It's sad how many of my favorite youtubbers have had AMIs, strokes, and pulmonary embolisms in the last year. Get your boosters people!

AMI?

Most likely, a heart attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_myocardial_infarction

Thanks.

> AMI?

Heart attack?

https://www.jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?id=223

Vouched for your post for visibility.

If only Dianna had been boosted 5 times instead of 4.

UK stats show that the preponderance of cardiovascular issues occur in those who have received one or more vaccination. [0]

[0] https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1598594/vaccine-news-...

This article sounds like it was written by a 9 year old

Let’s please not result to attacking the tone of the article.

The data is probably not wrong. It’s probably taken out of context though. But you can get the same issues from contracting COVID.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

Which looks like an order of magnitude greater from getting the real thing.

I find people are really not good at considering other scenarios and ball parking risk. Or maybe they just want to be contrarian.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ 200,000 unvaccinated people showed no measurable increase in myo- and pericarditis post covid infection.

The link from '2muchcoffeeman shows a dramatic increase in March 2020–January 2021 rates after Covid among a 36,005,294 cohort group with 1.45M Covid cases.

Which is fun, since 200,000 is a LOT of people and would normally (assuming independence and randomness) be seen as more than enough, but there's probably not a lot of true randomness/independence in cohorts of people who got Covid in that period. Probably a lot of shared characteristics.

In any case, the sample that's 7 times longer is probably the one to go with.

So the express article talks about risk increases of 75% and 557% (Pfizer/Moderna). The COVID cohort in the March 2020-January 2021 US study is a 16x increase. So quite likely several multiples worse to get "original" Covid unvaccinated, also a lot of unknowns around new variants and immune response, of course, but...

It's all pretty straightforward, no? Vaccine causes similar effects to a real infection intentionally, to stimulate the immune system. Sometimes this has side effect. The actual virus - which is much more, ahem, viral - hits the body even harder, the immune system produces much larger effects, including more frequent instances of the same side effects.

And these numbers all around are still infrequent, and viral infection has caused myocarditits for a long time pre-Covid too, so the hysteria seems like confirmation bias (either of "Covid is the source of all my problems" or "vaccines are bad" reactionary silliness.)

How frequently you do or don't get boosters should depend on disease prevalence, patient history, risk factors, etc, but.... the idea that people are commonly dropping dead from these vaccines or this disease super frequently, and worringly more than the whole world full of previous diseases? I'm unconvinced. And that it's "mRNA specific" vs "immune system stimulation" related? Seems to be zero reason to jump to that conclusion.

I don't think what you're suggesting is especially good science. A study of hundreds of thousands with something that another study shows an incidence rate of 0.15% of is far more than enough to detect a signal. And so what really matters is methodology and limitations.

The CDC mentions a substantial number of limitations in their methodology. One very big one is that they did not consider underlying conditions. In the limited data that they provided [1] you'll notice black individuals and those on medicare are both substantially overrepresented in the myocarditis group. Neither of those factors cause myocarditis, but both are correlated strongly with obesity - which does. And black individuals, especially early on in the pandemic, were substantially overrepresented in infection rates. In other words a sample of the population that is disproportionately obese, which can cause myocarditis, were also disproportionately diagnosed with COVID.

And those sort of biases, among many others, were not considered. Notably all unconsidered biases share the common characteristic of likely inflating the estimated COVID:myocarditis relationship. By contrast in the Israeli study these factors (and many more) were carefully controlled for, alongside a consideration of how their results may differ, and why, relative to other major studies.

[1] - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/109261

Unvaccinated countries like PNG are not seeing increased deaths in under 45s.

It's not the tone it's the typos and the overall composition that's bad.

It's the daily express, 90% of their readers are in their second childhood.

There was NO increase in young people dying from random heart problems in 2020. Only after the vaccine rollout did the issues in young people begin. Also compare to countries where no young people took the vaccines, in those countries we are not seeing unusual increases in young people getting heart problems. Young people should not be getting boosters.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

Is it known if Diana was waxed and/or boosted? I was fully up to date when I got my first covid and it still took a serious toll on me. Hope she recovers :(

According to a CBS Colorado, she was boosted (they also recommend getting the vaccine and boosters to avoid getting COVID in the first place).

