Interesanti un uzmanības vērts. Bet katrs pētījums pēta tikai to ko pēta.

Piem. šis pētijums nesalīdzina vai kovid pārslimušajiem marķieru izmaiņas un secinājums "inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle" un aizdomas (may account) par "thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events" ir lielāks, mazāks vai salīdzināms ar mRNA vakcīnu efektu - kas būtu tas, ko mēs gribētu zināt, bet no šī pētījuma neuzzinā).

Tas būs cits pētījums un tā zinātne strādā, soli pa solim. Un skaidrs, ka ilgtermiņa (nākamo 5, 10, 20 gadu) efektu ietekme objektīvi nav zināma ne pārslimošanas ne vakcinēšanās gadījumā.

Tas ko mēs pilnīgi droši zinām (šobrīd) ir tas, ka kovid rada ārkārtas mirstību (šobrīd), vakcīnas strādā (šobrīd, vismaz uz esošajiem kovid variantiem, bet nav izslēgts, ka būs jauni uz kurām nestrādās vai strādās sliktāk), samazinot smagas saslimšanas un nāves risku, lokdouni strādā (šobrīd) nositot lejā saslimstības vilni. Ja tev šitie fakti nepatīk, tad good luck meklēt faktus, kas patīk bet nu par draudzēšanos ar realitāti es to nesauktu.

Savukārt par futbolistiem - https://psychcentral.com/lib/patterns-the-need-for-order#3

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Yeah (English cos I have deadlines but Ciba sucks me in), nice to see, finally, that after an unstable period people on ciba with different outlooks can have a back and forth without losing their shit.

You, in my opinion, are right about the step-by-step approach. Check out formica's link to the interview with the Cardiologist down the thread. It seems that other researchers are about to do (but are afraid to publish) more work - that doesn't look good for the vaccines and those who are/will be taking them.

I agree with you, also that Covid has resulted in a rise in all-cause mortality in a certain demographic (the elderly, the overweight, those with co-morbidities, and those with low Vit D). But the question is: are vaccines also contributing to a rise in all-cause mortality? I am - as you probably know (in)famous for tracking the rise pre-third wave of mortality in Latvia and the UK (also in other European countries). The cardiologist in the interview states many of these were related to heart problems (not Covid - at least directly).

Re bias - of course. We are all guilty. I don't know if it would change your mind about lockdowns and so on, but the US gives us real world data which we can use to compare outcomes in different states that implemented different policies. It isn't as black and white as we would like reality to be - that's life, in all its wonderful complexity. We also, of course, need to take into account the negative effects of restrictions/lockdowns and so on.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Par datu manipuleeshanu skat. Prof Norman Fenton

https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc

https://www.normanfenton.com/blog

(Reply to this) (Parent)

P.S. Nice explanation of this abstract is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEBGl8MVE-c

Answer "are vaccines also contributing to a rise in all-cause mortality?" is interesting and most probably very complex to be answered properly - for that you have to eliminate a lot of factors, incl. changes in delta vs beta variants, asymptomatic covid cases, etc. So more studies due in next few years.

Regarding lockdowns - at some moments they simply are inevitable - when hospitals are full and extra deaths start to accumulate because of lack of accessibility to medical care. We may not like them, we may talk about "negative effects of restrictions/lockdowns" in terms of economics, children schooling, mental health, etc. but public opinion at some moment requires governments to do something and they do something. I don't like them either, but I can see how being angry and falling into conspiracies is not really helpful/productive. Complex systems are complex and always messy. When you have worked in big company you how seen stupidity in all shapes and colors without need to falling into conspiracy shit.

P.S. I don't buy "other researchers are about to do (but are afraid to publish)" arguments. There is always someone who is afraid and there is always someone who is not.

