EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 474
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5574 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
If people want to call him out for being cynical/jaded/uncaring because he thinks a reopening of Florida is fine even with a whole lot of unvaccinated people getting killed by covid, or because he doesn't 'care enough' about people whose surgeries are delayed or whatever, that's fine. My big issue is that the people who most accuse him of splitting hairs or of being uncharitable are the exact same people who are most actively splitting his hairs and interpreting his posts in the least charitable way. Every single time these annoying back and forths happen, both parties involved are culprits. This is no exception. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
It's not like a mass amount of readers here are going to be seriously misled or influenced in here. It's not like people lurk in this thread seeking for serious medical information. Even if people are spewing nonsense and misinformation, there's no need to drag the entire thread into some witch hunt. There's no need to be some hero 'calling out' other people. Chill out, peeps. Be nice, be respectful. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On September 20 2021 18:48 Acrofales wrote: I'd give him a bit more credit than that. I'd interpret MP's post the same way he did: nobody who got myocarditis from vaccines was hospitalized. It's obviously wrong. It's one of the main reasons we were told to hang around the vaccination center for 15 minutes, and we'd obviously get taken straight to a doctor in the case of adverse effects. This would presumably count as hospitalization. I agree with MP's overall point that BJ is splitting hairs. But when discussing with someone as pedantic as him, it's best to be very precise with your language. No, he was right. I thought there were 150 million hospitalizations for myocarditis this year. I stand corrected. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4165 Posts
On September 20 2021 19:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: BJ's main thing in this thread has been to confront what he perceives as wrongful claims about Covid that makes Covid seem more dangerous than it is. From the very beginning, he posted stuff like how wrong people were about their likelihood of being hospitalized. Then, he does, indeed, engage in some 'hair-splitting', or 'that claim is not precise' (when people for example say that vaccinations are '0 risk'). None of that means he is against vaccines (he's pro vaccine and I think he was one of the first people who got vaccinated) or that he doesn't think covid is dangerous. Yet I see people treat him as an anti-vaxxer, or as someone who has no understanding of how life is for health care workers. If people want to call him out for being cynical/jaded/uncaring because he thinks a reopening of Florida is fine even with a whole lot of unvaccinated people getting killed by covid, or because he doesn't 'care enough' about people whose surgeries are delayed or whatever, that's fine. My big issue is that the people who most accuse him of splitting hairs or of being uncharitable are the exact same people who are most actively splitting his hairs and interpreting his posts in the least charitable way. Every single time these annoying back and forths happen, both parties involved are culprits. This is no exception. When BJ made the claim that I was spreading a lie, he himself wasn't aware at that time that there were any hospitalizations from myocarditis, because if he was he would've mentioned it much sooner. He hadn't researched the prevalence of myocarditis. Then he comes out with the data in hindsight in an attempt to one-up me and discredit me. BJ only bothers to post data that confirms his pre-existing bias, and he doesn't address research from other users that contradicts it. I'm absolutely convinced he would've hid the data on myocarditis if it hadn't revealed that there were any cases of hospitalizations. I'm not infallible, and I care about the facts more than about being right, which is why I will admit when the facts prove me wrong. I wouldn't bother to defend an indefensible position. But when I get called a liar by someone who doesn't actually know if I lied because he hasn't done the research yet to confirm that, that's when I get really heated. Especially when it's about the meaningless difference between a non-risk and a negligible risk. A potential risk that's unproven. It still doesn't prove that there's a risk, all BJ did was show that there were hospitalizations and I should've been a bit more rigorous with my research. That's fine, he can do that. But what he's doing is not that. He tries to one-up people. He's done this with JimmiC, he's doing this with me now, and he does this pretty much all the time. Meanwhile my approach has been to just sit back and read comments and occasionally post something of value. When people criticize my sources, I don't go on a cruisade to prove them wrong, I just accept their feedback and I don't usually comment on it. I just let things stand, unless I think it's somehow very important to double down for the purpose of dispelling dangerous myths. This whole situation is exhausting, and it's about nothing. An elephant out of a mouse. And I'm not the one who blew it up like that, that was BJ with his accusation out of the blue. He could've said "ok I disagree about the exact risk, and here's data that shows there may be some risk of myocarditis". That's not what he did. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On September 20 2021 21:13 JimmiC wrote: So with this knowledge why with the vaccinated group was there 0 deaths and in normal myocrditis is thr mortality rate between 25-60%? My guess would be that the vaccine may cause a mild form of myocarditis that is less deadly | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4165 Posts
