Referencing this as though it's the true mortality rate is woefully misleading. This is the mortality rate when using this experimental treatment.
In regards to the cardiac arrests and ambulance calls, it seems that the graph almost exactly follows the baseline, except for the two heatwaves. It doesn't say what the baseline is - I guess 2020 figures?
Edit: on further inspection - figures 1a,b,c are from a paper and are showing an increase in cardiac arrest, unconsciousness, e.t.c. however this article ignores 2 graphs from the paper which show a decrease in chest pain and decrease in breathing difficulty, both of which are myocarditis symptoms.
I think this article is wilfully misleading.
For the 2015-2019 data, I would be interested in seeing the standard deviation, not just the mean, to be able to judge how likely such a deviation is, historically. The fact that female deaths show a similar order of magnitude change in the opposite direction makes me suspect this may be within the noise?
I haven't looked in to this but if this is correct it's orders of magnitude larger than what my intuition after all the discussion of myocarditis had led me to believe.
Hopefully there's a confounding factor such as old age and other comorbidities I'm missing.
Needless to say, that's not how myocarditis is treated in hospitals.
Break's over, so no time to tidy this up. I'll be back, probably.
Good to see other countries investigating this too.
I added a methodological question at the top level.
The tables are poorly labeled and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what subset of the population they're referring to in each column.
As someone else pointed out, they got their numbers for mortality from myocarditis from the results of a study on a novel treatment that apparently was not very effective as far as keeping folks alive. I went to the study myself hoping that the other commenter had just misunderstood and that somewhere in the study, they had more general numbers for myocarditis outcomes, but that's not the case. The numbers are from the results and are only representative of the outcome if treated with immunosuppressants.
The only real argument that they have is that they managed to make two graphs which look similar. If it weren't on a web page dedicated to discouraging the use of the vaccine, I'd think maybe it was a relatively harmless misunderstanding of how science works.
It lacks any real substance and what little evidence they have is presented out of context.
I dismissed it initially due to the website it was on. Then I spent a good half hour digging through their arguments and finding out whether they had any basis in reality. Now I know for sure it has no real merit and I've wasted a decent amount of time on it. For a more extreme example, I'm not going to go through every blog post the KKK puts up just because they used some scientific-sounding arguments to argue that black people are bad.
I get where people are coming from trying to consider all the data, but some sources aren't worth the effort.
The purpose of studying deaths and other injuries after a medical intervention is to improve screening of those at risk of injury, thereby avoiding injury.
How many times has "think of the children" been used to justify technology policy? It's literally the topic here.
We can prevent deaths by performing basic data science, to identify questions for further study.
> Or what are we here, anti-science?
Isn't science all about investigation?
If the data presented is inaccurate, or the analysis flawed, people will identify the inaccuracies and flaws. And on HN, probably very quickly.
HN has been good about reversing non-justified flags, especially if there is substantive discussion about the article, rather than a flamewar.