Random thought:

If you go back to about 1880 or so, you'll see the start of an explosion of writers about the future, including the early influences of what would become science fiction, as well as the first detailed hypothetical exploration of the future.

It's amazing the things that they got right. Information and communication, especially. Transportation, the role of machinery and manufacturing, those folks did a good job of things.

But ya know what they completely missed? Things like "Women in the most modern nations will predominantly work outside the home, as equals with men."

I say this not with any angle on feminism, but rather how easy it is to be wrong about the future. Things that seem obvious end up not being obvious. Things that seem untouchable and fixed are surprisingly vulnerable.

Missing a poop knife, because Reddit.

>How come, when it comes to light that Asian restaurants are being disproportionately handed bad health inspections - everyone always jumps on blaming Asians or assuming that the inspections are objective

If you look at my comment, I've answered your question. More specifically, I've asked a question of someone with expertise.

My hypothesis: it's not a race issue, it's an issue of recent immigration. Restaurant owners that recently immigrated may be less informed of specific health codes, and practice as they have learned. So when different populations have different immigration histories, it's not a race issue, but something else!

That said, you'll notice that the intent of my question is actually to solve this issue, not put restaurant owners out of business.

Living in San Gabriel. It's a dominantly Asian area, surrounded by dominantly Latino areas. 20+ meals a year out of restaurants where the owners and staff service almost zero White people.

It's not a scientific survey. It's also not without basis.

I'm asking a question of someone who seems to have more experience. Not making any sort of judgement.

The intent is to figure out the best way to serve the public. Regulations are a common way that immigrants get screwed, and I would like to prevent that.

I'm curious - could there be a relationship with recent immigrants owning restaurants?

I'm thinking about Los Angeles, where a random taco shop might be 3rd generation, but the Chinese food place is more likely to be owned by someone whose family arrived in 2010, so they aren't 'raised with US practices' like different demographic groups.

A long term solution might be education of these folks to prevent problems.

Please read my comment. I explicitly chose language that identified precisely what I was concerned about.

The misinformation is not literally this study. It's a pattern of a user cherry-picking studies with headlines that can be construed as anti-vaxx.

So to clear up confusion, I quoted points from the study that made it clear that this was not, in fact, an anti-vaxx study.

The answer to your question is in my main post. Please read my comments before responding.

My agenda is providing quotes from the research to help better distribute information.

Selecting articles with titles that discuss vaccine side effects, then emphasizing the title instead of the content of the study.

Thus, I quoted specific parts of the study for clarification.

I take issue to this article being misused.

You are correct on face value. But the context is different.

OP is posting a lot of material with titles that intend to create a narrative of vaccine danger that does not actually exist in the publications.

> The vaccine isn't good for everybody. That's all this is saying.

This is written weakly. Your writing suggests, to be literal "The vaccine is bad for some people." That is deceptively alarmist.

A better description might be "The vaccine is good for everybody, except for very few with specific health issues." I don't mean to be pedantic, but my point is that the data on vaccine outcomes is much more overwhelming than "It's not good for everybody".

> This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

You are correct, which is why I focused on emphasizing the key points I did, rather than rely only on the headline, which appears to be a strategy OP uses to spread unnecessary fear about the vaccine.

What is your basis in the data?

>Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages.

An item worth studying. A question for doctors, perhaps. Given the overwhelming data, not something that should impact a person's decision whether or not to get vaccinated.

Thus, the quote that I call Point #1.

OP is posting in places and ways that suggest otherwise, which is why I claim misinformation.

> Again, rare is emphasized!!

Missed by OP.

> but you left a whole lot more out of the article.

So did OP, and they have a long history of posting these types of studies in manners and places where they are likely to be misinterpreted. Thus, I suggest misinformation here.

OP's post is part of a larger pattern of misinformation.

It's why I quoted directly from the source, to clarify the difference between how this post is perceived, and what it actually says.

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> 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]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

OP has a history of posting covid/vaccine misinformation on Reddit. This is likely part of their attempt to criticize the vaccine with studies that don't really make any real conclusions about the vaccine.

They also don't read the studies they post, so I am going to highlight a couple of comments from the study, to put the emphasis out there.

Point #1: Myocarditis is worse when you are unvaccinated. Vaccination is better

> 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]. Importantly, infectious agents may also cause lymphocytic myocarditis with a similar immunophenotype, thus meticulous molecular analyses is required in all cases of potentially vaccination-associated myocarditis.

Point #2: This study has nothing to say about vaccines 'causing' these events.

> Finally, we cannot provide a definitive functional proof or a direct causal link between vaccination and myocarditis. Further studies and extended registry are needed to identify persons at risk for this potentially fatal AEFI and may be aided by detailed clinical, serological, and molecular analyses which were beyond the scope of this study. Considering that this fatal adverse event may affect healthy individuals, such registry and surveillance programs may improve early diagnosis, close monitoring, and treatment.

You mean the US Justice Department awarding FIFA the money that had been confiscated from corrupt CONCACAF and CONMEBOL officials after an investigation?

You have distorted the situation here.

I was looking for California on these lists, before remembering that Spanish is actually our 'native' language here, and we use 'prefixes'. Many city names with Los/Las ("The") or San/Santa (named after saints).