P.P.S. I don't read/watch formica's links either (as some other hardly biased cibiņi).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"very complex to be answered properly - for that you have to eliminate a lot of factors, incl. changes in delta vs beta variants, asymptomatic covid cases, etc. So more studies due in next few years"

Okay - but what is your opinion on the following question: Even if you think it is only a possibility that these medical interventions could be leading to increased incidences of heart disease, should young people be either forced or pressured into taking them?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I have no opinion (yet) on forcing/pressuring. It's sometimes ok to have no strong opinions. I also have not studied data enough on this and I'm not a policy maker, I don't envy people who are :)

Abstract you cited did not change my opinion. There already are studies on the topic (reading actual studies is hard, and not that interesting, that's why bad takes on them in conspiralogy sites are so popular, I think): https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/openAttachment/documents.otherDocument-1/43974
with summary that getting covid is vorse in terms of venose thrombosis (VTE) than getting vaccine while risk for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke does not significantly increase (again, of course, study is limited on things it actually measures and can't predict what will happen in 5 years).
"We observed a potential albeit small increase in the number of VTEs seen after a first-dose of BNT162b2 in both Spanish and UK data, with 46 “excess” events expected in >900,000 people vaccinated in Spain, and 42 in 1.65 million people vaccinated in the UK. The equivalent figures amounted to 437 excess cases in 220,000 people diagnosed with COVID-19 in Spain, and to 566 excess events in 300,000 participants tested positive against SARS-Cov-2 in the UK. ".

That said, my kids (16 and 20) are vaccinated. In my opinion currently known risks (incl. higher chance of long-covid *) vs vaccination side-efects is clearly in favor of taking vaccine. And I may change my mind in the future when there will be supporting data.

* Known as today. There's still open discussion/problem/data how strong vaccines protects from long covid https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay - so you don't have an opinion on young people being denied university, work (in many sectors), and - in my child's case - playing football (something we are fighting) if they don't take a medical intervention that they are highly unlikely to need (we know who the risk groups are) and which could lead to severe disease and/or death?

When, approximately, would you develop an opinion? For example if it were to be declared mandatory and not having it meant prison, would you have an opinion on that? Or would you leave the unenviable task to the experts?

I have an opinion on your decision, by the way: and it is 'good for you'. You analysed the situation and made a choice you believe is right. You might be proved wrong in the mid to long term (and consequently be a burden on the health system), but you used your free will to steer a course through life - as you should.

The study you linked to is interesting, but it was published 6 months ago. Since then, we have seen almost in real time athletes dropping with career-ending or life-ending disease (there seem to be 3 collapses and one death in the last 48 hours in the football world).

Clearly, in my opinion, before any more children/young adults are forced to take this, we need to a study on what is going on. For example, is the heart giving out due to high, intense levels of exertion significantly more often in the vaxxed cohort as opposed to the non-vaxxed? How many of them were diagnosed with covid (with and without heavy symptoms, and so on?

Right now, we - those having questions - are being condescended to - why? Are we really that dumb? Are these questions and concerns really so silly that we should just wait for more data in 5 years (and hope our trust was not misplaced) Or could there be intense political pressure to get everyone vaccinated for reasons other than the general health of the population?

But okay - conspiracy theories .... ooooh

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> so you don't have an opinion on young people being denied university, work (in many sectors), and - in my child's case

I think young people should be provided with option for remote learning unless vaccinated. Regarding work - I think vaccination should be mandatory (as of today) for jobs working with other people and optional for remote work. I think football for kids (outside venues) should be allowed without limitations.

> The study you linked to is interesting, but it was published 6 months ago.

There are follow up updates on this study with more data from more countries with the same conclusion.

> You analysed the situation and made a choice you believe is right. You might be proved wrong in the mid to long term (and consequently be a burden on the health system)

As are you (and perhaps - our kids and that's on us). Life is hard and then you die.

> Since then, we have seen almost in real time athletes dropping with career-ending or life-ending disease (there seem to be 3 collapses and one death in the last 48 hours in the football world).

This is pattern matching - your are emotionally invested into particular opinion and seeking for patterns that confirm your beliefs. I'm sure this will be investigated. Not sure that vaccination will be sole reason for this.

> Clearly, in my opinion, before any more children/young adults are forced to take this, we need to a study on what is going on. For example, is the heart giving out due to high, intense levels of exertion significantly more often in the vaxxed cohort as opposed to the non-vaxxed? How many of them were diagnosed with covid (with and without heavy symptoms, and so on?

