the outpatient setting do not require hospitalization, which could include both COVID and myo/pericarditis.

EDIT: speling

Did you miss the data point that boys are 6x more likely to be affected from the therapy than the illness?

That "data point" is that that group is 6x more likely to be affected by myocarditis after receiving a vaccine than to be hospitalized due to COVID. I would like to see an actually useful comparison, like, say, the likelihood of being affected by myocarditis after receiving a vaccine versus the likelihood of being affected by myocarditis after a COVID infection.

Myocarditis, in this circumstance, were cases reported in VAERS, which isn't a mild or asymptomatic condition -- it usually means hospitalization. Furthermore, the researchers who have been analyzing the rates are going back to the VAERS records and actually looking at the case data.

These are severe enough cases to require medical attention.

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Many of us view that claim with skepticism and prefer that the analysis of this data be left to experts who understand how misleading data can be.

you're deferring thinking to an unnamed mystery expert and then arguing on behalf of that unnamed mystery expert as if you know what they'd say. lol, just lol.

The cdc link provided raw numbers. The telegraph link is a journalist deducing a conclusion. I don’t think any experts provided any conclusive evidence in this thread (which I gather was the point of the comment you replied to)

Anyone can claim to be an expert. Once one comes forward we can evaluate to see if their claims hold up.

In this case experts have pointed out that the analysis is wrong because it doesn't compare mycardius in the control group even through we know covid also causes that. Nor do they consider harm, despite vaccine caused mycardious being mild.

Did you miss the point where any death is likely preventable and 400+ in the US is still too many ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com