I find it frustrating that we’re still not putting numbers on statements like this in news articles. How slight?
..which links to https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/sv/nyheter/covid-19-mrna-vac...
..which in turn seems to point here: https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/4a0b25/globalassets/dokument...
..which references EMA & EES which are European that states "145 cases of myocarditis out of 177M dosis of Comirnaty".
Have anyone else found a better source?
A message from the Swedish state epidemiologist, as quoted in context (https://tt.omni.se/vaccinering-med-moderna-pausas-for-yngre/...):
> Det här är väldigt osäkra data från en preliminär studie, så vi har inte pekat på någon särskild nivå. Vi har fått ta del av den här studien från Läkemedelsverket och ser att det finns en skillnad mellan de vaccin som finns tillgängliga och då menar vi att det i nuläget är bättre att vi använder det vaccin där man inte ser de här signalerna, säger statsepidemiolog Anders Tegnell till TT.
Translation (my own): These are highly insecure measurements from a preliminary study – there is no established certainty. This study was recieved from Läkemedelsverket [translation: Medical Products Agency] which acknowledges there is a difference between available vaccines. Our opinion is that we currently should use a vaccine where we cannot correlate these types of indications [personal remark: relations to myocarditis], says Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell to TT [ref: media]
I dont know Swedish. Does it provide any numbers for Spikevax?
Because if normal figures showed 145 cases of myocarditis out of 177M people, that would be embarrassing as fuck.
Article says most cases happen within a few days from second shot. Guesstimating at 5 days, we get 1800..1800/365*5 => 25..250 cases per 177Mp·5d.
145 cases would be around the number of otherwise expected cases, if measured on a population level. Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences (EDIT: during the relevant 5 days after 2nd shot).
Still likely less than those expected from covid infection (didn't do math).
> Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences.
No, absolutely not. Definitely not according to your flawed reasoning.
I wanted to compare vaccination occurrences with regular ones. Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days. I.e. how likely is one to get vaccine carditis vs. background carditis during the same or equivalent time.
Sorry about the last paragraph. I meant vaccine carditis vs. non-vaccine for young males during the same time one would be at risk from vaccine carditis. Mainly as a sanity check for the signal-to-noise ratio.
Because vaccinations take months, perhaps up to a year. In my country it's been at least half a year by now and we're at something like 55-60% of the population.
> Why not per lifetime? You can only get the second dose once.
Lifetime makes it an even worse comparison for natural myocarditis since you can get that in any year of your life. (But if need arises in the future for annual boosters against new strains or something like that, chances are that annual risks will again be the number to look for.)
> I could pick any interval, either customary (hourly, daily, monthly) or completely arbitrary (per 47 seconds) and get any number as a result.
You can pick garbage methodology and get garbage results, agreed. You can do pretty much what you want.
> Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days.
Which is a complete red herring since how do you know that other kinds of myocarditis don't happen a few days after the initial viral infection as well? Either delay is completely irrelevant since shifting infections of individuals in time does nothing to overall statistics of incidence.
If everyone got vaccinated during a single day, we would use a shorter interval.
If everyone got the standard of care they do now, the outcome would be roughly the same.
While the outcome would be the same, the calculated statistic would be orders of magnitude different.
If so, then what good is the calculated result?
According to Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, an additional 4 cases per 100k men under the age of 30.
They also note that having covid is a risk factor for myocarditis. So perhaps still worth it to take the shot.
Possibly they are doing this to put out the antivax wildfires in social media by reacting to statistical information about risks. So as to show that when there are scientifically established risks, there will be reaction to that as well.
Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine.
(One of many many sources: https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521)
One can't be expected to know what the credentials of some random doctor on twitter are and he doesn't reference any sources of his own.
It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data.
1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis?
2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as such? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people complaining about all manner of possible vaccine reactions to completely dismissive doctors, and filling out a VAERS report is time consuming and already overwhelmed medical practitioners are unlikely to spend 30+ minutes on a report.
3. Does vaccine (or covid) induced myocarditis have long term consequences, even if asymptomatic or mild? I've read repeatedly that myocarditis of any severity represents some degree of permanent damage but have not been able to conclusively verify this statement.
4. Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain tens (hundreds?) of billions from vaccines+boosters, when we know that these same companies have been repeatedly sued in the past for dangerous/defective medications (and vaccines) as well as deliberately sociopathic business practices? We are talking about a massive conflict of interest from parties which have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in the past.
