Except there are too many cases of healthy young people having myocarditis related reactions soon after the vaccine, and that's not documented for covid. Is why discussion about vaccine related myocarditis centers on lipid nano particles having a strong uptake effect by heart and other tissues. Yes, yes nothing is "settled" because everything is so new. Just can't ignore that my family knows more people who died or went to hospital related to second dose/booster than covid itself.
> 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.
> During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009% among patients without COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, the risk for myocarditis was higher among males (0.187%) than among females (0.109%) and was highest among adults aged ≥75 years (0.238%), 65–74 years (0.186%), and 50–64 years (0.155%) and among children aged <16 years (0.133%).
> While we often associate cardiovascular conditions with elderly populations, myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults, children and infants. In fact, it most often affects otherwise healthy, young, athletic types with the high-risk population being those of ages from puberty through their early 30’s, affecting males twice as often as females. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of Sudden Death in children and young adults.
The key is to always be stimulating your mind with new experiences, new concepts, new surroundings, think through confusions, solve holes in your understanding, make something etc. etc..
Travel ticks some of those boxes so it does absolutely help the mind. You can tick some of the other boxes from home as well.
Life passes by really, really fast if you do the same thing and think the same way every single day. It will make you restless, anxious over time too because your mind really doesn't like that kind of confinement.
Circa 2016 Reddit became a political propaganda free for all with a ridiculous amount of shill accounts trying to incite others and diminish viewpoints purely on political lines. Serious money was invested by interest groups to eventually help shape Reddit into the hive mind it became. I watched this transition as a long time Redditor and I hated every second of it.
Reasonable, discourse seeking people left Reddit in droves, the effect being that there's then a distilled concentration of politicized accounts, gen Z, and trolls. A few subreddits buck the trend, but frankly I kind of hate Reddit and hope someone makes a new one for the reasonable masses.
Many think the recent Joe Rogan heat is because he's recorded (but not yet released) a podcast with Maajid Nawaz, who is a pretty big critic of government/pharma covid narratives. I think this is having a Streisand effect for this episode whenever it drops.
Maybe?... except, while I have heard a ton of stuff about this Spotify/Rogan issue many times a day for days now, you are the only person I have seen mention this angle or that coming episode (and it was dumb luck that I saw your comment, as I wasn't expecting anything new and so was just kind of glancing over this thread for what the splash damage of Spotify's "rules" might be).
If you are correct about the reason for this "recent heat", the strategy for people to misdirect the issue about something else and then drown out the actual issue while tiring out the media on the overall subject does seem like it could bypass "telling people not to look at or talk about X makes them want to look at X and talk about X" as you are making the whole issue about some unrelated-seeming Y.
Certainly SV (and consequently YC) in recent years has become perhaps the most politicized it's ever been, along with many other parts of the US.
Many top comments here often have overt political bias on a range of topics, including the pandemic. I find it irritating, I'm sure others do too. As a result I spend much less (20% ish) the amount of time on HN that I used to say 8-3 years ago.
You haven't actually listened because he's 100% for the vax for high risk groups. I'd be really curious how you can "easy disprove" the main themes that come up on his show: natural immunity is better than the vax, big pharma has a long history of lawsuits and criminal penalties for falsifying data, effective treatments do exist, and there's a higher risk profile of the vax than public authorities let on. Those are the big themes, so please, "easy disprove" them?
Per the last one: The FOI lawsuit pertaining to FDA approval (follow Aaron Siri) already revealed in the first 2.5 months of the rollout that Pfzier received 130k case incidents of adverse events. VAERS shows staggering incidents of disability and death, and he's spoken with many physicians who believe there's useful signal from VAERS like there has been for over 30 years. A bunch of countries have now slapped myocarditis warnings on either Pfzier or Moderna. He talks about the 15+ people he knows who have had serious reactions after second dose or booster including his friend's daughter who's now dead. Our family friend here died after booster. The articles about european footballers dropping on the field from cardiac issues (greater than previous 20 years combined) is a signal too. He even had a guest talk about fake vax card going around in Hollywood because many celebrities/people of means don't want to risk it. There's plenty of other statistical or otherwise anecdotal signals that you can hear about if you decide to listen to his show, or you can follow dozens of other people on substacks who track these issues. But please go ahead and disprove all of it.
