Any biological effects the vaccines have are essentially irrelevant, they're a tribal sign and "sacrifice ritual".

We now know for a fact that comprehensive population vaccination is not sufficient to reduce the R0-value of the infection below 1, so the "protect others" rationalization is entirely invalid.

Restricting freedom of movement and association on the basis of a mandatory medical treatment that does NOT sterilize the population of something that has long been endemic is purely an authoritarian power play, with a dash of virtue signaling thrown in.

Don't get me wrong, it will definitely help YOU and YOUR own mortality risk, but the population protection argument is a ship that has long since sunk. Any advocacy for mandates at this point is motivated by pure fascistic tyranny, and nothing else.

So there's no point in worrying about it.

I could only find the abstract, then realized it's because the paper was not published in this peer-reviewed journal, i.e. Circulation. Instead the abstract appeared in Volume 144, Issue Suppl_1: Abstracts From the American Heart Association's 2021 Scientific Sessions. The Scientific Sessions appears to have been an online "3-day learning experience" in video conference/lecture form. Unfortunately they want $80 from me to look at the videos so my quest stopped there.

I was curious how the amazing amateurishness presented in the sibling comment's linked twitter thread (apparently screen shots of "the paper" in question) was possible in a peer-reviewed journal, so I've answered that one at least, I think.

https://professional.heart.org/en/meetings/scientific-sessio...

[1] https://twitter.com/lfoquet/status/1462888024862121990

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking about the ongoing pandemic. HN offers a great format to have balanced discussions with a technical/science-oriented community. Additionally, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 topics are spamming/dominating the main page.

> and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle

I started the thread to find out more about the current situation. One user replied with an article against vaccines. I tried to offer more context (i.e. defending the vaccines). In a different thread [2], a user underestimated the risks of vaccinating children and, again, I tried to balance it out (i.e. criticizing the vaccines). And sometimes, I just like to add a comment to confront the absurdities of today's governance [3]. Where am I primarily engaging in ideological battle?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Skinney (Just a random user)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29111492

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29275781

Curiosity meanders in unpredictable directions, so there's basically zero overlap here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994

Bad as that comment was, it's clear from the account history that there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for. I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that.

Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. People do that all the time, of course, but it tends to be a signal that they don't really care about the values of the site.

So not a peer reviewed study, and plenty of red flags in the poster content according to the Twitter thread, including the unlisted conflict of interest on the part of the poster author

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What percentage of people get it? If it's super low than it's not straightforward to say they cause heart issues.

That's like the few people per year that slip on banana peels and die... "Banana peels cause death!"