Hacker News Reader

Doesn't your link also say this?

"No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])"

So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?

View on HN

0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis.

Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".

0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.

What do you think a safe threshold should be?

And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?

I guess what I am asking you is what is the most important figure in that paper, as I read it and I'm no scientific expert but it made me come away more confident in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. What am I missing that you are finding?

I'm not the person who posted the paper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com