Two rare Covid vaccine side-effects detected in global study of 99M | Hacker News Reader

Two rare Covid vaccine side-effects detected in global study of 99M

theguardian.com

18 pointsc42010 comments

These study’s depend on reported side effects - and those reports require doctors to know about and go through the reporting process. However, few care to assign negative outcomes as a direct result of a vaccine. The argument goes that it is impossible to “prove” the vaccine caused the problem so it is just an unfounded correlation. There are really no incentives for doctors to track and make such reports.

During COVID I personally knew lots of people who had absolutely no issues with the vaccine and no bad outcomes. I did know a few who had a blood clot, developed long term fatigue, and in one case developed acute pancreatitis and was hospitalised for a couple of weeks. In the few cases where friends had negative outcomes after the vaccine none of their doctors reported those adverse outcomes due to the vaccine.

So those few friends came away feeling like they were negatively impacted by the vaccine and no one was willing to recognise it. Then they become part of the popular mummer about the risk of vaccines while official results like this show how safe the same vaccines are.

I don’t really see how to resolve this. There are no real incentives to report adverse reactions outside of a clinical study. And there are indeed totally unrelated incidents that happen around many medical treatments and procedures. How is the average person supposed to sort that out.

It seems like it provides a large space for distrust to develop .

I guess this is the study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02644...

As far as I understand, they used the 42 day window to associate the side-effect with the vaccine.

Have there been any longer term studies, beyond 3 months after vaccination?

> The study of more than 99 million people ... also confirmed how rare known vaccine complications are, with researchers confirming that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines still “vastly outweigh the risks”.

I'm sure that anti-vaxxers will still quote this article when waxing incoherently about "the jab" or "the clot shot".

It's best to be honest up front about possible risks.

What is the relative risk for walking in city? Public should be aware

False equivalency. I am not required to "walk in the city" to participate in society or the economy.

Sure, we can educate everyone on the risk of walking around the city as long as we don't require long haul truck drivers to walk around the city in order to later do their job.

most of the people do walk outside of house but they are not aware of the risks. from quick googling, "The study from the National Safety Council found that, as of 2017, the lifetime odds of an individual’s dying from a pedestrian accident were 1 in 556. This puts pedestrian accidents behind heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, suicide, opioid overdose, motor vehicle crashes, falls, and gun assaults.".

given average "walking lifespan" of, lets assume, 70years, what is risk of daily walk or walk that happens 3 times in a week ? (i suck in math) ?

I am not required to "have a drivers licence" to participate in society or the economy, therefore society can put restrictions on having one, like registering for selective service, paying alimony, etc etc.

That's one of those very technically true things, that pragmatically isn't true.

Again, this is a bad analogy. Having a driver's license isn't linked to adverse health effects.

I am not sure why people always go down these weird avenues to try to justify their convictions. If what you believe you think is right (presumably why you believe it) then you should be able to argue your position on the merits rather than trying to sneak in why your position is correct by relating it to something more anodyne as justification.

The original argument was that the vaccine was like walking around a city and we don't educate people on the adverse side effects or risks of walking around a city. This is bad because people can choose to live in cities or not - whether or not you'll have the same employment prospects or whatever, you do not have to participate in city life. Now you're trying to make the argument that we put restrictions on society based on holding some sort of identification. I'm willing to bet society would look at those restrictions differently if the mere act of getting an driver's license carried the risk of cardiovascular complications (as alleged by this report).

Restrictions on society based on having identification =/= restrictions on society based on your covid vaccination status.

Vaccination risk awareness =/= pedestrian safety awareness.

Presumably, you believe the benefits of the vaccine greatly outweigh any risks, so why are you opposed to people being explained the risk before they get the vaccine? If you believe that the benefits outweigh the risks, why are you incapable of arguing that position? Why make a contrived argument that its like getting a drivers license or walking around a city when its patently not?

Adverse effects from vaccines are possible, the risk far less than not taking vaccine.

Social media echo chambers and politicized pressers aside, that was consistently the message throughout.

The challenge was sifting RealDoctors™ from lab coat draping snake oil merchents on overdrive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com