Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Cancer seen at 35 per 10,000 was seen at 45 per 10,000.

Yes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.

17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?

I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.

View on HN

The lower rates weren't statistically significant.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the study, just pointing out the table. In fact, it kind of me of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy#Exa....

AKA the multiple comparison problem, AKA the look elsewhere problem, AKA the green jelly bean problem [1].

Edit: they looked at 17 cancers and one effect was significant. Is this exactly the jelly bean scenario?

Edit: reading the paper now. There are overall results that are probably more interesting.

[1] https://xkcd.com/882/

The vaccine does not prevent infection and does not reduce the rate of infection, however it was mandated for everyone to take it, even strong young people with no comorbidities that had already been infected.

I'm not against the vaccine but it was forced when there was no medical reason for it to be forced on everyone. When we then also see stats like this where in certian cancers it significantly increases cancer rates then it becomes dubious.

Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.

It is important that the studies get done so that we can learn from our mistakes and make different choices in the future and help those that need the help while not harming others.

Can you address the 17 cancers with either no change or reduced HI risk? Because your logic that an increase demands action begs a question to what a reduction in risk demands.

If your point was about freedom of choice, I think that's a distinct argument. And, I question Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. because, I do not see an increase in 35 per 10,000 to 45 per 10,000 as a population wide increase of significance. I guess it depends what meaning you put on "significance" -statistically it's demonstrable, the authors argue it's not coincidence. In terms of its magnitude to outcomes in a population, I don't see this as outweighing the upside benefit of herd immunity and reduced impacts of infection.

Remember alongside this increase in rates of cancer, are increases in rates of lung and heart disease from a full blown viral attack, and death in people with comorbidities who get covid.

Not my study, and even a single cancer is more than needed, even if treatable. Do you know how much cancer treatment costs? The psychological toll it takes on those diagnosed and those around them.

I'm not arguing for not getting vaccinated, I'm arguing it should not be mandated for people who have no need to get vaccinated because the actual stats show they are not at risk or getting a severe infection in the first place.

It's not a matter of their risk increased but it is fine because they had greater risks to mitigate. It's just a base line increase in risk for dubious benefit.

I was vaccinated, I still got full blown covid after vaccination, I was still infectious and had to quarantine and I still live with the long term effects of having had covid, the vaccine was pointless for me and on top of that just increases my baseline risk.

> The vaccine does not prevent infection and does not reduce the rate of infection,

This is not true. Multiple studies have shown that the vaccines significantly reduced infection rates.

> however it was mandated for everyone to take it, even strong young people with no comorbidities that had already been infected.

This is not true as well. Plenty of places around the world where it wasn't mandated. If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating? Are you talking about Korea?

> I know people who were otherwise healthy and got diagnosed with cancer after the Covid19 pandemic, everyone suspected it was related to the vaccines and it is now being proven by medical studies.

"My granddad smoked cigarettes. He died at 95. Hit by a truck."

> Multiple studies have shown that the vaccines significantly reduced infection rates.

Is this true or is this rather being asymptomatic or symptoms not severe enough to warrant seeking medical advice and not getting tested in the first place. Seems more like correlation than causation, I can argue that any day.

> If you have a specific region in mind, do you mind elaborating?

Where I live, South Africa. If you refused to get vaccinated during the pandemic you were forced to remain in quarantine despite taking every required precaution and for many large companies were not allowed to return to work, you were given an ultimatum, vaccinate or quit.

Your last point has no merit, I suspected but couldn't prove so it was nothing more than a suspicion, having actual studies prove it is a different story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com