No disagreements there regarding need for study and regarding "forced to take this", especially for children.

> Are we really that dumb? Are these questions and concerns really so silly that we should just wait for more data in 5 years

No you should ask questions, require research (don't do your own research though, that's important because none of us are qualified enough), write letters to local/country politicians and institutions for reasoning and data. And yes, also wait for more data in 5 years because we are flying half-blind and balancing act of old people dying right now (live on TV) and young people having (or not having, we don't know yet) potential health issues in future.

> Or could there be intense political pressure to get everyone vaccinated for reasons other than the general health of the population?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9v7NGe968M

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Morning - quick question about " I think vaccination should be mandatory (as of today) for jobs working with other people"

Why do you hold this view when we know that vaccination does not prevent infection and transmission? The recent Lancet paper found that the vaccinated had the same viral load as the unvaccinated - and even Gates recently declared that the effect on transmission was 'slight'. We can see real-world evidence of this in the spikes in infection in heavily vaccinated states and societies.

And about this: "This is pattern matching - your are emotionally invested into particular opinion and seeking for patterns that confirm your beliefs. I'm sure this will be investigated. Not sure that vaccination will be sole reason for this."

You have got a really good point here, and it is something I am conscious of myself (I alluded to it in an earlier post - I mean maybe I wasn't paying attention before). However, genuinely, I cannot find evidence so many football players were collapsing before. I pick on footy because it is my thing - I played, watch it, read about it and so on. And I honestly think the onus is on the sceptics to prove me (us) wrong now. Can you find evidence that pre-vaccination roll out we had seen this phenomenon to the same level? The Wikipedia entry just show deaths - but even here we see there has been more this year - with increasing frequency - I mean 3 collapses and one death pf professional players in 48 hours! Really, this is new.

I stand to be corrected - and please wowow - and anyone else reading this - do so if you have the inclination. It will actually be a relief, trust me. the majority of my child's teammantes have been injected, and if you can show. - nah, mate you were just looking for patterns because you were worried about these young people - well I will be big enough to concede.

But if I am right, what then? If this phenomenon has been increasing post vaccine, we should surely stop forcing (and this is happening) young people to have it until a thorough investigation has been carried out, vai nee?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> Why do you hold this view when we know that vaccination does not prevent
infection and transmission? Why do you hold this view when we know that vaccination does not prevent infection and transmission? The recent Lancet paper found that the vaccinated had the same viral load as the unvaccinated

Interesting, you sure that this is not another case when you selectively resort on something that fits your beliefs? Have you seen this
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full
"Vaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant. The impact of vaccination decreased over time. Factors other than PCR-measured viral load are important in vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Booster vaccinations may help control transmission together with preventing infections."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v1
"Using the model of household transmission, we estimated that receipt of two doses of the vaccine was associated with an age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against susceptibility to infection (VES) of 80.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.9%, 82.1%) and a vaccine effectiveness against infectiousness given infection (VEI) of 41.3% (95% CI: 9.5%, 73.0%). The vaccine effectiveness against transmission (VET), which combines the reduction in the risk of infection and the risk of infectiousness given infection among vaccinated individuals, was estimated to be 88.5% (95% CI: 82.3%, 94.8%)."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1.full-text
"Our results indicate that vaccination confers protection against onward transmission from vaccinated index cases, albeit somewhat less for Delta than for Alpha. Vaccine effectiveness against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts is stronger than to vaccinated household contacts, with the latter already largely protected from infection, and especially from severe disease, by their own vaccine-induced immunity, but differences in risk behavior may also play a role. Possible waning of vaccine effectiveness against infection and against onward transmission could result in increases in SARS-CoV-2 circulation among populations with high vaccine coverage. As full vaccination remains highly effective in preventing severe disease, also for Delta, a high vaccination coverage remains the key to control the COVID-19 pandemic"

Second - and this goes to all of you - vax-concerned, vax-obsessed and anti-vax people, should be also a good self-test for everyone keeping strong opinions on any particular topic. Ask yourself - can data change my mind? what data would change my mind? can such data even exist? Is it possible to get to such data right know? am I already too strongly invested in my opinion that it's not a opinion anymore - it's faith? because we well know that there's no way we can convince faithful with data - ask flat earthers.

