>>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].
I hope the research continues to make it even more safe.
>>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].
the more interesting unaddressed question is, for whom? i am a young-ish healthy person, i have basically no risk of ending up in the hospital for covid. what is the risk tradeoff for people similar to me, rather than an abstraction of the entire population? what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?
> what is the risk tradeoff for a young child, who effectively has zero risk of serious covid?
This is only true if you consider death the only "serious" outcome. Around 25% of children and adolescents who get COVID-19 will get "long COVID", with long-term effects we've just begun to understand. Plenty of "young-ish healthy people" have suffered debilitating effects.
A 14℅ reduction in something that happens to 5%+ of people measurably and probably lowers your developmental outcome even if it is bellow the threshold of clear measure (a weaker school year that you never quite catch up from could just be random after all.)
That's a much bigger deal than whether you have 12 in a million or 24 in a million chance of something that has a 5% chance of being fatal.
Giving a population lead poisoning didn't kill any of them outright but cognitive problems in the lead generation is correlated to our higher homicide rates and many of the poorer outcomes in our generation and echo's of its affects in society.
I find it interesting that the wider anti-vax demographics overlap heavily with the safety/helicopter parenting that focuses on some extremely unlikely demise as a reason to limit the next generation in ways that will have much higher rates of earlier deaths and reduced lifestyles when considering their overall lifespan.
You sound like somebody that likes to crunch numbers, but doesn’t understand how most parents decide on these things. Or if you happen to have children, you’re unusually clinical about their health…
Anyway, the children’s vaccine was authorized in the EU on the 19th of October 2022, after all Omicron strains were making rounds through the population.
In Germany at first one dose was recommended for 12-17 then one plus booster. Kids younger than 12 may be vaccinated on a case by case basis if there’s risk factors or the parent explicitly wants it. This means that the risk of Long Covid in this age range is not a “bigger deal” than the benefits and risk from the vaccine.
According to the RKI, there were 1500 vaccinated in the age range 0-4. And between <10% and 30% in the range 5-12 depending on state.
In conclusion, your dogmatic approach is not supported by the competent health organizations. Neither is it supported by parents.
> doesn't understand how most parents decide on these things
> your dogmatic approach is not ... supported by parents
Your dogma here is that you assume all parents take the zero-sum "ok for thine but not for mine" approach. Personally I know plenty of parents who were eager to vaccinate their kids against COVID. But I'm not taking my personal outlook as some kind of fact about all parents.
Instead I will note that in the history of vaccine mandates there has always been opposition from a _minority_ of parents, doctors what have you in the context of broad societal support, even though vaccines have always had some amount of risk that similarly to COVID were vastly outweighed by the societal benefit and the risks of the disease itself.
You naughtily cut my quote and removed “supported by the competent health organizations”. I added that back for you.
Allow me to expand on that: the parents which didn’t vaccinate their children (<12) are the ones who are in agreement with “the science” and they are the majority. I’ve provided numbers for Germany from the appropriate health organizations.
The parents that vaccinated their healthy kids are the ones that decided based on feelings or were influenced and manipulated by vaccine activists.
The risk to society must be handled by the society, not kids. Adults are welcome to wear masks or get the vaccine themselves. Or they can choose to die free, choking on their own mucus like a boss.
The risk of the disease is obviously not that great to kids (<12) according to the vaccine commission. Almost looks like adults are trying to force kids into a treatment so that said adults benefit.
i believe i have found the source[0] for your claim -- this seems a bit overplayed as 'long covid' when the definition is given as any persistent symptom, including congestion and emotional state(?)
Essentially all children and adolescents will get Covid if they somehow haven't had it already. Something like a quarter of the population being physically disabled to even a mild degree is an extraordinary claim requiring evidence in kind.
A survey essentially asking people "do you have long covid?" isn't extraordinary evidence. Could be a simple case of psychogenesis[0] like has been common during any mass illness event historically. The demographic info in your link seems to indicate that is a possibility. With 25 percent of the population apparently having this disease it's not a hard one to study experimentally.