And then with respect to VAERS self reporting, the average person has been convinced that the vaccine is safe and is not likely to connect strange symptoms weeks after vaccination with the vaccine, if they even know about VAERS or the European equivalent. There's far too much uncertainty in the positive data to support such a rigid social orthodoxy around expression of negative sentiment toward the vaccine.
1. The sudden viral load is orders of magnitude larger than typical exposure and given the complexity of the immune system, may produce a different response. Also recall that unlike traditional vaccines this mRNA hijacks your cellular machinery to produce an inflammatory protein - so comparing it to past vaccines in this respect is invalid.
2. Again because of the complexity of the immune system, its possible that a sudden, massive injection of spike protein mRNA will not activate the immune system in the same way that a gradual infection by the full virus.
3. From what I've read, the spike protein when manufactured from snipped mRNA is then expressed on cell surfaces, in contrast to a true viral infection which releases the full viral particles into the bloodstream. This could induce autoimmune reactions which would explain many of the documented side effects.
My main point though is that many in the vocal pro-vaccine crowd are underestimating the borderline chaotic complexity of the finely tuned chemical soup that is our biology. And we are injecting an engineered substance which we know is biologically active in a novel way. It's hubris to casually presume that we got this right the first time.
Edit: for the programmers, think of it as a very clever and involved hack. And hacks can have unintended side effects, especially when the system is poorly understood.
No. It doesn't. This is completely ignorant misinformation. Your molecular machinery for creating proteins are doing so constantly. Introducing a bit of code that produces a protein that looks like the virus is in no way "hijacking" your molecular machinery. Your machinery happily chugs along with every other of the 10s of thousands of other proteins being produced at the same time. Nothing is hijacked.
And such an autoimmune disease, if caused by the vaccine, would possibly be difficult to detect, especially on short timescales, and/or if no one is looking for them. Add in the stigma/silencing of professionals who criticize the vaccines and you're unlikely to get such research done/published, and it is a very real possibility that we just dosed hundreds of millions of people with a substance that may cause long term issues.
There's plenty of room for uncertainty here. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise, regardless of the media's manufactured consensus.
Next time you read something on the internet that sounds like something you would reasonably like to believe, please ask for a citation before you spread misinformation. The cell types that produce it and display it are exactly the same cell types that do it for every bit of foreign protein your immune system needs to protect against. There is nothing sneaky or take-over or unnatural about this process that happens all the time in your body.
Please stop.
This source[1] cites the following from a dead link to the cdc website:
>Upon entering the cell’s cytoplasm, the mRNA redirects some of the cell’s protein production machinery (of which ribosomes are the workhorse) to begin producing viral spike proteins. The produced spike proteins are then incorporated into and “displayed” on the host cell’s outer membrane surface
If you want something meatier, here's a detailed source[2] discussing this very point, that because the spike protein is not manufactured with the rest of the virus, at least some S protein expression is expected at the cell surface from the vaccine, in contrast to a true covid infection. And this source links to multiple others on the same subject.
People seem to presume that any information which reflects negatively on the vaccines is automatically misinformation and/or argued in bad faith. Its incredibly toxic to productive discussion.
>The cell types that produce it and display it are exactly the same cell types that do it for every bit of foreign protein your immune system needs to protect against.
I'm not sure what you're implying here - that its normal for your cells to absorb foreign RNA and manufacture inflammatory proteins that are then expressed on cell walls and used to induce what is effectively an autoimmune response?
>There is nothing sneaky or take-over or unnatural about this process that happens all the time in your body.
I'm not saying anything about this is "sneaky" but injecting mRNA with the purpose of manufacturing inflammatory proteins is hardly "natural".
1. https://www.acepnow.com/article/how-the-covid-19-mrna-vaccin...
If you are going to cite literature at least understand what you're citing.
> Antigen-presenting cells (APC) are cells that can process a protein antigen, break it into peptides, and present it in conjunction with class II MHC molecules on the cell surface where it may interact with appropriate T cell receptors.
APCs do not hoover up random mRNA to translate. They hoover up remnants after a carnage.
The vaccine is jabbed into the muscle, the spikes are (likely) expresses from the muscle cells, most definitely not only APC cells. Even if they were, it is not normal for APCs to be producing the proteins.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-...
It's normal for Antigen Presenting Cells to present antigens on the surface of their cell membrane. It's what they do all day.
So, yes. Every bit of the process is completely natural and normal.
The claims seem incorrect.
Please stop.
The vaccine is not and purposefully does not act like normal mRNA. It's not even made of the same 4 building blocks.