Dang, that sucks.

Yeah, was also mentioned in the video that she was vaccinated. Unfortunate.

What makes you so sure injecting yourself with experimental drugs that have a proven risk for higher adverse events, and that does not confer better than natural immunity will IMPROVE your chances?

>Get your boosters people!

Heh. Was that a clever one or am I seeing things?

which is here: https://www.patreon.com/physicsgirl

Doesn't her family have insurance? What is this money going towards?

I haven't watched the video, but just wanted to say my family has insurance (in USA), with $7,000 deductible & $14,000 out of pocket family maximum. That of course assumes that we won't get balance billed for whatever bureaucratic reason the medical provider comes up with. For example: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/28/1159786...

I believe the recent No Suprises Act no longer allows balance billing for emergency care or when an out-of-network provider is working at an in-network facility.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-is-a-surprise-...

True! It eliminated balance billing for almost everything except for land ambulances.

Got a $2,200 ambulance bill for taking my daughter 6 miles that was balance billed last year after insurance paid $600. Don’t know how land ambulances in particular managed to avoid being covered by the act, but just something to keep in mind if you have a non-critical injury and don’t need an ambulance.

> Don’t know how land ambulances in particular managed to avoid being covered by the act

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/upshot/ground-ambulances-...

Some progress is better than none. Hopefully ambulances can be added in the future. One thing though I heard is ambulance services in rural area are barely solvent so just eliminating balance billing may put them under. Not sure if a better approach to funding is taxes or have insurance cover it.

Its her job, man.

Was.

Is it normal in your country to have insurance which covers your entire income (including self employed stuff) for an indefinite amount of time? How much does it cost? How long does it cover?

It is worth noting, that Simone - in the video, says Dianna is not informed that they are asking for help. And that she (Simone) is looking forward to the day when Dianna is strong enough to be pissed at her about it.

I assume that the patreon is to cover loss of income, health costs which are not covered by insurance, and to support her husband who is caring for her.

She has almost 9000 patrons, and is an already successful Youtuber / e-celebrity. I'm sorry for what's happened to her, but I sincerely think charity is better directed elsewhere (for example, a local org that helps disadvantaged families receive healthcare/resources).

methinks you underestimate just how bad health care costs are in the US, especially for entrepreneurs who tend to not be able to afford good insurance. On top of that, where's the money coming for rent, power, food, etc? Her husband is a full time caretaker now so... he's not bringing in anything.

Yes, there's value in supporting the things you said, but ~9k patrons to support a creator who isn't creating, and her husband, and her medical costs and andandand... that's not actually very much, especially if she lives in a major city in the US where rent is frequently ridiculous.

The minimum subscription is $3 per month. Even if all 9,000 are paying the minimum it's $27,000 per month.

I beg your pardon but the cheapest tier on her patreon is $3 a month. Please do not try to tell us that $325k a year minimum is not enough.

She doesnt' get 100% of that, she doesn't even get close. Several podcasts I listen to are killing their $2/$3 tiers as it doesn't make them any money. That's also assuming they continue the payment for the full year all 10k of them.

> Several podcasts I listen to are killing their $2/$3 tiers as it doesn't make them any money

Am I missing something here? The cut that Patreon gets is 5-12% of revenue and processing payments for 2-3$ are 5% + 10c. At worst, she's getting $2.2 for every $3/m user.

I think there are other fees but I couldn't find them. Sure so that's $22,000 once if everyone (10k) is $3 tier patreon and goes for one month. For someone who can't work, and then there's taxes. With just federal they're down to $15k for that month. Yeah that's nice, but that's what being nice is. Does that keep going, likely no. And that's max, not including local taxes, etc.

Are they rolling in it, no not at all. I'm not sure what your point is, they don't think they can work, it's been going on for a bit, they get a nice community pay out ... do people live on less, yes definitely. But she didnt' win the lottery here.