That's not even the complete question though -- because by all accounts, Covid actually results in a higher incidence of myocarditis than the vaccine does.. Given the tenor of the conspiracy theories here, the landscape of questions is too nuanced for HN I guess. Ideally, the vaccine recommendation would weigh:
Incidence and seriousness of myocarditis (ISM) naturally / in absence of covid or vaccine, ISM following vaccine, ISM following Covid, ISM after being vaccinated but later catching Covid, relative risk of death / or the other litany of problems following unvaccinated covid infection, same but with vaccinated covid infection and the increased chances of avoiding infection after being vaccinated.
It's possible that vaccines are leading to more myocarditis, covid is certainly leading to more myocarditis, most cases of myocarditis are undetected and resolve on their own with no health impact at all.. as expected, weird antivaxxers are harping on point 1 to the detriment of anyone actually interested in public health.
statistically, it is extremely unlikely[0] for an otherwise healthy young person to end up in the hospital for covid, much like myocarditis -- i am simply interested in which is more likely for specific population subsets
The numbers are so small that it is hard to say -- several long-term studies are ongoing. All the evidence suggests the risk of Covid is far greater. I'm sure you know this, but covid causes significantly more cases of myocarditis than the vaccine.
During the past 60 days for people 18-49 (the cohort sizes are suspect) COVID cases per 100,000 were as follows:
Not fully vaxxed: 98.0
Fully vaxxed: 70.3
Boosted: 92.8
For 49-64 (again with the cohort sizing) per 100,000 cases are:
Not fully vaxxed: 90.0
Fully vaxxed: 86.7
Boosted: 96.7
Over 65 cases:
Not fully vaxxed: 390.05
Fully vaxxed: 284.2
Boosted: 161.7
So if you're young and healthy if you're boosted, you're hardly getting any protection.
If you're middle aged, it doesn't look like you're getting any protection from getting infected and if you're boosted, you may be increasing your risk.
If you're old and vulnerable, you should absolutely take the vaccine.
The CDC summarizes and caveats the data as follows (note particularly the last point):
- All vaccinated groups had overall lower risk of dying from COVID-19 and testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were unvaccinated.
- Based on early surveillance data, people who were vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster dose had lower rates of dying from COVID-19 and slightly lower rates of testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were vaccinated but had not received an updated booster dose.
- Age-standardized rates of cases and deaths by vaccination status and receipt of the updated (bivalent) booster dose do not account for other factors like the higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and un-boosted groups; waning protection related to time since vaccination; and testing practices (such as use of at-home tests), underlying conditions, and prevention behaviors which likely differ by age and vaccination status. Additionally, any data recording errors that misclassify monovalent and updated (bivalent) boosters at the time of vaccine administration would make rates between the two groups appear more similar.
Lumping all people over the age of 12 together doesn't address what I was saying. I used the data I could find that had cohorts by age and vaccination status. I'm trying to dig through your source to see what the numbers look like per age cohort. I'm assuming we are going to find similar numbers in your data as we did in the MN data.
As for 60 days, that seems fair as that's likely to capture the prevalence of the most recent variants and not delta, which we know the vaccine worked well against...
So, looking at your source for the last 60 days, if you're in the 18-49 range your likelihood of getting Covid is about 2x if you're not vaxed and 2.2x if your not boosted.
Getting covid once right after sleeping in same space with all vaccinated. Positive - stayed at home - pretended to be ill. Friend, vaccinated, panicking getting covid after vacc..
Buut..this is Divide and Conquer, don't you see?
"stated" is an interesting choice there, especially when using "recorded" a few words later. It reads as being a bit untrusting of the COVID death numbers.
An article was published in Nature a few days ago saying the actual number of COVID deaths could be around 2.75x higher than officially reported numbers. We might be underestimating deaths by many millions worldwide.
If it was one general noisy correlation, I would agree. But there are multiple spikes that go up and down and match almost precisely with the multiple waves of covid, persisting through many shifts in other factors (like downstream effects of different levels of lockdown) with almost no change in the trends for all other deaths beside it. It's about as close of a correlation as you can ever hope for with real-world data.
Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring?
> Which of them do you propose would cause the American public (and others worldwide; we see excess deaths increased everywhere, whether they required masking or closed schools or did very little to mitigate) to suddenly start dying in significantly higher numbers - again, of any cause - for the last two years - and especially so at the same time large COVID waves are occurring?