On September 20 2021 21:07 BlackJack wrote: I didn't need those studies to know that vast majority of people diagnosed with myocarditis are admitted to the hospital. Myocarditis often causes an elevated troponin level which by itself is likely going to lead to admission except in cases of renal failure. It also often causes EKG changes which again will lead to admission. Heart disease is the #1 cause of death and it is treated very seriously. Nobody is saying "It looks like your heart is sustaining an injury, here's a prescription for ibuprofen, come back if it gets worse." These patients are almost always getting admitted, getting a cardiac workup, an echo, serial troponins every 4-6 hours, etc. How many more times do I need to utter the phrase "people don't live inside your head"? If you have information, then you have to say it for other people to know it, too. You left it at the accusation of lying and it being important to not spread falsehoods just to make things seem a certain way (the latter part is where I'd agree). No one lied, and the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that shows that you care more about being right and less about the facts unless they serve you and not others. You don't hold yourself to your own standard of accurately depicting reality. As I go through your posting history in this thread, I see many cases of you disputing a claim, then being disproven, and you never mentioning it again. You hold others to a higher standard than yourself and you fail to see what's wrong with that approach. Like why would people get exasperated over talking to you? It might be because of your incredibly disproportionate standards that you put on others, but never on yourself, making bold claims that don't depict reality even remotely accurately. It's also because you do hindsight research to prove a point you didn't even truly understand before, while pretending that the other person had unreasonably low standards, in fact going so far as to start accusing others of lying. Here's a recent example from just a week ago: On September 14 2021 07:36 BlackJack wrote: Depends what you mean by "over." If you mean nobody will ever die from COVID again then yes it will never be over. It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave, and much to the chagrin of the COVID doomsayers, they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown. Florida's clubs are still open, I'm not really sure what Mohdoo has in mind when he says "shut them down until this is over." Roughly 25% of deaths (est. 12 950 total) in Florida have occurred in this current wave. (Edit: I meant 25% of covid-19 deaths) Peak daily infections during this wave were in the 21k to 27k range and only recently they dipped back under 10k (2x to 3x less than the peak). The wave is clearly still ongoing, as the lowest daily infections prior to this wave were at 1k to 2k, which was about 5x to 10x less than the situation right now. Your claim: "It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave" "they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown" The numbers clearly show that they're not "on the other side". Not today and certainly not a week ago. Would you - as per your own standards - say that this is a claim of yours that's "simply untrue" and that "we shouldn't spread lies to prove a point"? Not to mention that this is so far the worst wave in terms of infections and deaths that Florida has seen, and that despite the progress in vaccinations they made until prior to DeSantis going completely insane. If you hold other people to a much higher standard than yourself, this is what happens. You face backlash. Accept it and move on. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4165 Posts
On September 20 2021 21:17 BlackJack wrote: My guess would be that the vaccine may cause a mild form of myocarditis that is less deadly Or it might be that the vaccines may have prevented a worse course of myocarditis. There are various possible interpretations in various directions, this is all pure speculation. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 20 2021 19:26 RKC wrote: This thread is most interesting (at least, to me) when people freely share their experiences and thoughts. Not so when people subject every post to some rigorous double blind peer review process, take things literally and out of context, and bring too much local politics into the mix (general views on the politics of public health policies is fine, with diverse set of examples). It's not like a mass amount of readers here are going to be seriously misled or influenced in here. It's not like people lurk in this thread seeking for serious medical information. Even if people are spewing nonsense and misinformation, there's no need to drag the entire thread into some witch hunt. There's no need to be some hero 'calling out' other people. Chill out, peeps. Be nice, be respectful. No kidding. It’s been a tedious slog reading through the thread whenever it’s about standing on some stubborn principle (e.g. vaccines are great, vaccines are not great, wear masks, don’t wear masks), especially when said discussion generally happens without nuance or charity. Much better when people talk about personal experience instead. One small snippet of that to share: a very elderly relative of mine (>90) died just a week or two ago of the coronavirus. Was vaccinated, went to the hospital for another condition and got sick there, and died despite getting medical treatment. Almost certainly just one of those really unfortunate breakout cases, but it does look like it happens. