Vaccines

Vaccine-Related Heart Inflammation Risks for Young People Much Lower Than COVID-19 Heart Inflammation Risks

Young males infected with COVID-19 are six times more likely to develop myocarditis than those who have been vaccinated.

|

Currently, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer/BionNTech is approved for people age 12 and older, whereas the Moderna vaccine is approved for those over age 18. If the current clinical trials in younger children prove successful, both vaccines will seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for inoculating children between ages 5 and 11 years later this year.

As vaccines are further rolled out to younger cohorts, recent reports that in rare instances adolescents have experienced inflammation of their hearts (myocarditis) shortly after being inoculated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have understandably alarmed some parents. Although researchers are still trying to work out how the vaccines might cause this ailment, researchers have reported a correlation between vaccination and the onset of this side effect. The good news is that in the vast majority of cases the heart inflammation is safely resolved after a few days. So far, no one in the U.S. diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

On balance, most research finds that the risks of this side effect in adolescents and young adults are outweighed by the risks from COVID-19 infection. For example, an August 25, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study by Israeli researchers used nationwide data from that country's largest health organization to compare the incidence of myocarditis among thousands of people inoculated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, unvaccinated people, and infected COVID-19 patients. The researchers report that, while still quite rare, vaccinated people experienced myocarditis at a rate just over three times higher than the unvaccinated. But more crucially, people infected with COVID-19 had 18 times higher risk than people who were not infected with COVID-19. In other words, the currently uninfected face the choice, with respect to heart inflammation, between the lower risks of vaccination versus the considerably higher risks of infection. More importantly, the health downsides of COVID-19 infections are not limited to just a higher risk of heart inflammation compared to those who are vaccinated.

As an accompanying NEJM editorial noted:

What is even more compelling about these data is the substantial protective effect of vaccines with respect to adverse events such as acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and anemia, probably because infection was prevented. Furthermore, the persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection appeared to be at substantially higher risk for arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pericarditis, intracerebral hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia than those who received the BNT162b2 [Pfizer/BioNTech] vaccine.

A July 27, 2021, preprint analysis of the health records of 48 large U.S. healthcare organizations compared the heart inflammation risks of people under age 20 between those who had suffered a COVID-19 infection versus those who had been vaccinated. As with other studies, the researchers found that young males are, for unknown reasons, at greater risk of the malady than are young females. Overall, the researchers report that "young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine."

A September 3, 2021, article assessed the data for more than 36 million patients supplied by over 900 hospitals focusing on myocarditis and COVID-19 cases in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The researchers stratified the data by age and sex. They note that myocarditis is rare with patients with and without COVID-19. The researchers report, "During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age."

In contrast to these relatively reassuring data and analyses, another preprint article posted on September 8, 2021, seeks to parse adolescent heart inflammation data derived from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS). Those researchers compare post-vaccination heart inflammation risks with the risks of being hospitalized with COVID-19 infections in the next 120 days. They report that that the rate of post-vaccination heart inflammation for boys ages 12-15 (males being more susceptible) without medical comorbidities is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021. For boys ages 16 to 17 without medical comorbidities, the risk is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk.

However, the VAERS site warns users that because of significant reporting biases, inconsistent data quality and completeness, and the absence of an unvaccinated comparison group, its data cannot be used to calculate how often adverse events occur and cannot assess if a vaccine caused an adverse event.

Over at the Science-Based Medicine blog, Wayne State University oncologist David Gorski argues that the authors of this preprint have in any case misunderstood and badly mishandled the VAERS' self-reported data about COVID-19 vaccinations. Among other things, he points out that the researchers are not comparing apples to apples when they contrast vaccine-related cases of heart inflammation with COVID-19 hospitalizations instead of cases of vaccine-related inflammation with COVID-19 inflammation cases. In addition, he asks why the authors chose not to compare vaccine-related hospitalizations of children with COVID-related hospitalizations of children?

As it happens, a July 20, 2021 study in Circulation made just that comparison.

A slightly different comparison of the myocarditis risks for younger people versus the risks of remaining unvaccinated was put together for the August 30, 2021, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices by National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases cardiologist Hannah Rosenblum.