I can give one example, which happened to my dad...
"Sorry, we have to reschedule that surgery to remove the tumor because we're anticipating a covid spike and need the bed availability."
That sort of thing is relatively trivial to tease out of the stats, because in addition to excess deaths we have per-disease statistics as well.
See the chart about 2/3 down on https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-continues..., titled "Average daily deaths in the United States, by cause (2020 - Present)". We don't see a massive spike in other causes of death (including cancer, which is a flat line at ~1,600/day throughout), and no one's likely to misidentify a cancer or heart attack death on a death certificate.
There are certainly cases like your dad's, where delayed screenings and treatment had individual impacts, but none of the stats available to us show this explaining a meaningful amount of the 1.3M excess deaths observed.
It's actually a non sequitur because you can still get Covid after getting the vaccine. It's not an either/or at all, and in fact most people who got the vaccine did get Covid.
> You may not agree with a sound money economy, and you may like the idea of a central bank that manipulate the market to encourage spending and discourage savings.
For me its actually the opposite:
I feel like crypto markets are much easier to manipulate- so its done more often.
I would also expext that a currency is used in daily life and not saved as form of high risk investment
So while I don't think that Banks operate for the benefit of mankind, I don't see where Cryptocurrencies would help, either. And to be fair the most real-world contact I had with Bitcoin are All of criminal nature - So there is definitely a certain negative bias
The real world contact you see has a negative bias because you probably live in “first world country”.
What do you think it feels like you lived in Venezuela where the currency is devaluated faster you can look and you are being foreced (!!) to use that currency!
Would you have the same bias?
Sure you can say “that not happening to me”. But how do you know it won’t ever happen to you or your country (every super power country has had it down turn at some point (and with that often monetary crisis). Might change some time, but history won’t make you feel sure about that.
And Venezuela is not alone. There has been hyperinflation on average evey 2 year in some country around the world (until one day it reaches you).
That is the key: stating the obvious actually is hard and I think Rich does a beautiful job to translate the thoughts and feelings most programmer have into words. It actually gives a way to discuss and think about things (especially design and architecture) with others. I learned that there is no such thing as "common ground" or common knowledge magically and intuitively shared by all programmers. So if this already reflects your thoughts - even better.
This article seems a bit arrogant. But I have to acknowledge that they pioneered the trend of microservices in terms of overcomplicated designs and slowness.
Honestly. Some of the most horrifying systems I have worked with were based on the idea that you should be able to swap implementations during runtime. That was the time when OSGi was the thing and (like mentioned in the article) there seem to be only a few how to use OSGi properly. I'm a burned child and certainly don't have the knowledge, either ...but the blog post doesn't give a single reason to change that.
OSGi is essentially classic bureaucractic enterprise-ism meets OOP dogma cult, and like all "hyperabstraction" in general, greatly decreases systems-level understanding and macro-simplicity (critically important for things like debugging) in order to favour micro-simplicity. To sum it up, "splitting a system into easier to understand parts until each part is trivially understandable causes the actual complexity to become hidden between the interaction of the parts."
To sum it up, "splitting a system into easier to understand parts until each part is trivially understandable causes the actual complexity to become hidden between the interaction of the parts."
Is that in quotes because it's a quote? If so, from where? Or is this a form of emphasis?
I'm not sure. Me and my coworkers have been saying similar things for a while, and it's not really that deep of an observation. Abstraction can't always magically make things easier. It just moves the complexity around, and often increases it if used unnecessarily.
Right, it's very similar to things i've said too, but clearly and succinctly put!
I see a similar problem with the common preference for unit tests over integration tests. The mistakes in a system tend to be in the interactions between parts, not in the parts themselves, and by construction, unit tests can't test those.
