|
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. |
On December 01 2022 02:07 Acrofales wrote:I know I should just report this incoherent jumble of linkdumps, but I'm trying to figure out if you are being serious or satirical when you link a tweet that starts with "The media is the virus!!1111" before moving on to even more ridiculous nonsense?
Link is to actual video Tweet is irrelevant
|
On December 01 2022 02:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2022 02:07 Acrofales wrote:I know I should just report this incoherent jumble of linkdumps, but I'm trying to figure out if you are being serious or satirical when you link a tweet that starts with "The media is the virus!!1111" before moving on to even more ridiculous nonsense? Link is to actual video Tweet is irrelevant
The video is even worse my friend. No sources, wrong info and the kicker is "here are some official explanations" followed by random news articles. You've been goofed, the creators didn't even give you the respect to do their work correctly.
|
This is not very compelling evidence. I was easily able to find articles pre-pandemic about solar flares causing heart attacks or whatever nonsense. The media has been spamming fear porn about "X" causing heart attacks or "Y" causing cancer forever. It's not a new phenomenon to muddy the waters of people dropping dead. If there were some coverup we probably wouldn't know about J&J vaccine causing blood clots or mRNA vaccines causing myocarditis in the first place. Although I don't know why this is banworthy. JimmiC is the one that posted the conspiracy video and asked someone if they watched it and what their big takeaways are. If it's banworthy to promote shitty conspiracy theories then perhaps we shouldn't allow users to coax other users into violating forum rules?
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On December 02 2022 08:14 BlackJack wrote:This is not very compelling evidence. I was easily able to find articles pre-pandemic about solar flares causing heart attacks or whatever nonsense. The media has been spamming fear porn about "X" causing heart attacks or "Y" causing cancer forever. It's not a new phenomenon to muddy the waters of people dropping dead. If there were some coverup we probably wouldn't know about J&J vaccine causing blood clots or mRNA vaccines causing myocarditis in the first place. Although I don't know why this is banworthy. JimmiC is the one that posted the conspiracy video and asked someone if they watched it and what their big takeaways are. If it's banworthy to promote shitty conspiracy theories then perhaps we shouldn't allow users to coax other users into violating forum rules?
Well yeah it’s a veritable cottage industry of people purely employed to write ‘New study shows x increases/decreases the risk of cancer/heart attacks’ or w/e. Like it’s the Daily Mail’s bread and butter. Can find innumerable examples of said stories way before the pandemic.
Far as I’m concerned if you wanna link dump give some associated commentary and your thoughts on what lies within. Dunno if lack thereof should be bannable (albeit it’s stated in the rules) but I really couldn’t be arsed trawling through a video (more time consuming than text) without even knowing what the point being made is.
My 2 cents anyway. I couldn’t be arsed having to watch some video to try to extrapolate why it was posted the first place
|
On December 02 2022 08:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2022 08:14 BlackJack wrote:This is not very compelling evidence. I was easily able to find articles pre-pandemic about solar flares causing heart attacks or whatever nonsense. The media has been spamming fear porn about "X" causing heart attacks or "Y" causing cancer forever. It's not a new phenomenon to muddy the waters of people dropping dead. If there were some coverup we probably wouldn't know about J&J vaccine causing blood clots or mRNA vaccines causing myocarditis in the first place. Although I don't know why this is banworthy. JimmiC is the one that posted the conspiracy video and asked someone if they watched it and what their big takeaways are. If it's banworthy to promote shitty conspiracy theories then perhaps we shouldn't allow users to coax other users into violating forum rules? Well yeah it’s a veritable cottage industry of people purely employed to write ‘New study shows x increases/decreases the risk of cancer/heart attacks’ or w/e. Like it’s the Daily Mail’s bread and butter. Can find innumerable examples of said stories way before the pandemic. Far as I’m concerned if you wanna link dump give some associated commentary and your thoughts on what lies within. Dunno if lack thereof should be bannable (albeit it’s stated in the rules) but I really couldn’t be arsed trawling through a video (more time consuming than text) without even knowing what the point being made is. My 2 cents anyway. I couldn’t be arsed having to watch some video to try to extrapolate why it was posted the first place
Shrug... I thought Rayzda's post was pretty clear and he did indeed give some associated commentary about what lies within the video he posted. His point is that he believes there are excess deaths among young people and ridiculous explanations are being offered by the media for the cause of them. The video is just a compilation of news stories citing solar flares, hot showers, insomnia, and whatever else for causing cardiac deaths. You could say he presents a pretty weak argument but it's not exactly a mystery as to what he is saying.
|
Ok i misunderstood bj,s position.
|
Norway28692 Posts
Please don't make us go through another iteration of 'does BJ think vaccines are bad'. He does not. He also does not think Covid is harmless, but that Omicron is relatively harmless (harmless enough for society to function as normally) for vaccinated individuals, and that people should be free to themselves decide whether or not they want to get the vaccine.
|
Oh my bad then,i will edit out my post.
|
Norway28692 Posts
Thank you! That is genuinely appreciated. 
|
https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-people
Is an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people.
COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio.
Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted.
Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters.
User was warned for this post
|
"I can't understand why we can't have sensible and nuanced debate" - said the person whose inability to have sensible and nuanced debate without distorting the evidence and/or other people's views drove away anybody willing to have sensible and nuanced debate.
|
On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. Show nested quote +COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Show nested quote +Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters.
The most sensible position is that Pfizer does not in fact cause myocarditis, but instead is likely to prevent it. Claims to the contrary go against the currently available data.
|
On December 02 2022 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters. The most sensible position is that Pfizer does not in fact cause myocarditis, but instead is likely to prevent it. Claims to the contrary go against the currently available data.
Odd that you wrote Pfizer but not Moderna or "mRNA" for both. Was that an intentional omission of Moderna in that statement? Also can you link the data you are referring to?
|
|
|
I don't know what there would be for me to twist there. Your source basically says what I have been saying for over a year now: myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines is very rare and usually mild and the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risk of myocarditis.
Because myocarditis associated with Covid vaccines is a recent and rare issue, there is uncertainty about its long-term health risks.
BHF-funded researchers are looking at myocarditis caused by Covid-19, as well as the rare cases of myocarditis linked to the vaccine. They want to know whether myocarditis caused by the virus or the vaccine, can cause lasting scarring of the heart muscle and what impact this might have on health in years to come.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has not been linked to an increased risk of myocarditis, but isn’t recommended for younger age groups in the UK because it is linked to a small risk of a rare type of blood clot.
Getting Covid-19 can itself lead to myocarditis, as well as other forms of severe illness. Although Covid-19 is often mild or without symptoms in young people, there have been cases of serious illness, including in young people without previous health conditions. Because of this, and because myocarditis is a very rare side effect, medicines regulators and other health authorities in the UK, Europe and United States are still recommending the vaccine.
It also mentions
Different studies in different countries have produced different estimates of how much (as a ratio or percentage) the vaccine increases risk of myocarditis or heart inflammation. These differences are likely to be because of differences in how myocarditis is defined and measured, and because of different policies on vaccine types and time between doses. Several studies have suggested that the Moderna vaccine increases risk more than the Pfizer vaccine.
Which again leads us to the sensible conclusion that many other countries have reached in that Pfizer should be the preferred vaccine over Moderna when it comes to vaccinating young-ish people. Thanks for the sources.
|
On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. Show nested quote +COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Show nested quote +Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters.
Most people are in the middle i think. And several states in which i do have a very high trust in general,like Denmark and Norway,are not recommanding boosters for people below 50 or 65.
|
Norway28692 Posts
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. Show nested quote +COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Show nested quote +Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters. User was warned for this post
Or maybe it’s anti-vaxxers incredibly over-egging their arguments to the extent that a mere mention of one similar argument elicits a negative reaction.
Which isn’t how it should be, but hey we’re all humans and subject to human fallibilities. It’s something I find difficult, albeit I think I can eventually decouple. It does take an effort though.
You seem to discount the effect of years of listening to complete bullshit and how it may affect one’s perception.
As per this specific point I don’t know. You and Magic seem to have quite divergent opinions.
|
On December 03 2022 06:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters. User was warned for this post Or maybe it’s anti-vaxxers incredibly over-egging their arguments to the extent that a mere mention of one similar argument elicits a negative reaction. Which isn’t how it should be, but hey we’re all humans and subject to human fallibilities. It’s something I find difficult, albeit I think I can eventually decouple. It does take an effort though. You seem to discount the effect of years of listening to complete bullshit and how it may affect one’s perception. As per this specific point I don’t know. You and Magic seem to have quite divergent opinions.
Yes I agree with you. It is hard for people to decouple, especially when dealing with scary situations like a potentially life threatening virus.
Also I don’t think Magic and I have that divergent of opinions. The biggest one that we frequently bicker over is the myocarditis thing. His stance (and I think I’m getting this correctly) is that the mRNA vaccines don’t have the risk of causing myocarditis and I have the stance that the risk exists but it is very small. There’s not much ground between zero and very rare when you think about it. We both agree that you’re more likely to get myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccines (although I’d add the disclaimer that this might not be true for men under 40 that got the Moderna vaccine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