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On September 20 2021 22:12 Magic Powers wrote: Or it might be that the vaccines may have prevented a worse course of myocarditis. There are various possible interpretations in various directions, this is all pure speculation. That does not make sense taking into consideration the greatly increased prevalence of the virus among recently vaccinated. It also triggers more frequently after dose 2. I just skimmed like 40 pages of this report: www.ema.europa.eu, and from that, I'm quite convinced that there is a very small (big in percentage, tiny in absolute numbers)- but real - increase of pericarditis and myocarditis, particularly among young men (same group that tends to get it normally), triggered by mRNA vaccines, and that it's triggered somewhat more frequently from Pfizer than from Moderna. It is also true that they almost always fully recover. It's not a factor that should discourage anyone from taking the vaccine. The interesting part of this discussion isn't whether Pfizer and Moderna causes a small increase of a particular inflammation compared to being non-vaccinated and non-infected. It's overwhelmingly likely that it does. The interesting part of this discussion - which was briefly touched upon - is how this should be communicated. It's treatable, people aren't suddenly dying from it, the numbers are extremely small - but quite some people that were already skeptical of the vaccine - the ones we need to reach - will take it as further evidence to not vaccinate. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that publishing this, on a short term, leads to somewhat fewer people vaccinating even though it's entirely unreasonable on their behalf to let this piece of news influence their behavior. Still, I think we have to do it openly and honestly and immediately. This whole pandemic-period has made it particularly evident how important public trust is, and that is something that is easier to lose than to build. Gotta take the short term loss for long term gain - in the event where it's uncovered that information has been suppressed, that creates far more real, warranted skepticism than what the real numbers do. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4165 Posts
On September 20 2021 23:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: That does not make sense taking into consideration the greatly increased prevalence of the virus among recently vaccinated. I can't follow. Myocarditis as I understand it is an inflammation of the heart muscle commonly resulting from infection. Vaccination reduces the likelihood of covid-19, and therefore it would also be expected to reduce the likelihood of myocarditis - unless the vaccine itself causes myocarditis. Covid-19 has shown to be linked to a very high increase in cases of myocarditis (link in a previous comment). So the likelihood of myocarditis is enhanced as a result of the pandemic, and many more cases have been identified. We know that this inflammation has gone up in at least two groups, one is people with a covid-19 infection, another is people who recently got vaccinated. The difference between these two groups is a 35x greater prevalence among the infected. When you consider that factor, it makes perfect sense. So I don't see why the hypothesis of covid-19 vaccination reducing cases of myocarditis wouldn't make sense. It seems perfectly logical to me. Whether or not it's true is a different question. It also triggers more frequently after dose 2. I just skimmed like 40 pages of this report: www.ema.europa.eu, and from that, I'm quite convinced that there is a very small (big in percentage, tiny in absolute numbers)- but real - increase of pericarditis and myocarditis, particularly among young men (same group that tends to get it normally), triggered by mRNA vaccines, and that it's triggered somewhat more frequently from Pfizer than from Moderna. It is also true that they almost always fully recover. There are various possible explanations for that observation, too. Delta started spreading at a later time. People also received the second dose at a later time. It could be as simple as that. Or there may be other reasons. For example it has been observed that the Delta variant is very significantly more infectious, possibly resulting in more breakthrough cases. An increase in breakthrough cases would be expected to also result in more cases of myocarditis. All of this shows that the link between vaccines and myocarditis is extremely muddy. Correlation not causation is among the most important rules in the sciences, and not jumping to conclusions is especially important when the research is very recent. We can't yet rule out too many possibilities. It's not a factor that should discourage anyone from taking the vaccine. The interesting part of this discussion isn't whether Pfizer and Moderna causes a small increase of a particular inflammation compared to being non-vaccinated and non-infected. It's overwhelmingly likely that it does. The interesting part of this discussion - which was briefly touched upon - is how this should be communicated. It's treatable, people aren't suddenly dying from it, the numbers are extremely small - but quite some people that were already skeptical of the vaccine - the ones we need to reach - will take it as further evidence to not vaccinate. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that publishing this, on a short term, leads to somewhat fewer people vaccinating even though it's entirely unreasonable on their behalf to let this piece of news influence their behavior. I've spoken to a good number of vaccine hesitant people. From what I can gather, no amount of data will change their mind. My best friend all but admitted that he needs to get the stick before he'd go to get a jab. I can present him with all the best information, it doesn't matter. But I don't know, maybe there are a handful of people who could still get convinced by a good presentation of the data. Still, I think we have to do it openly and honestly and immediately. This whole pandemic-period has made it particularly evident how important public trust is, and that is something that is easier to lose than to build. Gotta take the short term loss for long term gain - in the event where it's uncovered that information has been suppressed, that creates far more real, warranted skepticism than what the real numbers do. Yeah I agree, that does appear to be the case. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
Pretty good preliminary results released by pfizer today. I'm hoping that Health Canada is doing a rolling review on the data rather than a review after all the data is submitted, because the few weeks is going to make a huge difference, because school is already in session. Antibody levels are similar to young adults, which is enough for good protection against covid. Still on the 3 week interval though, which I'm expecting Canada to ignore, and go with somewhere longer, between 6-8 weeks. Not enough data about protection from disease, because kids didn't really go to hospital anyways, but the antibody production was a good indication of protection for older people, so it's a good sign that it will be effective in mitigating spread in school environments. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On September 20 2021 22:19 LegalLord wrote: No kidding. It’s been a tedious slog reading through the thread whenever it’s about standing on some stubborn principle (e.g. vaccines are great, vaccines are not great, wear masks, don’t wear masks), especially when said discussion generally happens without nuance or charity. Much better when people talk about personal experience instead. One small snippet of that to share: a very elderly relative of mine (>90) died just a week or two ago of the coronavirus. Was vaccinated, went to the hospital for another condition and got sick there, and died despite getting medical treatment. Almost certainly just one of those really unfortunate breakout cases, but it does look like it happens. That's tragic. A close friend had a relative who caught COVID and got critically ill (but fortunately still alive). She was mid-30s and stayed home a lot. Fully vaxxed. No way of knowing how she got infected. But prime suspect is some YOLO member of the household out gallivanting 24/7 ever since getting fully vaxxed as well. (Almost the whole household for infected, while Mr YOLO being young and healthy was lucky enough to get off mildly.) Get jabbed. That's the bottom line. But perhaps the government and health authorities should also keep emphasising on taking precautions on top of vaccination (at least for the elderly and immunodeficient). The worry is that people see vaccination as an 100% shield against the virus. Yes, people deserve to be rewarded with more freedom after getting jabbed. But the pandemic isn't over yet. Just be patient, and be responsible. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4165 Posts
Quotes from the first link: "During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age." "Myocarditis inpatient encounters were 42.3% higher in 2020 than in 2019. During March 2020–January 2021, the period that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during an inpatient or hospital-based outpatient encounter and 0.009% among patients who were not diagnosed with COVID-19." 0.009% equates to ~1 in 11,000 (90 in 1 million), which would put the general population (i.e. those not diagnosed with covid-19) at a far greater risk than those who recently got vaccinated. This lends further credence to the hypothesis that vaccination could potentially reduce the chance of myocarditis. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm Quotes from the second link: "We found an increase in the occurrence of acute myocarditis during the COVID-19 pandemic" "Rate of admissions for acute myocarditis was 1.5/month [95% CI 1.04–1.95] pre-pandemic, and 3.7/month [95% CI 2.36–4.97] (p < 0.001) during the first 6 months of the pandemic." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602221000288 | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
Basically, pre-covid, people also got myocarditis and pericarditis. There's a decent ballpark estimate for how frequently those two conditions appear in the regular population. Then, people are noticing that people who have been recently vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine get myocarditis or pericarditis far more frequently than what used to be the case from the old numbers. It doesn't happen with all vaccines (if it was something that was caused by covid rather than by a specific vaccine, which vaccine used shouldn't make any difference), it happens more frequently with Pfizer than with Moderna (more indication that it's related to the vaccine), and it happens more frequently after the second dose than after the first dose(more indication that it's related to the vaccine). I don't understand why it's difficult to just be like, 'okay, I guess it's really overwhelmingly likely that the mRNA vaccines can cause myocarditis or pericarditis super rarely even without any covid infection'. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
