Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:31 am

Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:08 pm
WiseOne wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:07 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:01 am
Another theory that fits the facts is that there's a new virus floating around that's sufficiently dangerous both in terms of known and unknown short- and long-term effects to severely disrupt society, and that we now have multiple vaccines that work really well at preventing it.
You're assuming here that the risk from COVID is less than the risk of vaccines for every living human. How exactly can you make that assertion?

For elderly people in nursing homes, the math was very easily in favor of vaccination. Based on what we're slowly learning, the risk of the vaccines could very well outweigh the risk of natural COVID infection for healthy children and teens.

I took the vaccine myself, so I'm hardly an antivaxxer on this score....but I'm VERY MUCH against experimental therapeutics coercion. The migraine analogy, or Barrett's analogy of meds he takes for whatever, are not applicable here - because those medications are not, presumably, experimental and you have the choice to take them or not. The appropriate analogy would be someone coming along and handing you an almost completely untested medication for your migraines, and telling you that if you don't take it you'll suffer a range of penalties. Since when is that OK????
I didn't say anything was okay or not okay, just that a reason that the vaccine is being pushed may simply be because it works.
"Pushed" being a euphemism for "coercion"?
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:12 am

WiseOne wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:31 am
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:08 pm
I didn't say anything was okay or not okay, just that a reason that the vaccine is being pushed may simply be because it works.
"Pushed" being a euphemism for "coercion"?
There are certainly ways to "push" without being what I would call coercive, but I suppose it's a fine line that others could draw elsewhere.

Availability of the vaccine free of cost to people is a big one. Setting up clinics in places that it's easy for people to take advantage, rather than making an appointment and driving somewhere would be another. Public health ad campaigns.

But yes, even the more coercive measures would fall under what I'm talking about. Simple social pressure from peers is probably the least coercive of what I would potentially see as a "coercive" measure, and it's probably pretty effective.

I'm just responding to the question of why the vaccine is being pushed. "Push" was not even my original word. Yes, we could come up with nefarious reasons that it might be pushed, but my point is that we shouldn't forget the simplest and most likely reason: that the vaccines work.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:12 am
WiseOne wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:31 am
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:08 pm
I didn't say anything was okay or not okay, just that a reason that the vaccine is being pushed may simply be because it works.
"Pushed" being a euphemism for "coercion"?
There are certainly ways to "push" without being what I would call coercive, but I suppose it's a fine line that others could draw elsewhere.

Availability of the vaccine free of cost to people is a big one. Setting up clinics in places that it's easy for people to take advantage, rather than making an appointment and driving somewhere would be another. Public health ad campaigns.

But yes, even the more coercive measures would fall under what I'm talking about. Simple social pressure from peers is probably the least coercive of what I would potentially see as a "coercive" measure, and it's probably pretty effective.

I'm just responding to the question of why the vaccine is being pushed. "Push" was not even my original word. Yes, we could come up with nefarious reasons that it might be pushed, but my point is that we shouldn't forget the simplest and most likely reason: that the vaccines work.
My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by flyingpylon » Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:58 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:12 am
WiseOne wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:31 am
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:08 pm
I didn't say anything was okay or not okay, just that a reason that the vaccine is being pushed may simply be because it works.
"Pushed" being a euphemism for "coercion"?
There are certainly ways to "push" without being what I would call coercive, but I suppose it's a fine line that others could draw elsewhere.

Availability of the vaccine free of cost to people is a big one. Setting up clinics in places that it's easy for people to take advantage, rather than making an appointment and driving somewhere would be another. Public health ad campaigns.

But yes, even the more coercive measures would fall under what I'm talking about. Simple social pressure from peers is probably the least coercive of what I would potentially see as a "coercive" measure, and it's probably pretty effective.

I'm just responding to the question of why the vaccine is being pushed. "Push" was not even my original word. Yes, we could come up with nefarious reasons that it might be pushed, but my point is that we shouldn't forget the simplest and most likely reason: that the vaccines work.
But at what cost in terms of unintended long-term side effects? We don't know. There are other things in life that might "work" but we don't do them due to risk, or the inability to calculate risk.