After reviewing the evidence for vaccine-related myocarditis in young people, an August 27, 2021, editorial in the European Journal of Internal Medicine concluded:

At this point in time, very rare cases of myocarditis in younger adult men can occur following COVID-19 vaccination, but they are clinically mild and with benign evolution. To date, the benefit-risk assessment for COVID-19 vaccination shows a favourable balance in light of the potential of short- and long-term major cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular complications associated with this disease and the long life-expectancy of this population.

Therefore, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended to prevent major complications and death.

Given current data and analyses, that seems about right.

NEXT: The Problem With the Met Gala Wasn't AOC's Dress, It Was Pandemic Hypocrisy

Vaccines Coronavirus Epidemics Children Risk Benefit-cost

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

113 responses to “Vaccine-Related Heart Inflammation Risks for Young People Much Lower Than COVID-19 Heart Inflammation Risks

  1. Healthier folks that get COVID didn’t go to the hospital so that data is biased. Is there “got COVID, stayed home” data to compare against those vaccinated?

    1. “Is there “got COVID, stayed home” data to compare against those vaccinated?”

      If there were, it would be dismissed because it wouldn’t support the pro-vaxx agenda.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.VXc simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        Click & Chang your Life …………… VISIT HERE

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet K access and you can have that at your home. HEZ Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was ui$97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… READ MORE

    2. Well, yes. One can in fact just use a search engine to find studies. I did so after reading about the myocarditis vaccine side effects a few months ago. It’s surprisingly easy if you just take the time to look.

      At the time, I found this study, where college athletes who had COVID were ALL screened for myocarditis, as heart inflammation is a significant concern among athletes (as it can lead to sudden death during activities).

      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2780548

      The incidence of myocarditis among young people with COVID appears to be about 2.3%, which equates to an incidence of 23,000 per million, over 500 times more frequent than the side effect of the vaccine. Although that was using imaging, whereas many of these people wouldn’t have been screened if they weren’t part of the study — the number who actually displayed clinical symptoms enough that they might be equivalent to the vaccine side effects who complained was found in the study to be 0.31%. That’s around the incidence I’ve seen in other studies of young athletes, where COVID seems to cause myocarditis in around 0.5% of cases. Which is an incidence of 5000 per million.

      Meanwhile, documented incidence from the vaccine is more around the order of 50 per million, about 100x less.

      So, you might compare that to the numbers in this article and wonder why the numbers from COVID aren’t as high. Several things could be at play — as mentioned above, all of these young people with COVID in this study were screened for myocarditis, and they caught many cases of minor heart inflammation that wouldn’t likely rise to a level leading to hospitalization or clinical intervention. But also one has to realize in the studies cited in the Reason article above, they are looking at COVID stats reported from hospitalizations, etc., and some element of (minor) heart inflammation may not have been the highest concern when they were treating a patient who couldn’t breathe, etc., so the myocarditis may not have been reported.

      In any case, YES, the data is biased. You’re correct. When you actually look at studies on ALL COVID cases, the numbers look even worse for COVID compared to vaccinations.

      Is that what you wanted to know? Or are you going to discount this because it doesn’t agree with your expectation?

      1. Is that what you wanted to know? Or are you going to discount this because it doesn’t agree with your expectation?

        Your retort to a study biased by deliberate selection is to provide another study that you admit is also biased by deliberate selection, and you think this was a vindication of your bootlicking authoritarianism rather than a complete and total own-goal demonstrating your scientific illiteracy? Wow. If you were self aware or capable of shame that would be pretty embarrassing.

        1. Jesus christ. It’s literally the response to the question that was asked – young healthy people who got covid and stayed home and still suffered myocarditis, at hugely increased rates relative to those who took the vaccine. Selection bias? You think they should sample America at large, so fat 45 year olds to find out how young athletes are affected by covid? Or is your hot take that fat 45 yos are actually less susceptible to covid related heart issues despite their hugely increased risk of death. And you say this guy is scientifically illiterate, what a face-palm. You have to be a special kind of stupid to even glance at that study and view it as an own-goal.

  2. This is great reasearch, but isn’t it missing the fact that even vacinated people can and are being infected. There would have to be some math done to really compare becuase it isn’t as simple as ‘if I’m vacinated I don’t have any risk of infection, or complication from infection’. Just look at Great Britan where they’ve got very high Vax rates and still tons of hospitilizations going on.