> However, genuinely, I cannot find evidence so many football players were collapsing before.

Sure, there was also no pandemic like this before at least in my lifetime. Was it vaccine? Was it infection? Have they been covid-ill before? Or maybe it is regime change after long lockdowns? You are quite quick to jump to conclusions, I would say - this is something of concern - let the doctors investigate and come out with their conclusions.

> But if I am right, what then? If this phenomenon has been increasing post vaccine, we should surely stop forcing (and this is happening) young people to have it until a thorough investigation has been carried out, vai nee?

But if you are wrong, what then? Should we wait 1,3, 5 years? 10 years before we totally sure? Do we know long term impact on kids that have been ill with covid? That's how it was before - vaccines had very long and very expensive testing periods. Nothing of this is like normal, like before, not covid itself, not speed with which vaccines have been developer/rolled out, not amount of research that have become open sourced, freely available on internet for everyone to see, follow, deep dive in. New times, strange times, uncertain times, scary times.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Mate, regarding "Second - and this goes to all of you - vax-concerned, vax-obsessed and anti-vax people, should be also a good self-test for everyone keeping strong opinions on any particular topic. Ask yourself - can data change my mind?"

Good question, but you just sent me links to three papers, none of which were peer-reviewed. I don't want to be a snob about this, but, you know, the one in the Lancet was peer reviewed (I assume anyway) and found that "that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. (fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts)".

You could swap 'household' for 'workplace' in many cases (shared office/workshop/toilets and so on.


One other quick question: should, in your opinion, the vaccine be mandatory for work for those who have already had Covid?

Regarding the second question, you are right, we haven't has anything like this before, but

1) We have had it for two years, one year of which we did not have a vaccine.

2) Pro football continued all that year (just without fans), so the players stayed fit. Moreover, many tested positive during this time.

3) I believe that they are collapsing post vaccine - so not during the first year of the pandemic without the vaccine - but in the second half of the year post vaccine. I certainly don't remember anyone keeling over on the pitch pre vaccine (but post Covid outbreak). If they were, I would be grateful if someone could find the evidence. Like I said (and in answer to your question): that would change my mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Mate, have you actually have read this Lancet paper (I assume this is the one you are referring to)?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

"Findings

The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals. The median time between second vaccine dose and study recruitment in fully vaccinated contacts was longer for infected individuals (median 101 days [IQR 74–120]) than for uninfected individuals (64 days [32–97], p=0·001). SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated). 12 (39%) of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases, further confirmed by genomic and virological analysis in three index case–contact pairs. Although peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type, it increased modestly with age (difference of 0·39 [95% credible interval –0·03 to 0·79] in peak log10 viral load per mL between those aged 10 years and 50 years). Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections. Within individuals, faster viral load growth was correlated with higher peak viral load (correlation 0·42 [95% credible interval 0·13 to 0·65]) and slower decline (–0·44 [–0·67 to –0·18]).


Interpretation

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory."

I guess I have spent a lot of time on this discussion and my point remains - are you ever going to consider changing your mind? Do you seek evidence or just cherrypick bites and pieces that you like and and ignore parts you don't like? Internet is beautiful place and you will always be able to find your support group - even if it's total nonsense.

I know nothing about pro football so I kindly will show myself out.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

My question still stands: if vaccination does not prevent (but can reduce slightly (depending on the variant) for a period of time) transmission, do you think it should be mandatory for working with other people?

This question still stands regarding young people. Should they be discriminated against (work, education etc) if they refuse to take this injection against a disease that we know they stand very little chance of needing a hospital bed for? Or should it be optional - and without coercion?

As you and I both are aware, it is foggy with regard to vaccine side-effects and the findings of papers change with time as this great experiment moves forward. However, if you - or anyone else - can't find evidence of athletes collapsing in comparable numbers pre-vaccine - then I will not change my mind regarding my concerns. If they can, then I will: that is a promise.

