Seek treatment.

87% percent of hospitalized vaccine associated myocarditis cases resolve by discharge. Many more surely go untouched and resolve on their own.

Literally 84 cases didn’t resolve after initial treatment, out of 354,000,000 doses in the study.

> I think calling antivaxxers names is a terrible way to open a dialogue

IMO, we need to differentiate laypeople people who went unvaccinated from those who made spreading antivax propaganda their political or financial mission. There's nothing to be gained by opening dialog with those people, and shame is a realistic method to discourage their behavior.

Here's the thing. There were a lot of passively antivax people in 2020... but I'm pretty sure in 2023 this crowd is pretty much exclusively ideologues and grifters.

The risk of death from a peanut allergy is 1 in 4.25 million per year. An estimate of the overall vaccine-induced myocarditis rate (which is usually mild-moderate, and very rarely lethal) is 1 in 4.8 million doses.

That's a bit of a rough comparison, but if you're wondering "about how dangerous is the vaccine?" The answer is something safer than eating peanuts.

An it's about the only carbon-free liquid fuel that is practical to use. The big downside is the formation of NOx compounds, so it would likely be limited to facilities with the capability of monitoring and minimizing pollutants.

Ah. Well the weight of evidence suggests vaccination still offers worthwhile protection from transmission (similar to flu shots), and very good protection from serious illness and death, despite being outdated.

Fortunately the mRNA vaccines circa 2023 are all bivalent, mixing the original vaccine with omicro-specific additions, though for earlier sub-variants. These are somewhat more effective.

That protection, especially from severe illness, is why they are still recommended. But if you notice, there are fewer and fewer places with strict vaccine mandates, precisely because everyone has been exposed multiple times and the virus has become so evasive.

What many people forget during the height of vaccine checks/mandates was that was during delta when people still didn’t have any immune protection and we’re dying in droves. Vaccination was really really important for large gatherings then.

> Then why it is obligatory to have the FIRST two vaccines to enter USA, even if it is not obligatory for everyone over there.

I'm really not sure what you mean. Are you asking why people were obligated to have moderna or Pfizer vaccines? Because there was also J&J approved around the same time (spring 2021), well before vaccines were sufficiently available to be mandatory.

> government originally said if you got vaccine you couldn’t catch it or spread it.

Did they? The CDC's minimum effectiveness for accepting a covid vaccine in 2020 was 50%, and Fauci gave estimates of 70% before vaccines arrived. The head of the CDC said in September 2020 "“I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine."

The reason some people (mostly in the media) started using absolute language was because, to everyone's surprise, Moderna's mRNA vaccine was over 94% effective against the wild type strain. At the time, it was more or less true to say it would prevent infection.

> Then it was “breakthrough” when those with vaccines caught it

Nope, breakthrough wasn't some new word invented for covid, it's a known aspect of vaccinations. It just became increasingly common as the virus mutated. The vaccine didn't change, the virus did. The changing circumstances doesn't retroactively make earlier findings a lie, anymore than "I'm hungry" said before a meal becomes a lie after eating.

> then it was finally admitted Pfizer had no data showing it stopped you from catching it or spreading it.

Citation very much needed.

> That's what I am scared of - adaptation. Strong survive 'weak', poor go extinct.

Adaptation means the fittest survive, but fitness is just a measure of how well a species thrives in its environment, not just strength. Our adaptation to climate change is not evolution of our genes, it's changing our society to eliminate green house gas emissions, and become more resilient to severe weather events and loss of biodiversity. None of those are outside our abilities.

> You believe science progress will prevent the worst.

Scientific progress is very useful, but adapting to climate change is actually much more of a political and engineering problem than a scientific one.

I'm optimistic for that reason. We have the knowledge and tech, we just need the motivation to act. Fortunately, the worse it gets, the stronger that motivation becomes.

Indeed, but seatbelts do have less relevance to how one's actions affect others.

A lot more than some. People will suffer, but mass starvation does not seem likely.

The best and worst thing about climate change is that it's a creeping problem, not a single event. It takes long time to recognize the problem, but we also have lots of time to adapt and respond.

Covid vaccination reduces your chance of transmitting the disease by 20-40% for omicron.

At any rate, the opposition has been the same, even for the wild-type strain and original vaccine when it was understood that curbing the spread was a significant motivation for vaccination.

These vaccines are treatment, not preventative, and cancer is not communicable. No reason to mandate.

It’s interesting though that many people are terrified of drugs when they’re called a vaccine and injected by a needle, but actively “talk to their doctor” about pills they see on TV.

I’m fine being skeptical of governments, but what was frustrating about the pandemic (at least in America) was seeing how many people feel no personal responsibility or obligation to protect others from their actions. If our society was just now passing drunk driving laws, many of these same people would whine about the nanny state, say things like “everyone dies eventually,” and claim it violates their right to take risks.

If it’s any consolation, climate change won’t end the planet, and almost certainly won’t end the species.

When we do eventually stabilize the climate, we’ll come out the other side as a species capable of regulating its entire planet’s environment, which is pretty big step in our development.

We probably won’t live to see the recovery, but we can (and probably will) live through the treatment.