Yes; that's why it has to be stored at such a cold temperature, to stave off that degradation.
The "engineered quasi-mRNA" aspect of things isn't to evade degradation, but initial immune response so it can avoid being broken down before it can express itself. https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion...
> Assembling mRNA using pseudouridine, a nucleoside variant that occurs naturally in the body, greatly reduced the tendency of immune sentinels called dendritic cells to shoot out inflammatory molecules in response, they reported in 2005.
> When a vaccinated cell dies, the debris will contain many spike proteins and protein fragments, which can then be taken up by a type of immune cell called an antigen-presenting cell. [1]
Is it true that host cells need to die for the vaccine to take effect?
I'm not entirely sure and couldn't find good sources to verify or disprove OPs claim, but I recall some claims that the vaccine kills cells.
> it will lead to the cells death because it produces the foreign protein as instructed until it is killed by your immune system.
Different sites have different descriptions, but even [2] mentions:
> The priming of CD8 T cells can induce the formation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (5b) which are capable of directly killing infected cells.
Which likely means killing cells presenting the vaccine spikes? Most sites mention some form of cytotoxic action or reponse, which I do not understand, but I take it to mean that some cells are killed.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/expl...
> ... but I recall some claims that the vaccine kills cells.
You are spreading your own ignorance.
I would especially be interested in a source claiming APCs transcribe RNA to present antigens; that antigens enter the cells; and that they (rather than you) are full of it.
Note, I think both you and OP presented false claims and misconception. OP probably more, but it is you that will help spread and affirm more anti-vaxers with the - you're wrong, here's what I think, now shut up and take the jab - attitude towards their concerns.
Especially when viruses are commonly described in the same way, since the mechanism and outcome is the same: an entity other than the human cell is controlling the output of the organelles.
In any case this is a pedantic argument and changes absolutely nothing about any of my points, nor is it misinformation.
It is simply presenting the information in the language of your immune system.
That history of research says this: If "symptoms" don't show up within 6 weeks, they don't really show up at all.
That is to say, with ALL other vaccines in existence, issues have shown up within 6 weeks.
Here is an article which explains it, but this is like common knowledge amongst epidemiologists: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-...
Autoimmune disorders in particular are not necessarily going to appear in 6 weeks. Especially when the data is so noisy and there's a clear, career risking stigma against reporting anything.
Nobody is.
Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions.
But since the vaccines are proven to be safe given hundreds of millions of doses there is a lot more willingness to trust them.
My point is that the "facts on the ground" are extremely noisy and in large part coming from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This proof is overstated, ignoring the fact that there hasn't been enough time to detect mid-long term effects, its own can of worms.
All of this doubly so given the chilling effect of the stigma associated with what has seemingly been decided to be "misinformation". Clinicians, researchers, nurses are less willing to stick their necks out to criticize the research/data, and so the problem is dangerously self-reinforcing.
These are the same circles that gave us the opioid crisis. And suddenly we've all forgotten about regulatory capture? None of these criticisms deserve this rabid bullying. This is supposed to be science, not religious dogma.
Edit: and let's not forget that these pharmaceutical companies are legally not liable for any adverse effects. Informed consent requires freedom of discussion.
> Please, get vaccinated.
> I will respect your decision, but I would also like to have you on the team the next 3 seasons. Here is the data, consider getting a vaccine.
The comparison isn't moderna vs no vaccine (in which case moderna would win the risk trade-off). The comparison is moderna vs pfizer.
EDIT: The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
> 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%).
Later
Another thing to consider is that the myocarditis rate from C19 itself may exceed that of the vaccine, which would basically refute the argument against vaccination.
(By all means, pick vaccines strategically.)
For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
If this young person below 30 gets a side effect from the vaccine, is that side effect worse than what they'd get by having the virus?
It should be clear that we aren't going to suppress or eradicate covid, so you shouldn't be comparing getting the vaccine or nothing happening, but getting covid with or without the vaccine
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Covid won't mutate so that you will have to refill your vaccination every year to stay immune like with vaccines against the flu. If so, mass vaccinations probably won't be employed again and we'll only vaccinate at risk groups.
With an endemic Covid, how often will people get an infection on average?
It isn't a too trivial calculation at all.
You could easily argue for vaccinating everyone with comorbidities <30, without arguing for vaccinating everyone.
Also, even in apparently benign myocarditis, there may be heart damage which will not become apparent for many years.
The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
People keep throwing this statement out as though somehow the risk of vaccination is higher then the risks due to viral infection. It is not.