    1. Just another reason they shouldn’t be mandated.

    2. Yes. We haven’t really done that research for the population at large because it isn’t even a close call for 18+. 12-15 is another matter, and the only study that addresses this is the one Bailey has chosen to criticize.

    3. Indeed, Mr Bailey sets up an exclusive proposition- get the virus with a certain chance of inflammation *or* get the Vaccine with a lesser chance of inflammation.

      What if inflammation is just something unique to the individual’s genetics or some other immune response? Then in fact you are subjecting them to potentially getting inflammation twice- once when they get the jab, and once when they are nevertheless infected again. You haven’t balanced risks, you have compounded them.

      1. It also fundamentally fails the trolley car problem from a non-aggression perspective. The omelette numbers justify cracking a few eggs.

      2. That assumes either that inflammation is not linked to symptomatic infection, or that a given vaccine does not reduce such inflammation later. To the extent the vaccine reduces symptoms including inflammation following a later infection, you have to weigh the magnitude too, not just the double-incidence.

        I think it’s likely that the substantial reduction in symptoms following infection attributable to the vaccine times the risk of infection, as applied to inflammation specifically, outweighs the risk of inflammation from the vaccine in the vast, vast majority of individuals.

      3. This isn’t likely since the magnitude is significantly reduced the second time. If you take the vaccine you are also in a controlled situation where steroids or other remedies can be administered immediately. You could be anywhere during a random COVID infection.

        1. In general anyone with allergic reactions shouldn’t fear the vaccine. It is 50 times lower chance of reactions than typical vaccination. Since these reactions happen immediately after vaccination you are guaranteed to be in a controlled environment with immediate assistance. That is why nobody dies of the vaccine, but people die when infected.

          1. Absolute bullshit. More children (under 18) have died from the “vaccine” than from COVID (source VAERS). It’s NOT a vaccine. It is experimental genetic modification, and it has more reported adverse events in the few months it has been distributed than ALL OTHER VACCINES IN HISTORY COMBINED.

    4. Bailey is nothing but an iNazi propagandist with a middling IQ

    5. Are you sure hospitalizations are high in Great Britain? Looks like they are way down:

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions

      1. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

        https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773
        That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

        The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

      2. Shame I unmuted Overt. He had nothing useful to say about hospitalizations in Great Britain.

      3. Looks like you’re too fucking retarded to read a very simple graph. Or else you’re dishonestly comparing hospitalization rates from December of last year when using generic drugs off-label to treat COVID was made illegal and no vaccination was available to the current hospitalization rates instead of making the relevant comparison of the hospitalization rate after the broad administration of the vaccine in the UK.

        Of course when it comes to White Mike, stupidity and dishonesty are by no means mutually exclusive.

    6. This is great reasearch, but isn’t it missing the fact that even vacinated people can and are being infected.

      ‘Missing’ implies that in fact there is a problem with the research. There isn’t. It’s just that all the possible sequencing iterations of data don’t resolve in under a year or two and they can’t ethically be accelerated because you can’t time when people get infected naturally unless you infect them deliberately.

      I do think that more information re the vaccine aftereffects for teenage boys needs to be given to doctors so they can actually help patients figure out what to do.

      Which isn’t quite the same thing as inventing vaccine aftereffects for talk show hosts so they can confirm the biases they already had in order to get higher ratings for making political points to their base of listeners.

      1. The focus on adolescent males is a sure sign that one nneds to look for false pretenses. Myocarditis is being reported in other populations, and being pooh poohed by ‘science writer’ putzes using bad analogies and deliberately poor reasoning.

        1. There is no ignoring anything. A study of 6.2 million patients indicates that there is myocarditis risk for males up to 40 – but older than teens the risk window is one week post-vaccination (not permanent) and every single event in those 6.2 million was quickly resolved (meaning no evidence that it is serious).

          The uncertainty that is left is teens and younger.

      2. 600,000 invented aftereffects and counting. But luckily we don’t study those or follow up on submissions to the VAERS system so that we can simply screech “THOSE ARE UNVERIFIED!” and pretend they don’t exist in order to get higher quarterly earnings statements and bigger bonuses for pharmaceutical company executives.

  3. “For example, an August 25, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study”

    This compares myocarditis in younger vaccinated groups with post-COVID myocarditis for all ages. Apples to oranges.

    “compared the heart inflammation risks of people under age 20 between those who had suffered a COVID-19 infection versus those who had been vaccinated.”

