27 year old Olympic Biathlete found dead (myocarditis)

babaganosh wrote:

OG COVID was not a benign disease. The vaccines worked during that first year. The initial trial data supported it and all of our tracking data (at least in my jurisdiction) supported vaccine effectiveness. ONLY unvaccinated individuals were landing in the ICU during that early period.

Over time, the virus changed, and the vaccinations are now borderline useless, and certainly the risk/benefit does not bear out for young, healthy people. I'm a practicing physician haven't received anything past the third dose.

With that said, the people who are intensely anti-vaccine also dramatically overstate the risks. Pretty much everyone has been vaccinated (and had COVID) so it's easy to point to the vaccine as the cause of anything bad, even years later.

babaganosh wrote:

Dan, take a minute and think about some of the factors that might influence why outcomes might seem different in the poorest place on earth (whether it be data collection, travel, etc).

There is RCT data showing better outcomes with original COVID, followed by lots of observational data showing similar effectiveness in that first year, followed by rapidly waning effectiveness as the virus moved into endemic stages.

There is nothing wrong with admitting it worked well initially but that our public health messaging/policy was overzealous and/or slow to pivot as information changed.

It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy (although I'll admit the money in drug development isn't ideal when it comes to influencing policy in general)

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Still haven’t heard anything about the cause of death. But Norwegian media report that the athlete was wearing an altitude mask (reduced O2) when he was found dead…

Link:www.nrk.no/sport/avdode-sivert-guttorm...

Awsi Dooger wrote:

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Still haven’t heard anything about the cause of death. But Norwegian media report that the athlete was wearing an altitude mask (reduced O2) when he was found dead…

Link:www.nrk.no/sport/avdode-sivert-guttorm...

Every other site immediately shifted attention to that new piece of information.

But naturally here everybody ignored it and the anti-vax simpletons continued on that blockhead path

Newname wrote:

4 Minute Mi-liar wrote:

True...

Propaganda. There was no mention of Covid causing myocarditis until it came out that the jab was causing it. Hence the need for the false counter narrative

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Some reports are saying the mask was set to 7000 feet altitude. Since he was already training at altitude in Italy, the restriction could have been even more pronounced, essentially a double impact. But others are saying it depends on what type of brand he was wearing. Some brands of altitude mask do a better job of compensating for location than others.

babaganosh wrote:

Dan, take a minute and think about some of the factors that might influence why outcomes might seem different in the poorest place on earth (whether it be data collection, travel, etc).

There is RCT data showing better outcomes with original COVID, followed by lots of observational data showing similar effectiveness in that first year, followed by rapidly waning effectiveness as the virus moved into endemic stages.

There is nothing wrong with admitting it worked well initially but that our public health messaging/policy was overzealous and/or slow to pivot as information changed.

It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy (although I'll admit the money in drug development isn't ideal when it comes to influencing policy in general)

true is true wrote:

the covid vaccine damages the heart of young, fit people the most

but I understand why people who got it multiple times don't wanna talk about that

Link:eccentrik.substack.com/p/10-children

feet to meters wrote:

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Some reports are saying the mask was set to 7000 feet altitude. Since he was already training at altitude in Italy, the restriction could have been even more pronounced, essentially a double impact. But others are saying it depends on what type of brand he was wearing. Some brands of altitude mask do a better job of compensating for location than others.

According to Norwegian media, the mask was set at 7,000 meters. That's almost 23,000 feet.

Khcchkkch wrote:

feet to meters wrote:

According to Norwegian media, the mask was set at 7,000 meters. That's almost 23,000 feet.

There are masks which can be set to 7000m?

FatSlowLurker wrote:

Newname wrote:

Propaganda. There was no mention of Covid causing myocarditis until it came out that the jab was causing it. Hence the need for the false counter narrative

This is not true. Cardiovascular complications from COVID were well known by about April 2020. By fall 2020 the medical community was recommending that athletes get screened for heart issues before returning to training after COVID and several athletic conferences including the Big Ten were requiring it. Note that this is before any vaccines for COVID had even been invented.

FatSlowLurker wrote:

Newname wrote:

Propaganda. There was no mention of Covid causing myocarditis until it came out that the jab was causing it. Hence the need for the false counter narrative

This is not true. Cardiovascular complications from COVID were well known by about April 2020. By fall 2020 the medical community was recommending that athletes get screened for heart issues before returning to training after COVID and several athletic conferences including the Big Ten were requiring it. Note that this is before any vaccines for COVID had even been invented.

feet to meters wrote:

It's idiotic

babaganosh wrote:

Dan, take a minute and think about some of the factors that might influence why outcomes might seem different in the poorest place on earth (whether it be data collection, travel, etc).

There is RCT data showing better outcomes with original COVID, followed by lots of observational data showing similar effectiveness in that first year, followed by rapidly waning effectiveness as the virus moved into endemic stages.

There is nothing wrong with admitting it worked well initially but that our public health messaging/policy was overzealous and/or slow to pivot as information changed.

It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy (although I'll admit the money in drug development isn't ideal when it comes to influencing policy in general)