Why are the vaccines being pushed to the exclusion of anything else? Why is discussion and debate being shut down? Why is data being suppressed? Why are qualified doctors and scientists that question the vaccine narrative being canceled and suspended by social media platforms?

None of that bothers you at all?

I don't buy into the most nefarious hypotheses (genocide, etc.). I think it's much more likely to simply be the usual combination of greed, incompetence, and bureaucratic ass-covering. But that's bad enough.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:18 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:58 am
Why are the vaccines being pushed to the exclusion of anything else? Why is discussion and debate being shut down? Why is data being suppressed? Why are qualified doctors and scientists that question the vaccine narrative being canceled and suspended by social media platforms?

None of that bothers you at all?

I don't buy into the most nefarious hypotheses (genocide, etc.). I think it's much more likely to simply be the usual combination of greed, incompetence, and bureaucratic ass-covering. But that's bad enough.
I agree with you completely that suppression of data, censoring of discussion and debate, and canceling/suspension of wrongthink are wholly abhorrent. I don't recall saying that such things don't bother me.

I'm just saying that despite the presence of greed, incompetence, and bureaucratic ass-covering (which are always around), it's still likely that the vaccines are the right answer. Just because there are those things (and remember, they're always there) doesn't make their answer automatically wrong.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:45 am

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am



My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
Yeah, good point. I bet doctors were on board with thalidomide too.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:47 am

Because I'm in summer mode, I have been skipping over all of the invermectin stories and videos that keep showing up. So is it anyone's opinion/guess here that this treatment is doing a lot of good? I do realize that the US medical establishment and progressive political class in general is against it because Trump.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by flyingpylon » Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:20 am

I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:47 am
Because I'm in summer mode, I have been skipping over all of the invermectin stories and videos that keep showing up. So is it anyone's opinion/guess here that this treatment is doing a lot of good? I do realize that the US medical establishment and progressive political class in general is against it because Trump.
Here's a database of the existing studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/

And a meta analysis here: https://ivmmeta.com/

Image
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Dieter » Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:29 pm

Jon Stewart on the Late Show talking corona virus

I think it's quite good / funny

https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:23 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:03 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am



My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
Yeah, good point. I bet doctors were on board with thalidomide too.
I have a hard time with this line of thought. If you don't trust your self-chosen personal physician, who do you trust? The lying, scheming 'scientists'? The lying scheming scum politicians? Idiots of the internet?

I think most doctors are genuine in their desire to do what is best for their patients (I know I am) and are doing that based on the best available information to them at any given point in time. The fact that the vast majority of MDs are in favor of the vaccine should at least be worth something.

And being for or against anything 'because Trump' or 'because Democrats' is what's tearing the US apart.
My doctors are enthusiastic supporters of the vax, but how do they know any more than we do in this case?
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:43 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:23 pm
My doctors are enthusiastic supporters of the vax, but how do they know any more than we do in this case?
Well, that's kind of the problem. Doctors are no better at reasoning skills or ability to critique the medical literature than any person with average smarts.

The way most doctors get their information is not by reading the medical literature, but by going to events sponsored by drug/device companies at which they hear the latest sales pitch. Some of the more conscientious attend CME events or conferences where the info is a mixed bag, ranging from sales pitch to indoctrination of concepts that may or may not be well founded, to genuine science - except of course the doctor listening has no idea how to tell which is which.

As a physician scientist I get an inside view of how the sausage is made, but the vast majority of MDs don't have this perspective. It's a real problem. But, don't think worse of your doctor because of it. They're just as much in the dark as you are and most are genuinely trying their best.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by flyingpylon » Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:21 am

Here's some recent information from the CDC regarding myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination (starts at page 13).

https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:29 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:21 am
Here's some recent information from the CDC regarding myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination (starts at page 13).

https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download
Good to get solid numbers. Page 18 I think is the most informative: for various age groups, it shows how many cases of myocarditis were expected, and then how many were observed. For two of the age groups (16-17 and 18-24), the observed count was outside of the expected range.

