Enshittification is culture too, and it's certainly spreading.

That's the neat part, you don't have to. Vaccinated people had a prevalence rate of 5/100k. Unvaccinated AND symptomatic covid had 200/100k. Unvaccinated and asymptomatic or uninfected at 70/100k.

It doesn't matter what fraction of the unvaccinated group was asymptomatic, because the total average of the group you are advocating to stay in (70) is still 14 times higher than the group you are telling people to avoid (5).

Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study.

The healthy people at home aren't "outside the cohort". You are arguing against a methodology you don't understand.

The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form. It has nothing to do with retrospective seroprevalence studies, which the CDC (and WHO, and every major health organization in the world) itself uses to track population spread.

> They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).

In epidemiology, a cohort is simply a defined group of people followed over time. In a population-based cohort study (which this is), the cohort is the entire population of the health district (over 500,000 people).

The study did not just evaluate people treated at the hospital. It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).

> The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.

You are confusing PCR testing with serology. The "over-spinning" you are referencing relates to PCR cycle thresholds (Ct values), which are used to detect active viral RNA swabs. Seroprevalence studies—which track historic asymptomatic spread—do not look for active RNA. They test blood serum for antibodies using immunoassays (like ELISA). They do not use PCR amplification, and they are absolutely not "all retracted." They are the standard of how we track the infection rate of a population.

> Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want.

This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.

You can absolutely track asymptomatic infections through seroprevalence studies which we have been doing since 2020.

> forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today.

Yeah, that's making the point for me.

If someone has a history, but suffers a new episode from covid, that is a medical event that should be counted.

> Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse.

Yes you can. The mechanism for the side effect (as per your own source) is the same in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Recipients of the vaccine do not get respiratory symptoms, and yet can contract the (very rare) side effects.

And as for your source, the author, Dr. Joseph Wu:

> “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.

Are you referring to this [0]? It was solved years ago.

The study I posted in this thread that you're posting in is a peer-reviewed retrospective cohort study out of Spain. What is wrong with it?

[0] https://www.denvergazette.com/2022/01/07/judge-scraps-75-yea...

With vaccination you're at 75/100k.

Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k.

Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc.

> We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

There are plenty of studies linked in this thread, that you're simply ignoring.

I just picked one randomly [0]:

> Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.

I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:

> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.

> The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

But yes, there are instances of myocarditis from vaccines, but occurance was 4-5/100k as opposed to unvaccinated 200/100k.

Edit: in his words:

> MK: All the cases were hospitalised because we wanted to perform a detailed workup for them

> RR: So they didn't need to be there to, like, keep them alive.

> WZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. In fact, he said that that these these patients, they all cleared up with either painkillers[50] like ibuprofen …

> MK: Some of them even not require medications, and they just take a rest, and eventually they recover by themselves, and none of them got severe complications, and no cases of mortality, most importantly. And all of them recover and went back home. And so far, some patients are being followed up around 7 months[51] and they’re very good, no problem, so this is very good news.

Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1].

[0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjert...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

I'm sure some are convinced LLMs can (eventually) manage everything, and others (I'm leaning more here) are convinced that you will always need a minimum amount of people both educated in the fundamentals and the domain to steer the project, and these people wont exist down the path of non-human PRs.

You could get a perfectly adequate instance of a PR that is easily readable and verifiable while generated by an LLM, but generally they're not.

A policy pushes the aggregate to at least what looks and communicates as a human made PR that is functionally easier to approve. Whether they are created by an LLM or not is then secondary, but it likely pushes all PRs to be better.

I'm too OCD to not point out this time it was a minus.