This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The choice isn't between getting the vaccine and getting Covid, even if you're vaccinated you're almost certainly going to get Covid eventually. So why does this matter at all? It does nothing to show that e.g. getting the vaccine will meaningfully reduce your chances of cardiac injury if you do get Covid, especially if you're young.
I'd strongly expect it to do so in the same way that 'natural immunity' does, though. I don't have any evidence it does that in adolescents, but it intuitively makes sense that it does.
Either way, all of these numbers are just low. Adolescents getting vaccinated doesn't matter much. Either for their covid death risk or their myocarditis risk. Any 'public health' effort focused on that and not mcdonalds or packaged muffins is hilariously wasted.
More options
Context Copy link
If you have a specific study on the effects of vaccination on post-Covid cardiac injury, especially among e.g. young men, then please share it.
The effects of the Covid vaccine in reducing the likelihood of infection are distinctly time-limited, and the reduction in symptoms and severity likewise seems to fade with time, but more slowly. The real question is whether the time-averaged reduction is enough to compensate for whatever increase in risk of cardiac injury the vaccine itself induces. And it seems like a legitimate question whether the vaccine helps with cardiac injury if that’s the primary adverse effect it tends to cause. It’s not like there are a bunch of other Covid symptoms the vaccine is associated with too.
No, it's not. Large-scale studies, e.g. from Qatar, have found that protection against infection rapidly wanes to around 20% within 6 months. That's negligible. Raw CDC data is totally inadequate, it has no cohort-matching, no time-matching, and no controls.
We agree here.
What I said is perfectly compatible with Covid vaccines offering some reduction in your chances of cardiac injury. But the vaccines themselves pose a risk of cardiac injury, so the question is what the combined risk ends up being. And no one in this thread, especially not you, has given any data on that question. This is especially salient because the demographic at most risk of cardiac injury from the vaccine, young men, are among the least at risk from severe Covid symptoms.
Oh, silly me, it's an inflammation response. Well, everyone knows that only heart tissues can get inflamed, so that perfectly explains things!
If a vaccine messes with a particular tissue that the virus it's supposed to stop also messes with, why should I take that as a positive indicator in favor of its protecting that tissue from the virus, especially if it doesn't induce symptoms of the virus in general besides that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just dropping in to say that after the last 2 years I don't think using the CDC as a source has the punch you think it does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link