Naively taking the average of the expected range and subtracting that from the observed counts, and dividing by the doses, we get the following:
16-17: 0.0031% chance of vaccine-induced myocarditis
18-24: 0.0015% chance of vaccine-induced myocarditis

The best reference I could find for myocarditis induced by Covid infection was this:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaca ... le/2780548
which says that the incidence of myocarditis among college athletes is
between 0.31% and 2.3%.

So, 18-24 year-olds are between 200 and 1500 times more likely to get myocarditis from the infection than from the vaccine, assuming they will get one or the other.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by glennds » Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:41 am

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:03 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am



My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
Yeah, good point. I bet doctors were on board with thalidomide too.
I have a hard time with this line of thought. If you don't trust your self-chosen personal physician, who do you trust? The lying, scheming 'scientists'? The lying scheming scum politicians? Idiots of the internet?

I think most doctors are genuine in their desire to do what is best for their patients (I know I am) and are doing that based on the best available information to them at any given point in time. The fact that the vast majority of MDs are in favor of the vaccine should at least be worth something.

And being for or against anything 'because Trump' or 'because Democrats' is what's tearing the US apart.
According to the AMA, based on their survey, 96% of practicing physicians have taken the COVID vaccine. Draw what conclusion you will from that statistic.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by flyingpylon » Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:40 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:41 am
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:03 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am



My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
Yeah, good point. I bet doctors were on board with thalidomide too.
I have a hard time with this line of thought. If you don't trust your self-chosen personal physician, who do you trust? The lying, scheming 'scientists'? The lying scheming scum politicians? Idiots of the internet?

I think most doctors are genuine in their desire to do what is best for their patients (I know I am) and are doing that based on the best available information to them at any given point in time. The fact that the vast majority of MDs are in favor of the vaccine should at least be worth something.

And being for or against anything 'because Trump' or 'because Democrats' is what's tearing the US apart.
According to the AMA, based on their survey, 96% of practicing physicians have taken the COVID vaccine. Draw what conclusion you will from that statistic.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19
96% of surveyed physicians, N=301.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:56 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:40 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:41 am
According to the AMA, based on their survey, 96% of practicing physicians have taken the COVID vaccine. Draw what conclusion you will from that statistic.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19
96% of surveyed physicians, N=301.
Don't most hospitals and medical clinics require their physicians to take the Covid vaccine as a condition of continued employment?

For example, let's ask one of our forum physicians: WiseOne, did you take the Covid vaccine because you wanted to, or because your employer required it?
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by SomeDude » Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:00 pm

flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:40 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:41 am
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:03 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:54 am



My doctor may or may not be qualified to determine whether the vaccines work and whether I should take it or not. Krispy Kreme and Whoopi Goldberg are probably less qualified.
Yeah, good point. I bet doctors were on board with thalidomide too.
I have a hard time with this line of thought. If you don't trust your self-chosen personal physician, who do you trust? The lying, scheming 'scientists'? The lying scheming scum politicians? Idiots of the internet?

I think most doctors are genuine in their desire to do what is best for their patients (I know I am) and are doing that based on the best available information to them at any given point in time. The fact that the vast majority of MDs are in favor of the vaccine should at least be worth something.

And being for or against anything 'because Trump' or 'because Democrats' is what's tearing the US apart.
According to the AMA, based on their survey, 96% of practicing physicians have taken the COVID vaccine. Draw what conclusion you will from that statistic.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19
96% of surveyed physicians, N=301.
What % of the 96% were given the following choice:

1. Take the jab
2. Quit working


This is like saying 99% of people pull over when a cop puts his lights on, ergo people like getting pulled over by cops.

At my work you have a choice now:

1. Get Vaxxed and get a special green sticker on your badge
2. Wear a mask in the office and cancel all future business travel.