Both my parents, sister, and a slew of friends and co-workers have had "breakthrough infections" from covid, I'm not really sure (if you're not getting boosters) whether you even have protection from regular let alone Omicron at this point.
That only means you're in the place with a lot virus flowing around, nothing else. Vaccine stimulate your immune system to lower the chance to get infected, and even if infected much lower chance to get severely damaged.
I’m not sure your explanation is sound. Studies have shown doctors/nurses get sick (pre-Covid) at more or less the same rate as the rest of the population, despite increased exposure to circulating colds and flus. Explanations ranged from “they get vaccinated more” to “background exposure to very low payloads primes the immune system and keeps them healthier.”
I hate to put it in these terms, but do you have credible peer reviewed literature on this claim? What you're saying is exactly what state media & state authorities started espousing after everyone realized the vaccine didn't offer the protection everyone had assumed and been promised. I'm wondering if there is any actual evidence for their claims or if it's just saving face and moving goal posts.
The crypto space is making me understand why the SEC regulates stocks. Projects sell their tokens and people invest because they believe the project will take off so they expect their token will rise in value accordingly. (which is a strange assumption, tokens are not stocks)
Many of these projects are marketing-driven and frankly dumb. Prices fall and creators always say "We're focusing on building a great project, we're not focused on the token price."... Yet they're taking millions in investor money. The crypto space needs something like fiduciary duty towards token holders.
A little cringe... as someone who listens to geology podcasts, the idea of "hot spots" apparently doesn't hold much scientific scrutiny any more. This will probably take another decade to be phased out since everyone is taught in school Hawaii etc. are created by hot spots/mantle plumes.
The newer explanation is actually simpler and explained by plate tectonics... deep extensional faults in the middle of plates (generally at stress change boundaries, since the plates are stressed differently at opposite margins) is sufficient to get these island-forming magma extrusions.
EDIT - by request, my favorite geo podcast is Oliver Strimpel's Geology Bites.
The hot spot versus plate movement/stress debate has been going on for many decades. Some hot spots are likely mostly caused by tectonic stress differences, but others seem likely to be from plumes. Scientists get published for novelty more than correctness, so if a theory is around for awhile and another can explain something in a different way, it is more likely to be published. Isotopic chemical data does suggest some volcanic sources come from the mantle (deep in the earth) where others are more likely crustal melting, which can be caused by tectonic decompression. I would be interested if you have a source of a review paper on the current ideas on hot spots, if you have it.
I'm also curious about this change in terminology. I used Google Scholar for papers in 2021 and easily found geology papers using the term "hot spot".
> Hot spots are the surface expression of plumes of hotter and lighter material upwelling from the Earth’s mantle. The current number of hot spots is estimated to range between 45 and 70: these are mostly in intraplate settings, especially on oceanic lithosphere, and along divergent plate boundaries. - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65968-4_...
> Regardless of the nature and origin of hot spots and whether they are fixed or mobile, the fact remains that there is a major thermal anomaly under Iceland, commonly referred to as the “Icelandic hot spot”. - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111985092...
> The Cape Verde Islands are considered as the surface expression of a mantle plume at 500–800 km west of the African continental margin. The spatial and chronological evolution of volcanic activity, from East to West, is consistent with the slow progression of the African plate over the hotspot since at least the Oligocene - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96897-1
> Mantle plumes were discovered almost 50 years ago by Morgan and Wilson. They are long-lived (up to ~100 Ma) jets of hot matter rising from the bottom of the mantle and burning through moving lithospheric plates and continents in hot spots, forming large magmatic provinces. - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1028334X21090191
To be clear, this only shows that some geologists use the term. It may be a small and decreasing minority found only because that's the specific search term I was looking for.
