Heart risks, data gaps fuel debate over Covid-19 boosters for young people
science.org
science.org
If a government through its agencies coerces people to get a medical treatment that harms them in any way they are responsible for that harm. Even if vaccinations are unquestionably a net benefit to everyone, the coercion makes the whole thing a serious breach of medical ethics. "First do no harm".
The "public health" (called "Volksgesundheit" ca. 1935) crowd of course have no such ethics and their goals often have conflicting aims with medicine. They gladly trade a few individuals' well-being for a greater good. Usually the diseases are so bad that this sort of approach is at least understandable (see damage from the first few iterations of polio or smallpox vaccines). But with covid they have completely lost many people. If they had just refrained from coercion (as with flu vaccines) everything would be just fine.
The question arises, why was Covid vaccination such a problem for a significant vocal minority? You mention 'do no harm', but I really don't think that is the root of it.
Mandatory vaccination for deadly diseases like measles and the mumps. COVID is not deadly for the young.
If this move hadn't been struck down by the Supreme Court, you can bet some version of this restriction would still be in place and would be defended by many.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-bloc...
It's true that most people didn't really want to debate covid then, which is par-for-the-course on political issues. I think though in our post-mortem for covid the my curiosity why we got so left/right political over an illness. I'd love to have that behind us.
What is needed is peer review, not debate. Debate is simply a euphemism for validation seeking for confirmation bias on random social forums.
If there was any problem with the peer review, there is cause for complaints. Are we going to hold a debate on whether the proof of fermat's last theorem is actually correct now?
The inconsistency and the blatant suppression of dissenting viewpoints does not help either.
I sure remember when the guidelines were that COVID wasn't transmissible through aerosol, only droplets. Then it was revised to include aerosol. Mask warnings also evolved from "not that effective" to "extremely effective". But isn't all of this explainable charitably without invoking suppression?
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-n...
It said that only nursing homes should be quarantined when the vast majority of elderly do not live in nursing homes. It encouraged everyone else to get infected as soon as possible, completely ignoring the fact that vaccines were being developed, which meant that later exposure would be far better than earlier exposure.
One of the signatories of The Great Barrington Declaration actually did try to destroy a Caltech professor's career, but Dr. Prasad pretends the reverse happened. https://mobile.twitter.com/lpachter/status/13770484698655580...
The right way to communicate is say:
“Based on other viruses, we believe masking helps reduce the risk of transmission.”
“Based on initial clinical data we believe vaccination will reduce or possibly eliminate the risk you transmitting the virus to others”
What I’m guessing happened is they thought not being confident in their answer would cause people to not comply.
But the #1 rule of communication (I did some company PR work) is never lie, even by omission. If you lie you’ll eventually get caught and people will never believe you in the future.
And yet the authorities and all the big tech bros were quick to censor anyone who disagreed with the blatant false narratives. Even the WHO took a YEAR to admit to aerosol contamination after the pandemic was everywhere.
Gee that’s not what I heard at all, what I heard was ‘this is science, and anyone who disagrees or doubts is an idiot and deserves to die and is responsible for killing grandma’
*edit
Oh look here’s the comment where anyone who doubts or disagrees is an idiot:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33258738
I guess we should applaud them for not celebrating the death of anyone who doubts.
1. Myocarditis rate is much higher post infection than post vaccination by about 2X
2. Myocarditis rate post vaccination is 0.02 % . Covid FATALITY rate is 0.3%. Yet we are expected to have "debates" about it
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
Also, why the hell do we think scientific research needs a so called "debate". Are we trying to become school valedictorians? What is needed is peer review, not debate. Debate is simply a euphemism for validation seeking for confirmation bias on random social forums.
If there was any problem with the peer review, there is cause for complaints. Are we going to hold a debate on whether the proof of fermat's last theorem is actually correct now?
> Among men under 40, there were an estimated four extra cases of myocarditis associated with the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and 14 extra cases with the first dose of the Moderna vaccine for every 1 million men vaccinated. That risk rose with the second dose for all three vaccines studied and was highest for Moderna's, which had an additional 97 myocarditis cases per 1 million. For unvaccinated men under 40 with COVID-19, there were 16 additional myocarditis cases per million.
which shows that the Moderna second dose is riskier than infection for men under 40? I have to admit I've been really disappointed by the way people have been minimising this. Part of that is being in that group of men < 40 myself (it has always been stratified by age and sex), another part of it is I think we need to be as transparent as possible about all risks in medicine as opposed to giving fuel (and good arguments) that information is being suppressed or charitably ignored because people are panicking.
Based on which data since reporting of adverse events after vaccination is constantly suppressed by medical professionals? (and reporting of adverse events is anyway very low in the first place)
> 2. Myocarditis rate post vaccination is 0.02 % . Covid FATALITY rate is 0.3%. Yet we are expected to have "debates" about it
Please explain the excess deaths around the globe right now then, if you believe in such numbers.
If those who had this reaction to the vaccine gotten COVID without the vaccine, would it not be likely that they would see the same inflammation response and the same heart damage? If that were the case, receiving the vaccine still seems like a reasonable choice.
Around 25% of children and adolescents who get COVID-19 will get long COVID, the long-term effects of which are not well understood. I have no plans to surrender to "fate" and to stop doing smart, reasonable things.
Which IMO is still insane, but I don't think it's 1 in 4 level of bad.
FWIW I predicted that would be the situation in like March 2020. This isn't some new forced narrative, at least for me.
Be infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus, sure. Get Covid, the disease, no.
No matter how right you were to be skeptical, they will never stop calling you names for not doing as they say.