Results Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis.
Sure, I don't mind leaving it to the scientists. I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons:
1. "experts" have been relentlessly debunking vaers the past 2 years. This is even discussed in the limitations: "Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely."
2. This isn't the first analysis of this kind, yet prior reports have emphasized an important distinction not found in the OP:
the increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher in persons aged under 40 years. We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't?
because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive?
because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning?
because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore?
.
prior reports have emphasized an important distinction
I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized.
THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN.
This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it."
In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places.
"Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars"
In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus.
Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods.
You want to know why this doesn't matter?
Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them.
We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country.
Why?
Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there.
The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts.
The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU.
And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea.
And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see.
And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it.
Amazing. I love outbursts like this. Gatekeeping, arrogance, a complete meltdown and inability to cope with reality, all packaged and presented as a self righteous lecture that no one asked for. I have to wonder what value you think you're providing?
"Stupid people should shut-up and listen to the smart people!" is that it?
Am I leading the "stupid" astray? Am I the villain to your hero? This is cute, really.
May I ask how many lives have you saved today? Donated any blood lately? Perhaps you volunteer at your local fire department? Anything at all?
"Oh look the self anointed arbiter of the intellectual elite is here to rescue us from the very bad, no good, misinformation brigade!"
How many dragons have you vanquished on the internet today? Do you pat yourself on the back every time you blow your load?
Guess what else? Smart and stupid people can see you too. They can all see just "how much you get it".
Take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and try to do better next time.
I'm sure that felt really good to get off your chest, but perhaps you'd like to offer a calmer follow-up with more factual arguments? Some of us readers appreciate them, and find them more thought-provoking than regular boring flame wars.
Comments
So.. we're using VAERS now?
You aren't using anything.
The scientists are, in a controlled way. That doesn't mean that it's a regular source.
Yes, it's appropriate to use a no-validation report system to search for signal.
Vaers is crap, but crap is actually what you want when you're saying "look how ridiculously wide I cast my net looking for examples."
Sure, I don't mind leaving it to the scientists. I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons:
1. "experts" have been relentlessly debunking vaers the past 2 years. This is even discussed in the limitations: "Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely."
2. This isn't the first analysis of this kind, yet prior reports have emphasized an important distinction not found in the OP:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't?
because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive?
because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning?
because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore?
.
I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized.
THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN.
This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it."
In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places.
"Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars"
In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus.
Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods.
You want to know why this doesn't matter?
Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them.
We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country.
Why?
Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there.
The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts.
The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU.
And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea.
And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see.
And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it.
Please stop doing this soon.
You're killing stupid people.
Amazing. I love outbursts like this. Gatekeeping, arrogance, a complete meltdown and inability to cope with reality, all packaged and presented as a self righteous lecture that no one asked for. I have to wonder what value you think you're providing?
"Stupid people should shut-up and listen to the smart people!" is that it?
Am I leading the "stupid" astray? Am I the villain to your hero? This is cute, really.
May I ask how many lives have you saved today? Donated any blood lately? Perhaps you volunteer at your local fire department? Anything at all?
"Oh look the self anointed arbiter of the intellectual elite is here to rescue us from the very bad, no good, misinformation brigade!"
How many dragons have you vanquished on the internet today? Do you pat yourself on the back every time you blow your load?
Guess what else? Smart and stupid people can see you too. They can all see just "how much you get it".
Take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and try to do better next time.
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm sure that felt really good to get off your chest, but perhaps you'd like to offer a calmer follow-up with more factual arguments? Some of us readers appreciate them, and find them more thought-provoking than regular boring flame wars.