    Near as I can tell, the researchers didn’t actually do this, and merely offered the comparison in their conclusions.

    “A September 3, 2021, article assessed the data for more than 36 million patients”

    This research explicitly EXCLUDED the vaccinated.

    “However, the VAERS site warns users”

    The problem with using VAERS is that correlation does not equal causation. The researchers addressed this by pointing out that rates of myocarditis in 12-15 are effectively non-existent. Do we need better data? Absolutely. We should have had it all along.

    “As it happens, a July 20, 2021 study in Circulation made just that comparison.”

    This study is based on data from the VAERS.

    Good God, did you read any of this shit before you linked to it?

    1. The researchers addressed this by pointing out that rates of myocarditis in 12-15 are effectively non-existent.

      Exactly how many 12-15 year old kids are evaluated for heart conditions?

      1. There are so few that we can’t even reliably estimate per 100,000 cases. It is reasonable, therefore, to attribute myocarditis cases to the vaccine. Just because Alex Berenson exploits people’s ignorance about the VAERS does not mean it is of no value.

  4. Young males infected with COVID-19 are six times more likely to develop myocarditis than those who have been vaccinated.

    “As long as poor, inner-city kids are more likely to be shot on accident by gang members, non-gang-affiliated individuals are justified in shooting them on purpose.”

    1. Not everyone is inevitably getting shot.

      Unless you think we’re eradicating covid-19, everyone is getting exposed at some point.

  5. I thought we were going test our way out of this.

    1. Two more weeks.

  6. From the article (with the misleading headline:

    “On balance, most research finds that the risks of this side effect in adolescents and young adults are outweighed by the risks from COVID-19 infection. For example, an August 25, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study by Israeli researchers used nationwide data from that country’s largest health organization to compare the incidence of myocarditis among thousands of people inoculated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, unvaccinated people, and infected COVID-19 patients. The researchers report that, while still quite rare, vaccinated people experienced myocarditis at a rate just over three times higher than the unvaccinated. But more crucially, people infected with COVID-19 had 18 times higher risk than people who were not infected with COVID-19. In other words, the currently uninfected face the choice, with respect to heart inflammation, between the lower risks of vaccination versus the considerably higher risks of infection. More importantly, the health downsides of COVID-19 infections are not limited to just a higher risk of heart inflammation compared to those who are vaccinated.

    As an accompanying NEJM editorial noted:

    What is even more compelling about these data is the substantial protective effect of vaccines with respect to adverse events such as acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and anemia, probably because infection was prevented. Furthermore, the persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection appeared to be at substantially higher risk for arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pericarditis, intracerebral hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia than those who received the BNT162b2 [Pfizer/BioNTech] vaccine.”

  7. Continuing:

    “After reviewing the evidence for vaccine-related myocarditis in young people, an August 27, 2021, editorial in the European Journal of Internal Medicine concluded:

    At this point in time, very rare cases of myocarditis in younger adult men can occur following COVID-19 vaccination, but they are clinically mild and with benign evolution. To date, the benefit-risk assessment for COVID-19 vaccination shows a favourable balance in light of the potential of short- and long-term major cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular complications associated with this disease and the long life-expectancy of this population.

    Therefore, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended to prevent major complications and death.

    Given current data and analyses, that seems about right.”

    1. that seems about right

      Science!

      I know it’s crazy to think I have any impact on the fifty-centers, but I had never seen this douchebag handle before I muted White Mike, and here is espousing exactly the same appeals to authority.

      I am starting to suspect it is just a malicious AI.

      1. He and sarcasmic have been socking it up today.

        White Mike realized that because he loudly declared he/she was muting everyone, he couldn’t retaliate when people disassembled his arguments. So now he’s been trying to generate the appearance of approval/consensus for his arguments by samefagging.

        sarcasmic on the other hand had an embarrassing drunkposting incident on Sunday that pissed off the last few people that didn’t despise him. So he’s now creating imaginary friends (see Chinny Chin Chin).

        1. He has a few friends. Bud, Jack and Miller.

        2. Chinny Chin Chin has been around for years. It’s a lefty troll. Possibly a sock of his, but an older one. Shreek also operates about a dozen socks these days, including QueenAmalthea and MollyGodiva. He invented those years ago, but stopped using them after Trump got elected. He busted both of them out again, along with his Dajjal and AddictionMyth socks, right after Biden’s coronation. Pure coincidence that they all disappeared and then reappeared at exactly the same time…

      2. This one is particularly dim and obnoxious. Well worth the mute, as it doesn’t bring any decent arguments to the table. White Mike is in there as well, I have to agree.