Finally, frankly speaking - and this is a concession to you - I am sceptical about our great organisations. I think some have been captured by the Big Pharma companies (through donations and revolving doors), and I have seen what happens to scientists and doctors who break ranks (vilification, ridicule etc.). This won't convince you, and it will probably just confirm your suspicions, however, that is how it is: let me be honest.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> My question still stands: if vaccination does not prevent (but can reduce slightly (depending on the variant) for a period of time) transmission, do you think it should be mandatory for working with other people?

Yes. Although I do not agree how you are making loaded questions. (prevent vs guarantee, sligthly vs significantly).

> This question still stands regarding young people. Should they be discriminated against (work, education etc) if they refuse to take this injection against a disease that we know they stand very little chance of needing a hospital bed for? Or should it be optional - and without coercion?

You are asking me - I would vote for optional vaccination for kinds under 16 (or 18). Or are you asking Boris or Kariņš? They have to make some short-term policy decisions (like lockdowns, mandates and discrimination measures) to balance surge of hospitalizations andeaths in older people (in many cases caused by transmissions from young people) with consequences that can affect long-term lives of many younger people. I don't envy them (whatever decision they take) and I'm certainly not qualified enough to speak for their medical advisors and scientists involved.d

> it is foggy with regard to vaccine side-effects

and with regard of getting sick with covid side-effects which you are very keen to dismiss/avoid to ask questions/think about?

>Finally, frankly speaking - and this is a concession to you - I am
sceptical about our great organisations. I think some have been captured
by the Big Pharma companies (through donations and revolving doors), and
I have seen what happens to scientists and doctors who break ranks
(vilification, ridicule etc.). This won't convince you, and it will
probably just confirm your suspicions, however, that is how it is: let me
be honest.

I'm sorry I wasted your and my time, trying to argue against your beliefs. You are sceptical about pharma so also about doctors & research (meanwhile not sceptical enough quoting parts of it when it matches your concerns). So be it. Live long and prosper, I'm out :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, bye.

For the record, I don't agree with you about mandatory injection. It should be encouraged, in my opinion, for those who are in risk groups as the sole argument for the state getting involved is the pressure on the health service. The govt should also do what it can to protect the risk groups as the virus works its way through the population (as much as possible through those with good immune systems who can deal with it much better).

The rest of us should be encouraged to eat well, exercise, and ensure we have plenty of Vitamin D in the winter months. This will help alleviate pressure on the health service. - much better than being constantly scared shitless by the TV and told that injection is the only answer (oh and stay home).

The virus will make its way through the vaccinated and unvaccinated whatever we do. The rate of protection it might give for a period of time is not, in my opinion, sufficient for it to be made mandatory. We are already seeing the reintroduction of restrictions and so on in heavily vaccinated states. People, who are healthy and/or already have naturally acquired immunity are being made second-class systems for not taking a concoction which does not effectively prevent transmission and which could have life-threatening side effects.

It should, clearly, by their choice.

I am sceptical about Big Pharma because it is a business, and if you look how much money is sent on organisations like the WHO and media outlets by the Gates Foundation and Gavi, you might be too.

But okay, you are not going to change your mind either. Live long and prosper, yourself - unless you play an active role in forcing this on me or my family: in which case, watch out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Vecīt, nopietni? Tu izstājies pie visnekontroversiālākā punkta, kas ir pielīdzināms truismam, par Big Pharma un starptautisko organizāciju bezizmēra korupciju?

Še, atslābsti, brīvā brīdī iepazīsties ar beisikiem: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-monopoly-the-backstory/
Par farmācijas industrijas korupciju labi apkopots šeit otrā pusē https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/needle-points-vaccinations-chapter-two

Pfizers nesen samaksāja 2.3 miljardu dolāru sodu. Tā ir ceturtdaļa no LV gada budžeta.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

more links on kids/covid: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/dzive--stils/veseliba/ar-covid-19-smagi-slimo-ari-berni-risinajums--vakcinacija.a429603/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Particularly this
"129 children diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November, 2020 were enrolled (mean age of 11 ± 4.4 years, 62 (48.1%) female). Subsequently, three developed Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (2.3%) and two myocarditis (1.6%). Patients were assessed on average 162.5 ± 113.7 days after COVID-19 microbiological diagnosis. 41.8% completely recovered, 35.7% had 1 or 2 symptoms and 22.5% had 3 or more. 52.7% had at least one symptom 120 days or more after diagnosis