Yeah. Same here. I worked with OSGi long before I used REST and microservices. To claim that OSGi somehow pioneered this stuff is both arrogant and ignorant. Sure OSGi and microservices share some similar concepts but they are both implementing ideas commonly found in distributed systems. The author just comes across as bitter. I liked OSGi when I first encountered it but for some of my colleagues it was a lot of overhead to do the simplest things. Either they had to learn it all conceptually or they have to rely on a lot of magic from the tooling. I feel that to really understand OSGi you had to know a bit about the nuts and bolts of Java and its internals. This is not common especially even among Java programmers. The advantage of REST microservices is that most developers understand REST and HTTP, etc. People have a much easier time getting REST and microservices (although you really need to know distributed systems to not get yourself into trouble with some boundary cases and failure modes).
Yeah, It implies bad things about the expected performance of the JVM or the quality of the application being run. Either startup time or the time taken for the JIT to get a handle on things is apocalyptically bad.
That article is really awfull in expressing the root cause of the authors unhappiness with agile and enterprise scrum.
Jira is just a tool. To stick with bad anaologies: how can a screwdriver be an antipattern?
Did you had a look at sqlx? [1] Granted, it won't generate the queries for you - but parsing into structs works 95% of time without additional mapping for me. Coming from other languages I also found the amount of necessary typing a bit disturbing first. But then you can actually read code instead of orm framework documentation, issue trackers and workarounds.
sqlx didn't work in my case last time i tried (don't remember why exactly), but it's still far from any standard like sqlalchemy (python), hibernate (java) , active records (ruby),entity framework (.net), doctrine (php) or bookshelf (js).
Writing every select for every entity, with all the variations depending on whether you want to inner join with 1-n relationships (and which ones) is really tedious when you've got 30 entities in your model.
We use SQLalchemy at work and I would rather write queries by hand. A lot of that is because the documentation is a huge pain, but also because the object composition isn't intuitive. I've built a profile query builder in Go and it was pretty straight forward; I'm confident I could build an ORM in a couple of weeks.
sqlalchemy ( which i used and liked a lot) has multiple layers. query builder is the bottom one, but the most "challenging" one for go is probably the orm with things lazy loading and its parametrization ( such as eager loading of relationships).
keeping it all type safe ( not having the user cast interface{} to struct everywhere) and performant would be a challenge.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about parameterization, but I suspect in general my notion of what an ORM is differs from yours (in particular, I don't assume lazy loading). Maybe what I'm thinking isn't appropriately called "ORM" (maybe "type relational mapping" is more appropriate?). At any rate, I don't think type safety should be a challenge (somehow a mapping must be generated for each type, just like SQLAlchemy--in Go this can be either explicit or inferred once via reflection or code generation) and I don't think performance would be more a challenge in Go than any other language (the trick to ORM performance is in building efficient SQL queries, not in reflection or type asserts).
compile-time code generation can only get you so far, unless you're ready to generate every single kind of query beforehand ( which grows exponentially with the number of -to-many relationship). You'll have to rely on introspection but i suspect things won't go smoothly.
anyway, it should make for a good exercise i'm sure.
as for the definition of Object-Relationnal-Mapper the idea is to completely abstract the fact that you're storing your object graph ( or struct graph in the case of go) in a relationnal database. To do so, the developper provides meta data , like an xml file or annotation, to describe the mapping. This is a pretty hard problem.
It's not too difficult. Where I work, we're building a BI tool that maps domain concepts ("objects") to fields in relational databases (we're using Python and building out SQLAlchemy queries, but we're not doing anything that wouldn't easily translate into Go). The domain concepts are analogous to structs in Go or simple classes in Python. You only need to get the mapping data once (in our case, the user configures these mappings in the UI and then we load them at runtime, but these could come from anywhere) and from then on there is no magic.
If you know ahead of time what your types are, then you can do everything in code gen easily.
Why should it be mentioned? FRP itself isn't an architecture. And as far as I know a lot of RxJava would easily fit into the "Observer pattern" (which is mentioned in the article)
I like to do my Go development in a Linux environment. So if I wanted to use Windows as my main OS, I'd have to either dual boot or use a VM. Now I can just develop directly in WSL.
A lot of people like to also develop in an environment they are going to deploy in. In my case I have some linux specific path in my code.
I am also running now Gogland Linux version through WSL.
>>The reported incidence of (epi-)myocarditis after vaccination is low and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination [29].
I hope the research continues to make it even more safe.