  8. The researchers report that, while still quite rare, vaccinated people experienced myocarditis at a rate just over three times higher than the unvaccinated. But more crucially, people infected with COVID-19 had 18 times higher risk than people who were not infected with COVID-19.

    Grrrr. I can’t be the only one that sees the obvious flaw in those statements. How many young people experience COVID without any symptoms at all? We have been regaled for well over a year with tales of asymptomatic carriers. Any scientific claim is dubious if you don’t properly define your control population. The 3x prevalence of myocarditis in the vaccinated could be due to undiagnosed COVID.

    Also notice that Bailey says nothing about the resolution of myocarditis in COVID patients, despite making a big deal about it for the vaccinated.

    This is really really shitty science reporting.

    1. Church of Political Science is never wrong.

    2. Bailey doesn’t seem to be interested in science, only the results of clearly biased research. His writing has too often shown that he has a poor grasp of the subject material, but does have a set of beliefs. And the apparent intent of his writing is for his beliefs to become the readers’ beliefs. This isn’t ‘science’ reporting.

  9. 1) As Chumby said, it is not clear to me that they COULD have gotten this data, given that the vast, vast majority of kids to get the virus have not actually seen a doctor. Most of the kids I know who had the virus had a headache for a day- the only reason they were tested was because we were forced to get them tested due to contact tracing putting them at risk.

    2) All that said: Nobody has an obligation to stick needles in their (or their kids’) arms to protect others from a natural pathogen. Demanding that children- increasingly young children- must inject themselves with a chemical to “protect society” is to say they do not have personal autonomy.

    I know that Mr Bailey did not make the argument for mandates, but whenever science like this is used, it is generally then picked up by the slavers who assert that- because the cost is so low, we should be able to force kids to stick needles in their arms. No. It doesn’t matter what THE SCIENCE! ™ says. Nobody has any right to expect them to do these things.

    1. Ultimately, this is why I don’t even like arguing the science around these topics.

      Does a new study either confirming or rebutting the existing science change the inherent evilness of mandates or even the expectation of others getting the vaccine to protect you? No.

      Use the current body of information to make decisions for yourself, not to force or pressure others into making the same decision as you.

      I also can’t believe how people have such a terrible grasp of the NAP to consider not taking a vaccine as a NAP violation.

      1. “I also can’t believe how people have such a terrible grasp of the NAP to consider not taking a vaccine as a NAP violation.”

        That’s been one of my biggest pet peeves throughout this whole thing. As if me taking no action is aggression.

        1. And, as I mention, the flipside or relative comparison. Me doing nothing and increasing someone’s risk is a violation of the NAP but others increasing my and my children’s risk of myocarditis under penalty of law somehow aligns with the NAP.

      2. If you are infected with COVID-19, could have taken steps to prevent getting infected, and you breath on other people there is an argument that could be made that it IS aggression.

        Why does it matter that the vehicle of aggression are so small they cannot be seen?

        1. Micro aggressions are real to the dummy.

        2. If you promote vaccination to non-high risk groups, a person in that group then gets vaccinated and has a serious reaction, this iS aggression.

          1. It’s already aggression.
            Mike Laursen must be extinguished.

            1. If you reject live-and-let-live, as Mike Laursen clearly and explicitly does above, you put everyone else into a kill-or-be-killed situation.
              That is direct aggression, and the source must be eliminated.

              1. Oh look. Another Nardz death threat post.

                Anyone?

                Anyone?

                R MAC, where are you and your clutching pearls?

                Anyone?

                I don’t want to hear another word about how I’m a meanie.

                1. I have Nardz muted. Did he death threaten me or someone else? Or just threaten a mass homicide?

                  1. Addressed to you, actually.

                    1. You don’t know what a threat is, stasi bitch.

                    2. Nice to know he’s thinking of me.

                2. Fuck off and die, faggot.
                  You threaten our lives at every moment.
                  I’ll be happy to live and let live, but espresso here and Mike Laursen advocate a new holocaust here every day.
                  YOU have forced us into a kill or be killed situation, and I will continue to make people aware of that.

