Pretty sure mRNA existed before human beings, or even multicellular life. He "invented" mRNA, like Christopher Collumbus invented America. This comment probably belongs in the "I Can't Take It Anymore" thread.
If the vaccine was as harmful as the crazies like to think a lot more people would be dead, the reality is that it isn't. It sucks that social media gives a huge platform for these people to spread their stupid to others. At least before social media, these individuals were contained within their own circle of stupid.
It's there. I read "associated with vaccine" to mean without infection. So, you got not infected not vaccinated (baseline), not infected with vaccination, infection without vaccination, and infection with vaccination. Moderna is not recommended for under 40 (use Pfizer instead) by many countries due to higher risk. "the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination." While we get into these data, the bigger picture message shouldn't be lost: "It is important for the public to understand that myocarditis is rare, and the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine is also rare," co-author Nicholas Mills said in the release. Mills is a professor and the Butler British Heart Foundation Chair of Cardiology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. "This risk should be balanced against the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. It is also crucial to understand who is at a higher risk for myocarditis and which vaccine type is associated with increased myocarditis risk."
He claims to invent mRNA vaccine - or simply a vaccine using human-made mRNA to produce spike protein, an antigen that the immune system then recognizes and activates to develop "immunity" against it. He played a part but overall, a small but fundamental one.
Hate to interrupt the dissection of vaccine skepticism, (sigh), but maybe here's a transition to my topic. Many people in China desperately wish they had one of our mRNA vaccines. Despite ridiculous spin from the PRC, the surge there is horrible, as I hear it from a number of Chinese friends here who are in regular touch with their families there. Informal estimates on the ground in Beijing, for instance, claim about 200,000 dead of COVID-19 in this recent uptick, ICUs overflowing. And while PRC claims things like "5 dead," each of the 2nd-hand contacts I have there know at least five people who have died recently, and most families I know have at least one person hospitalized at present. They have handled this horribly. Keep everyone from getting the virus for two+ years while pridefully handing out a know-to-be-crap vaccine to them, avoiding our vaccines, and then releasing the viral hounds on everyone after some protests, with no real plan in place. Jesus H.
Almost like a FU to the people over there for protesting the gov. China estimates 250mn people have caught Covid in 20 days https://www.ft.com/content/1fb6044a-3050-44d8-b715-80c18ca5c9ab Chinese officials estimate about 250mn people, or 18 per cent of the population, were infected with Covid-19 in the first 20 days of December, as Beijing abruptly dismantled restrictions that had contained the disease for almost three years. The estimates — including 37mn people, or 2.6 per cent of the population, who were infected on Tuesday alone — were revealed by Sun Yang, a deputy director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in a Wednesday health briefing, said two people familiar with the matter. Last week, China stopped trying to tally the total number of infections after authorities curtailed Covid testing. The lack of published official information has led Washington and the World Health Organization to push Beijing to be more transparent about case counts, disease severity, hospital admission figures and other health statistics that have been made widely available by other countries.
I agree that this risk is rare. What I was saying is missing is the likelihood of infection with vaccination versus without vaccination. I don't think what you quoted is covering that. For example, if the infection risk doesn't change significantly, then the total probability of getting myocarditis while vaccinated might actually be higher (since you add the risk due to vaccination plus the risk due to infection-while-vaccinated).
You don't simply add the risk like that (see below for a reason why)... but that's a good question and that's what I tried to address in the previous post. Let me try again. The study said this: Infection WITH vaccination has a lower risk of myocarditis than WITHOUT vaccination. This makes sense since we have known that vaccination drastically reduces severe covid and thus complications from it. IOW, from the study, someone that is vaccinated and infected has a lower chance of myocarditis than someone that is infected and not vaccinated. The likelihood of infection w or w/o vaccination is a moot point since the study covers both cases (infection w and w/o vaccination).
I don't think I'm following your reasoning. From what you quoted, it looks like they quantify the risk of myocarditis due to vaccination, the risk of myocarditis due to infection while vaccinated, and the risk of myocarditis due to infection while unvaccinated. Suppose a vaccinated person has 20% chance of getting infected over the following 6 months, risk is .05% of getting it as a result of vaccination, and risk is 0.1% of getting it as a result of infection (just making up numbers). Then total risk if vaccinated would be: 0.05% + 99.95% * 20% * 0.1% = 0.07% (7/10,000). And suppose without vaccination one has a 50% chance of getting infected over the following 6 months and 0.1% of getting myocarditis as a result of infection (again, making up numbers). Then the risk for the unvaccinated person is .05% (5/10,000). Change the probability of getting infected while vaccinated or not, and the resulting risk also changes, so I don't see how that point is moot. Am I mistaken somewhere?
The error is assuming the risk of getting myocarditis due to infection is a constant. It is not. It changes based on vaccination status. It's lower if you are vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated. "although the risk of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains after vaccination, it was substantially reduced, suggesting vaccination provides some protection from the cardiovascular consequences of SARS-CoV-2." There are 3 distinct risks if you will. Risk A - chance of myocarditis due to vaccination. Risk B - chance of myocarditis due to infection while vaccinated. Risk C - chance of myocarditis due to infection while not vaccinated. Risk A + Risk B < Risk C.
That's looking at things in a vacuum, but you should be weighing the risks of other complications like pneumonia.
I know you removed this but I agree with you, especially if it's a Dr's office that requires it. Definitely not the time or place to prove a point, so you did the right thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not big on masks at this point, but the last thing I need is to be told to go elsewhere. I also think when you probably have a higher chance of coming across another patient that's immunocompromised it's not that big of a deal to wear one for a few minutes to hopefully help others. I would say of all places to wear one, the waiting room\health setting would probably make the most sense imo.
It's a little like refusing to put a drop of bleach in your drinking water supply because the science says it can cause cancer. I guess you could be the one in ten million to get cancer from bleach over time but at least you shat your pants less often and didn't die from cholera or dissentary. Anyhow, there's still the Johnson and Johnson or Novavax vaccines, so I don't know why these donkeys are braying about other then to feel right or smrtr than Science. Also, is it true that Sinovax is more effective than J&J? Seems like they're both **** for Omicron but no one is taking jabs (pun intended) against J&J that I could find online.
Yep. I speak to friends almost daily that live there. Everyone in their family has it and they are careful. He said almost instantly it felt like everyone in China contracted Covid. To say it is a sh**show is being kind. I really feel for their people. After two years of receiving no to awful information regarding the virus, they had no idea what they were in for. My friend said it’s mostly the elderly dying and or in the hospital and he says “we have a ton of elderly people in China”
That Risk B is less than Risk C is good to know. But to assess total risk, it can still matter how likely one is to get infected while vaccinated (unless Risk B is so much smaller that even with 100% likelihood of infection total risk for developing myocarditis is still smaller — which maybe is your point). I think we just don’t have very good data for this.