The risks of adverse reactions to COVID infection is reduced across the board if you are fully vaccinated regardless of your health status.
Also worth noting: plenty of young people have comorbidities they don't know about yet, because they haven't found them. It is actually quite difficult to exclude yourself from the "has comorbidities" risk group apriori. A common one is in fact undiscovered heart conditions for people in their 30s, since they usually only become an issue later in life when symptoms are more likely to present.
If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.
No, because you need to consider not just the odds of getting myocarditis from covid vs vaccine (Pc:Pv), but the bayesian probabilities of getting infected (Pi) or vaccinated (1) and then getting myocarditis, such that the full risk analysis would look more like Pi*Pc:Pv[1]. Point being when you are talking about vaccinating the entire population, you can easily end up in a position where there are more cases of heart inflammation from fully vaccinating the population than simply letting the virus run its course. I believe the term is relative risk reduction but don't quote me.
1. This isn't quite right, there should be a 1-x term or two in there somewhere to account for the probabilities of getting vaccinated/infected and not developing myocarditis, but its been a few years since my probability course...In any case the point still stands, that the vaccine may be less likely to cause heart inflammation does not imply that it would produce fewer cases overall if a sizeable proportion is vaccinated. To properly estimate that you need an accurate estimate for the myocarditis rate from both covid and vaccine, which I don't think anyone has.
There is also this fact that myocarditis has high prevalence among teenage boys (even CDC might underestimate it) and it looks like it is caused by some form of immune reaction and its occurrence is immune reaction size dependent (Moderna causes more myocarditis than Pfizer that causes more than AstraZeneca). It allows to postulate that it might be that the people who get myocarditis after vaccination have high risk of getting it after infection.
Just make it so you can't use a hospital bed in that case. It's only fair to people who are actually forced to go to the hospital, as opposed to gambling for it.
"Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing."
https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by the Wright brothers during their experimental flights? Surely that's highly dangerous highly voluntary stuff. Should we refuse to rescue hikers if they become lost or trapped? Should the coast guard never help recreational sailors? Should we have to submit to a proscribed diet exactly to prove we deserve medical care? Should we forgo treatment for tendonitis if it can be shown we ignored known warnings about typing too much?
To me, people are precious, and they lead messy, imperfect lives. They make bad decisions and good ones, and decisions I don't understand. They'll take risks I never would in pursuit of goals I don't see as valuable. Sometimes, when you really get to know someone, a decision that didn't make sense from a distance really starts to. And sometimes people are being self-destructive and there's no more to the story, and sometimes it's something they go through and come out the other side of.
My conviction is to love and help them no matter what.
Sometimes I can't, and that's a different thing, but deciding that someone doesn't deserve help is a level of judgement I don't want and can't justify. Maybe what they were doing really was worth it. I don't know. Even if it's not, it's essential to let people try.
I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable. I am sure others feel the same way, about control in areas in which I wouldn't mind it because I happen to already be normal. So I am against it on principle. People need to be people, in all their messy glory. And we should help them if we can, regardless of how they got there. I think the only case in which I would act differently was if I thought letting someone suffer natural consequences was for their best - and I would have to be incredibly sure.
Leaving people to a fatal condition when we could help them is incomprehensible and inhumane to me, and represents a dangerous level of escalating disagreement into dehumanization.
> Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by ...
You break it you buy it. Should the state and society in general be expected to shoulder the burdeon for people who chose to put themselves in danger, should 10 people be sent into danger to save the sailor who makes the choice to take on a hurricane?
Who do we save if we can only save 1 person, the heroin addict with a fatal condition we can probably save or the child that would be a flip of a coin?
> My conviction is to love and help them no matter what.
What of the children of the helicopter crew flying into the hurricane to save the lone sailor? No love and help for them? Or the person who doesnt get a bed because it is take up by others?
> I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable?
Your choices are other peoples consequences. As a functioning member of society, philosophically you comply with these things on a constant basis, and no doubt demand it of others. It is not a matter of principle, it is simply a question of where the line is. If you have ever complained about anything you have exerted your control over someone elses life.
You cannot rely on "being right this time" to avoid participating in tragedy. The liars are too good. But you can refuse to hate and dehumanize those you are told to.
If you truly believe that medical care is a human right, then you should extend it to every human, regardless of how they wound up in the situation they're in. While you sometimes do have to choose, it is abhorrent to choose the rich over the poor, the socially well-adjusted over the outcasts, ideological friends over ideological foes. The standard we actually use is to do the absolute best you can for everyone you can.