                3. Have you tried not rejecting a live-and-let-live mentality or demanding that government guns force people to do what you think is right?

        3. We have discussed this exact point so many times in other comment sections that it is getting a little tiresome. Non vaccinated does not mean currently or even eventually sick. If not sick, then no possible NAP violation even with the loosest of definitions. Calling this a NAP violation is presuming guilt not innocence.

          And as Chumby just mentioned, coercing or forcing an unwilling person into getting a vaccine is definitely aggression. Declaring some sort of moral superiority does not absolve someone of NAP violations.

          The size of the vehicle of aggression is immaterial, and I never even mentioned it.

          1. How about resource hogging? Non-vaccinated should waive their ability to be treated. Their inability to live in reality, or their selfish nature prevents them from taking a cost-less precaution that would also protect the community and save valuable resources for others. They should die in a parking lot rather than take up ICU space. Do you agree?

            Non-vaccinated morons are currently causing others to die of normally treatable things, like heart attacks and ruptured appendix.

            I could post a dozen stories like this:

            https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/13/1036593269/coronavirus-alabama-43-icus-at-capacity-ray-demonia

            A Man Died After Being Turned Away From 43 ICUs At Capacity Due To COVID, Family Says

            1. I had a feeling that this would be the next response. This discussion follows such a predictable pattern. We have also discussed this ad nauseam in the comments section of previous articles. You can go back and check those out, but spoiler alert, this line of thinking is consistently proven to be morally corrupt.

              1. So kids needing cancer treatment and people with burst appendixes get the short end of the stick? All just so a few morons can live (or die, who cares) out their fantasies?

                1. And obese people. They don’t get treatment either. Hop on that sled!

                  1. I’m willing to go there, if necessary.

                    1. Collectivists don’t receive treatment either.

                    2. Of course you are, because you are a horrible person.

                    3. And heart attacks because of lifestyle? Cancer from lifestyle. When would you like to draw the line liber?

                    4. DOL

                      The only moral distribution of resources is for the owners to trade them freely at the price they desire. ALL resources are finite. To suggest that person A has better claim than Person B on Person C’s resources is to essentially cede all free markets to slavers.

                      I am sure that wasn’t your intent, so maybe get ahead of your emotions here and start thinking of the ramifications of your logic.

                2. Wouldn’t treating the kid by your logic violate the NAP – it’s taking resources from me and everyone else that could be saving and bettering our lives at some point in the future, think about it higher medical/insurance costs for everyone due to use, loss of brain power by others to research or work on improvements, time loss that could be used elsewhere. The arguments get so ridiculous by your logic it just needs to stop. Once again by your version of the NAP the kid must not be treated since it will *harm* me and other in some way that you can’t think about traditionally.

              2. You keep saying “discussed”.

                1. LoL. Look at mike acting like he gives one shit about discussion.

                  For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

                  https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773
                  That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

                  The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

            2. Now do people not paying for the cost of all goods and services they receive as “resource hogging.”

            3. I’ve seen this BULLSHIT about some dude dying after allegedly being turned away from 43 ICU’s…
              First off, 43?!?!? You believe this guy went to that many places?!?!?! dumb.
              2nd, it has been found that the so-called journalist never spoke to the family, never confirmed the story, and has no idea what “47 ICU’s” this guy supposedly went to.
              ITS A BULLSHIT STORY!!!

          2. “Non vaccinated does not mean currently or even eventually sick.”

            It means higher risk of both. And there’s no way one can know without a test that one is not currently infected.

            I doubt we’ve “discussed” this. More likely you’ve pronounced your narrow interpretation of the NAP as the correct one, and have stopped thinking and listening.

            1. This line of thinking has been discussed and debunked MANY times in the comments of previous articles. To claim that it has not been gone over multiple times in good faith is completely dishonest. I also find it convenient that you ignored the fact that coercing or forcing an unwilling person into getting a vaccine is definitely aggression.

              1. It hasn’t been debunked. You cannot “debunk” an interpretation of the NAP; it’s a matter of opinion, not objective truth.

                You have given your interpretation of how the NAP applies in this scenario. My opinion is your interpretation is too simplistic.

                1. Even in the loosest interpretation of the NAP, not carrying the virus means you cannot violate the NAP.

                  1. We have specifically discussed this with mike 100 times. This is why I have settled on my copy-pasta responses to him.