Insomnia (18.6%), respiratory symptoms (including pain and chest tightness) (14.7%), nasal congestion (12.4%), fatigue (10.8%), muscle (10.1%) and joint pain (6.9%), and concentration difficulties (10.1), were the most frequently reported symptoms. Although they were more common in symptomatic or hospitalized children, they were also described in those individuals who were asymptomatic during acute phase. 29 out of the 68 (42.6%) children assessed ≥120 days from diagnosis were still distressed by these symptoms.

from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375v1.full-text

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

thanks - there is this, though, from the ideologically correct Guardian:

Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim.

Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.

Most children who experienced the rare side-effect had symptoms within days of the second shot of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, though a similar side-effect is seen with the Moderna jab. About 86% of the boys affected required some hospital care, the authors said.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-real-risk-of-heart-inflammation-to-kids-is-from-covid-19not-the-vaccine

"Yet review of more than two dozen articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, government documents, and interviews with 10 pediatric cardiologists and pediatricians offer a reassuring picture of the safety of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis after the vaccine is rarer and usually milder than the cardiac complications from COVID-19, including those from multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), says Matthew Elias, a pediatric cardiologist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. MIS-C is a serious condition that can occur two to six weeks after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in about one out of 3,200 infected children, even if the infection was mild or asymptomatic. MIS-C can involve inflammation of many organs, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, and digestive organs. "

(Reply to this) (Parent)

https://www.who.int/news/item/24-11-2021-interim-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-for-children-and-adolescents

"Available data suggest that the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination are generally mild and respond to conservative treatment, and are less severe with better outcomes than classical myocarditis(21) or COVID-19. The risk of myocarditis/pericarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher than the risk after vaccination(21)."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

October 11th Isreal (nation of lab rabbits):
NY Times:
"Males between 16 and 29 years of age have an increased risk of developing heart problems after receiving a second dose of coronavirus vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNtech or Moderna, according to a large new analysis published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine."

"Boys between 16 and 19 years of age had the highest incidence of myocarditis after the second dose, according to a second study in the journal. The risk of heart problems in boys of that age was about nine times higher than in unvaccinated boys of the same age."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think we talk about two different things:
- you are focused on risk of vaccine for unvaccinated vs vaccinated
- I'm focused on risks of vaccine vs getting covid

That same NY Times article:
"Boys between 16 and 19 years of age had the highest incidence of myocarditis after the second dose, according to a second study in the journal. The risk of heart problems in boys of that age was about nine times higher than in unvaccinated boys of the same age.

The absolute risk is still very small, and the condition temporary. And studies have shown that Covid-19 is much more likely to cause heart problems compared with vaccination.
Based on data available in June, advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unanimously voted to recommend the vaccine, saying the benefits far outweighed the risk. For every million vaccinated boys ages 12 to 17, the shots might cause a maximum of 70 myocarditis cases, but would prevent 5,700 infections, 215 hospitalizations and two deaths, the agency has estimated."

I stated my point, you stated yours, I think we can agree to not talking each over each about two different topics.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

How do they record the side effects for the vaccine? There is huge controversy over the reporting on the Vaers data.

Also, the wording of - a heavily pro-vaccine - CDC, is interesting "might cause" but "would prevent". Note the change in the modal verb. Worthwhile noting when they are - essentially - speculating about both sets of numbers. The effectiveness of the vaccines in reducing transmission is, after all, much lower now than it was when these estimates were made..

Also the NY, which has to be pro-vaccine (in my opinion), states "studies have shown". Which studies? Not, I believe, the Israeli one.

Just a few comments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Last one, I promise, is on how incomplete our current understanding are and how limited existing research is on this topic, including how lockdowns potentially can be a cause of many problems in kids
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Fulltext/2021/12000/How_Common_is_Long_COVID_in_Children_and.20.aspx#JCL3

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Cheers - I will check it out tonight - work to do today offline.
Btw - I really appreciate the manner of your responses. This is what Ciba used to be like :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)