I'm putting my own green sticker on my badge this weekend.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by boglerdude » Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:54 am

WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:28 am

Xan wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:29 am
flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:21 am
Here's some recent information from the CDC regarding myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination (starts at page 13).

https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download
Good to get solid numbers. Page 18 I think is the most informative: for various age groups, it shows how many cases of myocarditis were expected, and then how many were observed. For two of the age groups (16-17 and 18-24), the observed count was outside of the expected range.

Naively taking the average of the expected range and subtracting that from the observed counts, and dividing by the doses, we get the following:
16-17: 0.0031% chance of vaccine-induced myocarditis
18-24: 0.0015% chance of vaccine-induced myocarditis

The best reference I could find for myocarditis induced by Covid infection was this:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaca ... le/2780548
which says that the incidence of myocarditis among college athletes is
between 0.31% and 2.3%.

So, 18-24 year-olds are between 200 and 1500 times more likely to get myocarditis from the infection than from the vaccine, assuming they will get one or the other.
Good analysis, Xan.

There is a logical flaw in your reasoning though. What is the denominator for the incidence of myocarditis among college athletes? Is it the entire population of college athletes, the number who got sick enough with COVID to require hospitalization, or the number with a positive COVID test? The meaning of the 0.31% figure depends heavily on which of these is the case - plus the proportion of those athletes who got tested at the right time.

The reason this is important is that the sizes of the populations of people who are included in that denominator and the population who get vaccinated are not remotely comparable. The idea you're promoting is that 100% of 12-15 year olds should be vaccinated. What percentage of them is included in the denominator for that 0.31% calculation? 1% is probably a generous estimate. If that's true, then the risk of the vaccine-induced negative effects are applicable to 100 times the population who are included in the above denominator for calculating disease risk. Conversely, the risk to a given individual of getting first COVID and then myocarditis has to be divided by 100 to get a true risk assessment comparable to that of the vaccine. (Remember that the vast majority of COVID exposures in this age group result in no symptoms at all.)

This is the same problem that impacts many preventative tests or treatments with adverse effects: the adverse effects of the test or treatment are generally much rarer that those due to the disease that is being prevented, but because the adverse effects of the test/treatment apply to a much larger population, the math rarely works out in favor of the test/treatment. There are really only a very few situations where prevention efforts make any sense at all.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:29 am

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:28 am
Good analysis, Xan.

There is a logical flaw in your reasoning though. What is the denominator for the incidence of myocarditis among college athletes? Is it the entire population of college athletes, the number who got sick enough with COVID to require hospitalization, or the number with a positive COVID test? The meaning of the 0.31% figure depends heavily on which of these is the case - plus the proportion of those athletes who got tested at the right time.

If I'm reading the study correctly (and I'm no expert at that!) it seems that the Big 10 universities all agreed on strict protocols for athletes in order to play sports last fall. That included PCR Covid testing (I'm not sure under what criteria) as well as this extensive heart testing.
9255 athletes had undergone COVID-19 testing and 2810 (30.4%) had tested positive. From this group of athletes with COVID-19 (1879 men [66.9%]), 2461 had completed cardiac evaluation, with 1597 (64.9%) including CMR imaging at the time of analysis and 864 (35.1%) with a non-CMR cardiac evaluation (eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1). Of those who had CMR imaging results, 37 athletes (2.3%) were diagnosed with either clinical or subclinical myocarditis (Figure 1).

It seems like that's a fairly representative sample of healthy, college-age students who happened to test positive for Covid.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:32 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:29 am
WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:28 am
Good analysis, Xan.

There is a logical flaw in your reasoning though. What is the denominator for the incidence of myocarditis among college athletes? Is it the entire population of college athletes, the number who got sick enough with COVID to require hospitalization, or the number with a positive COVID test? The meaning of the 0.31% figure depends heavily on which of these is the case - plus the proportion of those athletes who got tested at the right time.