                    Mike’s MO is to parachute into a conversation with someone he thinks is new, and trying out the same sophomoric arguments that didn’t work before in the hopes that by the time the thread dies, he has the last, unrebutted word. He doesn’t even try to modify his arguments to deal with the rebuttal that he surely knows will come- he is playing a numbers game, hoping that his spam is like so much soviet armor pouring across the border.

                    You have done a good job countering his arguments- the arguments he has made 100x in 100 previous articles only to be rebutted- but I guarantee you he will be in the next article arguing the same damn points without even the slightest sense of shame.

              2. “… you ignored the fact that coercing or forcing an unwilling person into getting a vaccine is definitely aggression.”

                Yes, I did, because I thought it went without saying that the NAP allows aggression in self defense. And they was giving the case why the other party (someone refusing to be vaccinated in the middle of a public health crisis) can be seen the initial aggressor.

                1. I’m not initiating aggression against socialists, I’m just defending myself.

                  1. Funny how they prove my point just a handful of posts later…

                2. This is such a dangerous path. You can justify any act of agression as self defense if you have this loose of a definition of what agression is.

                  1. Which is a problem with using the NAP to analyze things, not something I am doing wrong with the analysis.

                    1. And we now circle back to my original comment. Either you have a bad grasp of the NAP or are arguing in bad faith by intentionally distorting the NAP. Any principle, philosophy or values can be undermined when they get warped and distorted this bad.

                3. Now do violent crime based on race.

                4. Forcing someone to get a vaccine is not self-defense, no matter how many times you try to assert that it is.

                  As Overt has pointed out multiple times in multiple articles: No one has a moral obligation to protect you from a natural pathogen. Especially if they don’t have it.

                  And of course, you continue to ignore the fact that the vaccinated are still catching, carrying, and shedding the damn virus so in your scenario, they are aggressing too.

              3. Furthermore, relying on and insisting on using the NAP as the sole method of determine what is the best course of action to take us to subscribe to a wonky, narrow-minded Rothbardian cult of libertarianism that ignores the rich history and philosophy of classical liberalism.

                Grown ups don’t analyze the real world using just one methodology. When you are trying to figure out how the real world works you use microscopes, and telescopes, and voltmeters, and scales.

                When you are trying to figure out the best principles for government that respect personal liberty you use NAP for analysis, but you also consider practicality, you also consider transaction costs, you consider all angles.

                1. Fair enough. I definitely incorrectly assumed that everyone commenting on a libertarian website is interested in maximizing personal liberty. NAP is exceptionally good at finding the limits of where your freedom ends and mine begins. I didn’t realize that we would be haggling over the price of freedom.

                  1. The NAP is a useful tool for analysis. It’s not the only tool, despite Rothbard and others trying to sell that point of view to libertarians.

                2. Are you 100% certain you are not carrying COVID, tuberculosis, bubonic plague or AIDS? If so, please explain. If not, are you completely isolating?

                  1. We’ll never get a straightforward answer just obfuscation and equivocation

            2. Mike narrow is not a good use by you. What about aids prevention medication, you taking that? Ebola vaccine? Malaria pills? Higher risk if you don’t right? Like liber what’s you risk quotient that this “It means higher risk of both” is valid? I’d like a non feely mathematical cite or detailed explanation from you.

              1. Huge difference between AIDS and COVID-19. The latter can be spread by merely breathing in the vicinity of another person. Why ignore this difference as if it doesn’t matter?

        4. If you are infected with socialism, could have taken steps to prevent getting infected, and you breath about socialism on other people there is an argumemt that could be made that it IS aggression.

          Why does it matter that the vehicle of aggression is so small it cannot be seen?

        5. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

          https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773
          That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

          The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

  10. The researchers report that, while still quite rare, vaccinated people experienced myocarditis at a rate just over three times higher than the unvaccinated. But more crucially, people infected with COVID-19 had 18 times higher risk than people who were not infected with COVID-19. In other words, the currently uninfected face the choice, with respect to heart inflammation, between the lower risks of vaccination versus the considerably higher risks of infection. More importantly, the health downsides of COVID-19 infections are not limited to just a higher risk of heart inflammation compared to those who are vaccinated.

