![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
izardRecent (end of 2024!!) social media discussion:
Someone: I won't do covid-19 boosters, they cause myocarditis. 3 upvotes, 8 downvotes.
Pro-vaxer: Here is a link to a study proving that covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often.
15 upvotes, no downvotes.
Me: Could you please explain why you claim that this study proves that "covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often", while the study does not explore frequency of myocarditis after covid-19 and after the vaccine at all? All the study does is demonstrating that post-vaccine myocarditis is less harmful than post-covid19 one.
6 downvotes, no upvotes.
Pro-vaxer: Oh, sometimes stupid antivaxers even read the linked studies! But they can't comprehend what they read, this is the problem. You see, even the abstract says: "Patients with post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccination myocarditis, contrary to those with post–COVID-19 myocarditis, show a lower frequency of cardiovascular complications than those with conventional myocarditis at 18 months."
You probably just read a part of the summary, which says "Post-vaccination myocarditis after vaccination with anti-COVID vaccines has a milder course and a lower risk of developing complications in the long term."
You think I made an error, but the error is all yours!
0 downvotes, 1 upvote
Me:
Let's think step by step:
1. From your first comment: "covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often"
Let's assume P(A) the probability of getting myocarditis from the vaccine, and P(B) the probability of getting myocarditis from COVID.
So, your statement is P(A) < P(B).
2. From your second comment, the first quote from the abstract, which, in your opinion, I misunderstood. "Patients with post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccination myocarditis, contrary to those with post–COVID-19 myocarditis, show a lower frequency of cardiovascular complications than those with conventional myocarditis at 18 months." Please re-read it again. It says nothing at all about P(A) and P(B). All it says is that P(C|A) < P(C|B), where P(C) is the probability of cardiovascular complications 18 months after the diagnosis of myocarditis.
1 downvote, 0 upvotes, no responses so far.
The scary part is that Pro-vaxer is likely a doctor, based on his (or her) other comments. Confirmation bias maybe really tough.
Someone: I won't do covid-19 boosters, they cause myocarditis. 3 upvotes, 8 downvotes.
Pro-vaxer: Here is a link to a study proving that covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often.
15 upvotes, no downvotes.
Me: Could you please explain why you claim that this study proves that "covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often", while the study does not explore frequency of myocarditis after covid-19 and after the vaccine at all? All the study does is demonstrating that post-vaccine myocarditis is less harmful than post-covid19 one.
6 downvotes, no upvotes.
Pro-vaxer: Oh, sometimes stupid antivaxers even read the linked studies! But they can't comprehend what they read, this is the problem. You see, even the abstract says: "Patients with post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccination myocarditis, contrary to those with post–COVID-19 myocarditis, show a lower frequency of cardiovascular complications than those with conventional myocarditis at 18 months."
You probably just read a part of the summary, which says "Post-vaccination myocarditis after vaccination with anti-COVID vaccines has a milder course and a lower risk of developing complications in the long term."
You think I made an error, but the error is all yours!
0 downvotes, 1 upvote
Me:
Let's think step by step:
1. From your first comment: "covid-19 vaccine causes myocarditis, but covid-19 causes myocarditis more often"
Let's assume P(A) the probability of getting myocarditis from the vaccine, and P(B) the probability of getting myocarditis from COVID.
So, your statement is P(A) < P(B).
2. From your second comment, the first quote from the abstract, which, in your opinion, I misunderstood. "Patients with post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccination myocarditis, contrary to those with post–COVID-19 myocarditis, show a lower frequency of cardiovascular complications than those with conventional myocarditis at 18 months." Please re-read it again. It says nothing at all about P(A) and P(B). All it says is that P(C|A) < P(C|B), where P(C) is the probability of cardiovascular complications 18 months after the diagnosis of myocarditis.
1 downvote, 0 upvotes, no responses so far.
The scary part is that Pro-vaxer is likely a doctor, based on his (or her) other comments. Confirmation bias maybe really tough.
no subject
Date: 2024-12-21 08:11 pm (UTC)When I get to this type of flame wars, I am extra careful only to engage in conversations where I can only find faults in math and logic. There is no way I can contribute in proving any result, but I can often find errors in proofs (which does not prove that the result is wrong, only that the result is not proven yet).
When I point that some inference is based on a lemma they take for granted like 2[biological term] times 2 equals 5, the ppl I argue with also respond that I lack medical and biological credentials. In 2020 there was a funny conversation with a epidemiologist who programmed a model that did not have any Montecarlo (was 100% deterministic), but enough data races to output different results from subsequent runs with same input values, but he was claiming that the model is correct. (It might have been, but implementation was just buggy).
no subject
Date: 2024-12-21 10:01 pm (UTC)