I think what they mean by that is that they thing if they raise the bottom tier it won't reduce the number of patreons by the same amount, so they are essentially losing money by not doing that.

Let me tell you: $325k/yr is not enough to manage a debilitating health condition that requires constant care.

For a creator of her size, patreon takes 12% right off the top. ($39k)

In addition, there is a transaction fee of 2.9% + $0.30. ($9.5k + $32.5k = $42k)

Then you have to pay taxes. Self employment taxes on $283k are $26.5k.

Federal/state/local income taxes are $82k.

So, you’re at $175k takehome. Not $325k, but not bad, right?! Well, maybe, except this does not include any of the benefits of a traditional job. No health insurance, dental, retirement, etc. Hopefully, they have good health insurance, otherwise they are probably already close to bankrupt.

If you’re wondering if $175k takehome can support a couple through a catastrophic health issue like this long term, I have the personal experience to say that it can’t. I won’t elaborate further, but maybe someone else can.

Even assuming that your figures are correct, I am not sure how you can conclude that $135k/year take-home is insufficient to support a couple through a catastrophic health issue.

She is apparently in her 30s. Same with me. I pay for an excellent Marketplace health insurance policy. My premium, annualized, is around $6,500, and my annual out-of-pocket maximum is $8,000. That’s $14,500 a year. Double that to liberally cover two people, and you’re still under $30k/year.

How is $135k/year inadequate?

Also worth noting that before the video was released she had a little less than 1k patreons and wasn't releasing new videos. So, she's probably been going through her savings for the past 6 months or so. She's not getting better any time soon either. So, this 9k number will probably decrease a lot in the following months.

I’m not sure how that is relevant.

My comment was a rebuttal to someone who argued that $135k/year in take-home is insufficient to support a couple - any couple - through a catastrophic health issue.

This is in the context that she's already rich enough and doesn't need support. So, I was pointing out that, even if 137k per year is enough. It doesn't mean she quite get that really.

Insurance is not the only health care expense. Her level of illness indicates need for round-the-clock supervision, which could be satisfied by a nursing home at $10k per month, which would allow her husband to work. That’s a pretty miserable existence, so home health aids are more common, which augment the time family spends caring for the sick person. That can easily cost $5k/month or more to just cover enough time to hold a job, go to school, or just sleep most nights without worry.

"$325k/yr is not enough"

...and so definitely needs your charity more than people with only $25k/yr.

That was never said.

I had a serious, one-off injury in 2018 that would have wiped out about half of that if not for my employer sponsored care. US healthcare is extraordinarily expensive.

If you hadn’t had employer-sponsored healthcare, wouldn’t you have purchased health insurance through the Marketplace?

It's significantly more expensive with higher deductibles and copays and smaller networks.

Graphtreon suggests she gained ~7,000 of those after this video was released. She only had 1,000 patrons last month: https://graphtreon.com/creator/physicsgirl

So yeah maybe 8,000 is enough now but maybe 1,000 was not :)

She also did not have more than 1000 patrons before the video push a few days ago. Which, particularly considering what must be substantial medical bills, is definitely not enough to sustain her family.

I was also implying her earnings from her YouTube channel, on which she has over 2 million subscribers. I'm well aware how bad health care costs are in the US. Although I'm not an entrepreneur, I'm willing to wager my net worth does not compare to that of Dianna and her family's. If I were in the same position, I'd probably be less equipped to handle the tremendous healthcare costs, and I probably wouldn't be able to rally thousands of strangers on reddit or YouTube to help pay for my medical bills, even though I'd be more in need of it. Which is both funny to think and perfectly reasonable -- I'm not charismatic nor an e-celebrity.

My point is that it's easy to give money to a Youtuber you like who posts a video with sad piano music and call it a day (I have done this too). It's harder to spend a bit of time to find a way to help the invisible people in your community who may be more in need. You can do both, I would just prioritize the latter.

How about you pay for your own health care instead of asking others to do it? Yeah. YEAH try that dude. I'm SICK of ebeggars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svrKWMdks4U

No. NEVER donate to anybody online, ever. What the hell are you doing dude? Do you want me to destroy you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svrKWMdks4U