Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | AlishaOwen's commentslogin

States perfectly a lot of things which were sitting sort of unstated at the back of my mind, thank you.

Trying to avoid the black pill today by reminding myself that this is all being done to maintain a mandate to cross international borders, and what was probably the real prize (domestic vaccine passports for access to public life) seems to be hanging by an increasingly thin thread.


> You don't want a rushed experimental mRNA vaccine, get the Johnson and Johnson shot. It's basically the flu shot.

This is incorrect, adenoviral vector vaccines (certainly, ones which induce cells to express cytotoxic spike proteins) are also quite new and relatively untested. My wife's period was messed up by her J&J shot and my friend's mother had to have surgery to remove a life-threatening blood clot from her leg. And if the idea is "just get the shot so you can move on with your life," well, the J&J shot only buys you two months of reprieve under most of the mandate & passport schemes.

Other than that, I greatly appreciate your comment.


This is interesting to contrast with the numerous studies mentioned here: https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/14/setting-the-record-strai...


This is how Science work old studies and new studies can come to contrast conclusion. Why? Because of time, better understanding, more data and many more facts. So yeah we will probably see more long covid problems in the next 2 years.


I love when someone understands and summarizes the scientific method in so feew words. Thanks.


I just finished reading "Science Fictions" by Stuart Ritchie so I'm kinda super-sceptical now.

Like, was this study pre-registered? Or did they just mine the database until they found an association with p<0.05?


Given this article was written almost a year ago, should we consider it a bit too old for dismissing newer discoveries?


Did not mean to "dismiss" the conclusions in the new study per se. For example, one potential source of the contrast is that many of the studies in the Stat News article were focused on young (or young-ish) athletes, while the VA study is entirely military veterans.


The biggest standout difference I see is that the largest study in that article is for 3,000 covid cases, whereas this one is on 153,000.


Those 3,000 cases were actively monitored for cardiac issues, while the VA study is purely passive and observational (which the article itself raises as a caveat). It's not just a matter of comparing raw sample sizes.


I love this kind of discussion where people seek truth and do their best to remove biases. Keep up the good work, we need much more ppl like you!


science at work.

we have a saying that only cows don't change their mind.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: