When it comes to heart problems, vaccination and infection are not mutually exclusive. The root cause behind that belief may well be imprecise use of language.
The only way they can get these studies published is if they say positive things about the vaccines. It’s great that they realise that people are smart enough to decipher the information and make their own decisions. At least we are getting these sorts of papers published. If they said negative things about the vaccines they would never be published. Sadly, that’s life in the time of COVID.
Thank you for this analysis. The notion of additive effects becomes clear yes, but only once people are aware this is not a simple 'either/or' decision. Yet, we have been given so much false information about vax effectiveness intended to generate simplistically automated decisions.
Thanks. Yes, there is strong push for simplistically automated decisions. Taking people through the visual cause-effect analysis is a good way to help them figure out the flaws behind them.
Thorsteinn, I follow your logic tree and I have a reservation because when you take the vaccine I think the reason is not only to avoid infection, but also and to me it's more important to have a better immune response from your body to increase it's immunity in the presence of covid. This means if the vaccines are effective even in the case you are infected - and evidence show us that you are infected if you take or not the vaccine - your boby responds better to the infection and you don't have a serious desease but only a bad cold or a mild desease.
This means the effect in the top of the tree X% for not being vaccinated and the effect for being vaccinated Y% could not be additive because there is a strong interaction in the body when the vaccine is present. So in the end maybe what counts is only Y%.
The point is if those Y% are acceptable as a side effect comparing the possible benefict that vaccines have (e.g. in reducing excess mortality) and comparing these figures with X% and the excess mortality of not taking the vaccine.
Thanks for bringing up the reservation Luis. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the point with the vaccine is not only to avoid infection but also to have a better immune response. Isn't the immune response in fact what reduces the risk of infection?
Apart from this, if we knew the vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to get heart disease, this would of course affect the analysis. But this is something we do not know, at least I haven't seen any research proving this.
As for general considerations of excess mortality, this is really beyond the scope of this analysis, which is focused on the question of heart problems only.
I suppose the counter might be (I don’t know) that vaccination doesn’t prevent you getting infected with Covid but makes it less likely that the infection will lead to serious problems(including myocarditis etc).
incidence of COVID-19-associated cardiac injury or myocarditis is much higher, estimated
to be 100 times higher than mRNA COVID-19-related myocarditis"
the writer: "Then, as if in order to take it all the way beyond the edge of reason, they claim the risk of serious heart problems is a 100 times higher for those who become infected with Covid-19. Now, 100 times 2.33% is 233%, right? So out of every 100 people infected, 233 will get heart injury!"
need i point out where the writer has gone astray?
If you think they are referring to the myocarditis risk only for multiplying all heart damage I think this is highly unlikely from the way they put it. But why beat around the bush? Why not just tell us what you are referring to?
It isn't that clear in the text. They talk about both myocarditis and heart damage in the same sentence and then talk about the 100 times rate referring to myocarditis. So, if we were talking about myocarditis only the rate would be 30%, We cannot, however, take the myocarditis 30% and apply that to the 2.33%. That would not make any sense. I therefore simply assume when they talk about a much higher incidence and take myocarditis as an example, that they extrapolate this ratio to all heart muscle damage; there is nothing in their reasoning that suggests otherwise.
do not first assume anything and base a conclusion upon that assumption without making absolutely clear that it is based upon an assumption in the first place.
The only way they can get these studies published is if they say positive things about the vaccines. It’s great that they realise that people are smart enough to decipher the information and make their own decisions. At least we are getting these sorts of papers published. If they said negative things about the vaccines they would never be published. Sadly, that’s life in the time of COVID.
Thank you for this analysis. The notion of additive effects becomes clear yes, but only once people are aware this is not a simple 'either/or' decision. Yet, we have been given so much false information about vax effectiveness intended to generate simplistically automated decisions.
Thanks. Yes, there is strong push for simplistically automated decisions. Taking people through the visual cause-effect analysis is a good way to help them figure out the flaws behind them.
Thorsteinn, I follow your logic tree and I have a reservation because when you take the vaccine I think the reason is not only to avoid infection, but also and to me it's more important to have a better immune response from your body to increase it's immunity in the presence of covid. This means if the vaccines are effective even in the case you are infected - and evidence show us that you are infected if you take or not the vaccine - your boby responds better to the infection and you don't have a serious desease but only a bad cold or a mild desease.
This means the effect in the top of the tree X% for not being vaccinated and the effect for being vaccinated Y% could not be additive because there is a strong interaction in the body when the vaccine is present. So in the end maybe what counts is only Y%.
The point is if those Y% are acceptable as a side effect comparing the possible benefict that vaccines have (e.g. in reducing excess mortality) and comparing these figures with X% and the excess mortality of not taking the vaccine.
Thanks for bringing up the reservation Luis. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the point with the vaccine is not only to avoid infection but also to have a better immune response. Isn't the immune response in fact what reduces the risk of infection?
Apart from this, if we knew the vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to get heart disease, this would of course affect the analysis. But this is something we do not know, at least I haven't seen any research proving this.
As for general considerations of excess mortality, this is really beyond the scope of this analysis, which is focused on the question of heart problems only.
I suppose the counter might be (I don’t know) that vaccination doesn’t prevent you getting infected with Covid but makes it less likely that the infection will lead to serious problems(including myocarditis etc).
Thanks. Yes, if we knew the vaccination lowered the risk of heart problems this would change the conclusion. But then we'd have to know this.
the study: "By contrast, the
incidence of COVID-19-associated cardiac injury or myocarditis is much higher, estimated
to be 100 times higher than mRNA COVID-19-related myocarditis"
the writer: "Then, as if in order to take it all the way beyond the edge of reason, they claim the risk of serious heart problems is a 100 times higher for those who become infected with Covid-19. Now, 100 times 2.33% is 233%, right? So out of every 100 people infected, 233 will get heart injury!"
need i point out where the writer has gone astray?
Thanks. The writer does not think he has gone astray. 0.0233 times 100 is 2.33 or 233%.
i was not doubting your ability to do calculations but your ability to read.
try again?
If you think they are referring to the myocarditis risk only for multiplying all heart damage I think this is highly unlikely from the way they put it. But why beat around the bush? Why not just tell us what you are referring to?
indeed, it is the 0.3% of the myocarditis.
for that is what the study derives the 100 times from.
so it should be 30% not 233 %.
apart from that: the study stinks to high heaven.
It isn't that clear in the text. They talk about both myocarditis and heart damage in the same sentence and then talk about the 100 times rate referring to myocarditis. So, if we were talking about myocarditis only the rate would be 30%, We cannot, however, take the myocarditis 30% and apply that to the 2.33%. That would not make any sense. I therefore simply assume when they talk about a much higher incidence and take myocarditis as an example, that they extrapolate this ratio to all heart muscle damage; there is nothing in their reasoning that suggests otherwise.
a piece of advice:
do not first assume anything and base a conclusion upon that assumption without making absolutely clear that it is based upon an assumption in the first place.