If I'm reading the study correctly (and I'm no expert at that!) it seems that the Big 10 universities all agreed on strict protocols for athletes in order to play sports last fall. That included PCR Covid testing (I'm not sure under what criteria) as well as this extensive heart testing.
9255 athletes had undergone COVID-19 testing and 2810 (30.4%) had tested positive. From this group of athletes with COVID-19 (1879 men [66.9%]), 2461 had completed cardiac evaluation, with 1597 (64.9%) including CMR imaging at the time of analysis and 864 (35.1%) with a non-CMR cardiac evaluation (eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1). Of those who had CMR imaging results, 37 athletes (2.3%) were diagnosed with either clinical or subclinical myocarditis (Figure 1).
OK, so denominator is 0.3 compared to 1 for the vaccine cases (i.e. multiply COVID myocarditis risk by 0.3 to extrapolate to the general population). Now let's talk about the numerator.

Did it say what proportion of the myocarditis cases were subclinical, and how many of those would have resulted in a cardiac evaluation if that screening test had not been done?

The vaccine myocarditis cases would not having been screened in the same way, but only picked up via a voluntary reporting system, based on cases that came to light due to the person involved going to seek care and then getting evaluated and diagnosed based on presenting symptoms. That is a WAY higher bar than a sensitive screening test given to the entire population, and a clinical diagnosis pipeline that is bound to leak a lot of patients each step of the way.

Also, that 30% positivity rate sounds mighty suspicious. Most schools/universities were reporting positivity rates below 1%. Either something was funky about the test used, or these athletes included an unusual cluster of cases. For sure the rate is not representative of the general population, as no city anywhere has reported a positivity rate anything close to this. So you'd have to account for this as well before trying make any comparisons to the general population.

Welcome to "how to read the medical literature". You really have to think through all this stuff. Also, these numbers are really looking like, once you address all these confounders, that the risk of myocarditis for teens is not any better with the vaccine than with natural COVID.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:10 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:32 pm
OK, so denominator is 0.3 compared to 1 for the vaccine cases (i.e. multiply COVID myocarditis risk by 0.3 to extrapolate to the general population). Now let's talk about the numerator.
Not following... Are you saying that a negative test means somebody is completely invulnerable to Covid?

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:32 pm
Did it say what proportion of the myocarditis cases were subclinical, and how many of those would have resulted in a cardiac evaluation if that screening test had not been done?
The second of three "Key Points" which comprise the first paragraph:
the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%. Screening with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4 to 2.3%.
The "200 times more likely" was the 0.31% number, which is symptom-based heart issues. You're right that some of those folks wouldn't have submitted to VAERS, but people are on alert after getting the vaccine, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's close. The "1500 times more likely" was the 2.3% uncovered by the CMR.

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:32 pm
Also, that 30% positivity rate sounds mighty suspicious. Most schools/universities were reporting positivity rates below 1%. Either something was funky about the test used, or these athletes included an unusual cluster of cases. For sure the rate is not representative of the general population, as no city anywhere has reported a positivity rate anything close to this. So you'd have to account for this as well before trying make any comparisons to the general population.
Agreed, it would be nice to know something about how and why that took place.

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:32 pm
Welcome to "how to read the medical literature". You really have to think through all this stuff. Also, these numbers are really looking like, once you address all these confounders, that the risk of myocarditis for teens is not any better with the vaccine than with natural COVID.
It still looks to me like the infection itself is two orders of magnitude more likely to cause myocarditis.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:34 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:53 pm
Vaccines good people. Get vaccinated. Get everyone you love vaccinated. Donate to charities who facilitate vaccinations. We can win this, people. We're nearing the finish line.
Set to music
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by boglerdude » Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:28 am

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7TarriXFME

youtube commenters have been based
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:30 pm

tomfoolery wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:53 pm
Vaccines good people. Get vaccinated. Get everyone you love vaccinated. Donate to charities who facilitate vaccinations. We can win this, people. We're nearing the finish line.
Are we all in this together?
Post Reply