Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

You rarely saw it in the past because only moderate to severe cases tended to get reported/diagnosed. Mild cases are very common and most people will have it multiple times throughout their lives and never even know it. The symptoms of mild cases are easily mistaken for more mundane ailments like heartburn, stress, etc. and don't tend to persist for very long. The reason it seems more common now is that (thanks to all the vaccine side effect hoopla) many people who get vaxxed begin actively looking for any little sign of a problem. When they inevitably stumble upon the various existing aches and pains etc. which they had grown used to over time and thus ignored, they immediately tie them to the vaccine and seek medical attention. The end result being things like mild cases of myocarditis, which would otherwise have gone unnoticed, now getting dianosed. The vast majority of the cases supposedly tied to vaccines are of the mild variety and were often only noticed not because they were reported by patients, but because doctors are now looking for myocarditis among the vaxxed even if no symptoms are immediately evident. Something they never used to do. Interestingly, when you compare the level of moderate to severe myocarditis cases among those vaxxed to past data (which only really consisted of such cases) a funny thing happens. They're more or less in the expected range. In other words, there likely isn't much, if any of an increase in myocarditis among the vaxxed. It's just that many mild cases that would have gone undiagnosed in the past are now being diagnosed and included in comparisons to past data when they shouldn't be.
3
One thing that should be noted is that mild cases of myocarditis are very common. Most people will have such cases multiple times throughout their life and never know it. Even if they notice symptoms, they're often blamed on fatigue, heartburn, etc., aren't a nuisance, and therefore medical attention is never considered or sought. As a result, the expected number of cases is a pretty much useless metric (especially for comparison concerning the vaccine side effects) because, due to all the paranoia attached to the vaccines, people are actively looking for side effects and doctors are testing for things like myocarditis without symptoms being present. Things they would not have previously done. It just so happens that the vast majority of the myocarditis cases supposedly tied to vaccines are of a severity that would have been missed/ignored prior to covid and have been found from testing with no symptoms present. Throw that in with the time period after vaccination that they're counting and it's likely that the number of cases isn't much if any higher than it would have been prior to covid had people been as hyperaware and such testing been done. Data is at best meaningless/at worst deceptive when not considered in the proper context and few, if any, are considering the psychological/unique conditions (like testing for things without symptoms for example) involved in all of this vaccine hoopla before deciding that it must all be related.
1
More cases means more chances for variants to pop up. More variants means more cases. If we can't bring the case rate under better control now (and thus lower the rate of new variants), the number of variants could increase exponentially. If that occurs, the impact to health care systems and economies will be far greater than that of the deaths in the long run due to ever increasing employee sick days, need of medical attention, etc. (the rate of moderate/severe cases requiring medical attention/hospitalization already dwarfs the mortality rate and will only continue to do so at an ever increasing rate.)
1
Stockholm accounts for ~15% to ~16% of the total population of Sweden. Goteborg is next at ~6%. Followed by Malmo at ~3.1% to ~3.2%. There are only 10 cities with populations above 100k. Also, comparing Stockholm to England is a bit disingenuous as England's density has the rural areas averaged in giving a much lower result than if you compared Stockholm to London instead (~367/km² vs London's ~5,665/km².) At the country level, England's average population density is over ten times that of Sweden (~276/km² vs 25/km².) London alone has a population almost equal to that of Sweden. (~9.4M vs Sweden's ~10.1M.)
1