    All of this is absolutely meaningless without knowing the absolute risk of myocarditis for unvaccinated people who have never had COVID.

    1. It’s right there: vaccinated people experienced myocarditis at a rate just over three times higher than the unvaccinated.

      Forcing people to get vaccinated is an act of aggression. That COVID is a larger risk is immaterial. Might as well say that COVID killed 600,000 (or whatever) people so I’m more than justified in killing at least a couple dozen.

      1. Cawlateral damage.

  11. It’s always an encouraging sign when I hear about the Debunking of a Conspiracy Theory before I ever hear about the Conspiracy Theory.

    1. It’s always an encouraging sign when people point to the results of a natural phenomenon as moral justification for their actions.

  12. Young males infected with COVID-19 are six times more likely to develop myocarditis than those who have been vaccinated.

    For fucks sake, stop injecting young males with the COVID-19 then! What kind of monster is doing this kind of shit? I mean, what are the figures on myocarditis among young males who neither get the COVID-19 nor the vaccine?

  13. Remember when Christian Eriksen collapsed and momentarily died on the soccer field before being revived by car?

    That story went away quick.

    1. *revived by cpr, not car

  14. “Syphillis killed ~500 people a year for decades, the US was more than justified in conducting the Tuskegee Experiments on 400 men over the course of 4 decades.” – Ron Bailey

  15. Why is the vaccine producing heart inflammation at all?

    1. Likely because the inflammation is caused by the body’s immune response to covid (and the spike protein specifically), which is intentionally triggered by the vaccines.

      Remember most of what we consider symptoms when you’re infected is the action of the body’s immune system rather than the direct effect of the pathogen. Fevers fry many foreign organisms. Inflammation is the activity of immune cells. Sneezing expels them.

  16. OMG telling me something is 6 times greater than something else without telling me the total of something else tells me NOTHING! .0006% is 6 times greater than .0001% but neither of them is worth worrying about.

  17. Ronnie, I love you, but that logic is whack.

    Young males infected with COVID-19 are six times more likely to develop myocarditis than those who have been vaccinated. OK, but only 5%-10% of unvaccinated young males will become infected with COVID-19 — whereas 100% of vaccinated young males are vaccinated.

    If your only goal in life were to avoid myocarditis, you would be better off not getting vaccinated.

    I hope that is not your only goal in life.

  18. And now the caveat: young males are less likely overall to become infected with COVID-19 and develop myocarditis than they are to become infected if they get vaccinated.

    Apples to oranges.

  19. Two things in the “smoke and mirrors” category

    First, this “mRNA COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer/BionNTech is approved for people age 12 and older, “Not true. The “BioNTech injection is NT thesame one as Pfizer are distributing here in the US. That one had its EUA extended. The BioNTech injection is a differnet substance, is NOT pproved for use in the US, and is not even manufactured by the US based Pfizer companyt. No, iit is entrely the product of their associate company BioNTech GMBH out of Hamburg Germany It is a different proeuct/ WHY cannot REASON vet such statemens more carefully?

    Second, this: I have read mulitple places how here in the US an individual is NOT counted amongst those who have “received” the vaccine” until two weeks have passed after getting the injection. SInce MOST of these adverse reactions arise in the first week after injection they are NOT counteed amongst “the vaccinated” as two seeks have not yet elapsed. Is this not a carefully crafted deception? Since mose of tese adverse reactions occur within that first two weeks after injection, they are NOT counted as injuries amongst the “vaccinated”. After two weeks, of no such reaction has occurered, the likelyhood of it happening is very slim.

    Talk abit rigging the game in THEIR favour….. but then, this is what we’ve all come to expect as part of this madness. ANYTHING to blame or pillory for such reactions, even when there IS no causal liknk. So they manufacture one, and sell that to the rest of us. So sorry (NOT!!!!) but I ain’t buying tht load of elephant manure.
    WHY do our government work SO hard to lie, cheat, obfuscate, sidetrack, cover, falsify, hide the truth ?

    1. It is the exact same vaccine and was developed jointly. The Pfizer facility in Michigan is the largest manufacturer.

      From the Pfizer press release.

      “NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Biologics License Application (BLA) for COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. COMIRNATY is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be granted approval by the FDA.“

      From the FDA.

      “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older and to provide a third dose to individuals 12 years of age and older who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise.
      COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech.”

Comments are closed.