My biggest concern is in long-term effects. I understand that it is difficult to study them but that is why I am advocating for continued research.
So basically:
- I understand that in a pandemic situation, you can't wait for research into long-term effects to come out.
- Hence, in a pandemic situation, immediate vaccination should still be recommended.
- Research into long-term effects should continue after the pandemic.
In the US, the 5-11 age range has only 38% having had even the first dose. https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.
You said:
> "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims."
To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.
If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it?
I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.
And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself.
It's not interesting, it's just old.
This is not an expose of big Pharma or anything like that, I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims.
If you look into the statistics, it actually might be the case that those 35 deaths were attributed to the vaccine. They found for fact that 10 of those died actually died of something else.
This is also why it takes an expert in a field to evaluate the content and make conclusions. Despite the tone in the HN comments, this actually might suggest that the deaths attributed to the vaccine side effect might be significantly higher than the reality but it would take a research to say of this is the case.