You're right that it doesn't make sense to cause greater harm to avoid lesser, but rationing too quickly, especially from a place of moral judgement rather than medical triage, seems much more likely to be coming from a place of spite than a place of tragic necessity. We take care of enemy soldiers. We take care of people on death row. We take care of people who would see us dead, because this is what civilized and humane people do. If you are quick to deny care to people you perceive as not doing their part, you're coming from a perspective much, much darker than the general thought and ethics of this civilization.
I know everyone is angry and has suffered in the last couple years, and I know everyone wants to fight. There are people running around right now stirring up that anger and trying to direct it at their ideological enemies. By all means, fight for what you think is right. But if you find yourself indifferent to the death of your fellow man or even cheering for it, beware - it may make sense to you right now, but that will be no comfort in five or ten or twenty years if what you wish for comes to pass and you have to remember cheering for it.
No: Absolutely not worth it to take that particular shot, as there are others available which don't have that side effect.
In that case, I'd expect all of the vaccines to have a similar risk, and it's only been spotted in one so far
It is fairly clear that adverse effect is dose dependent and it may be the reason why we do not see that many with vector vaccines - immune system creates some immunity against the vector virus and actual amount of vaccine entering cells is limited. It is also evident from the limited immune response from vector vaccines.
But just so people don't get the wrong idea, they're finding that the risk of myocarditis in young men who've actually caught Covid is something like 6x more likely than in those who received the vaccine:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...
So if you're a young male, the correct response to avoiding myocarditis (among all of the other downsides that come with actually catching Covid) is to get vaccinated with the Pfizer or J&J shots.
Not that it's super relevant but the friends I mentioned were mid 20's and in fine health, no weird immune disorders or anything, so the fact that their doc advised the vaccine was frankly just negligence in my book.
Probably not that insane if you recognise how many people this doctor has potentially seen or heard dying of it.
BTW the feeling of being sick is literally the feeling of your immune system doing its thing. No immune response = no sickness symptoms (until huge swaths of your body have been destroyed by the pathogen)
I had Covid, had immunity, and no one gave a flying fuck. I had to follow the same procedures as everyone else. PCR tests up the ass, waste of money, travel blocks.
Half a year later I got the J&J vaccine and had a mild fever for a day (proving my previous infection worked for immunity, just imo). Yet I still wear a fucking mask and shit. At least I have a QR code that I can use to travel...and some countries don't accept J&J as a valid vaccine.
What a fucking joke.
I just got my recommended booster shot of Moderna yesterday, now I'm waiting to see how hard that will hit me.
There are no certainties, but I know that here you would also been considered immune if you had previously been infected, but not yet vaccinated.
Bad public policy unfortunately exists, same with the thing about not accepting the J&J vaccine as valid. It works about as well as the mRNA vaccines against hospitalizations and death, but with somewhat less efficacy against base infection, and of course a slightly larger risk of complications. That doesn't make it a bad vaccine, so countries not accepting it is completely insane.
I could've opted for Pfizer, but the wait time for it to arrive and to get the full two doses was too long. J&J is one shot, and some say it works better than "older" vaccines.
I did get into the country that didn't have it on their list to be fair. They probably added it later, AZ was on there.
Also, how was it diagnosed?
> Inclusion criteria were a first COVID-19 diagnosis during the April 1, 2020 - March 31, 2021 time period, with an outpatient visit 1 month to 2 years before, and another 6 months to 2 years before that
To actually compare fairly against vaccination, you need to compare the infection myocarditis rate, not the case myocarditis rate. (Technically you should really compare infection myocarditis rate * chance of actually getting infected w/ SARS-2 [while very slightly adjusting for time decay], but let's ignore that especially since the chance of getting COVID over a 2-3 year window is quite high)
So the study you linked will give an unfairly high estimate of the rate of myocarditis. This is the same principle as the fact that looking at hospitalized COVID-19 patients will show much worse effects than looking at rates of bad effects for all PCR+ individuals, and even moreso if extrapolating from serology.
https://www.science.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-bet...
To be clear the result in the paper is that myocarditis in that age group is greater than hospitalization risk from covid. No?
"For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate"
There's no result there about myocarditis from covid infection.
> Results A total of 257 CAEs [cardiac adverse effect] were identified. Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.
A cardiologist commentary for this was that raw VAERS data is not to be trusted and CDC will know better. End of story.
This study also seriously underestimates the virus speed and complications.
Do not let any random quack fool you. Verify it.
Many other cardiologist disagree with this selection criteria and there exists clear bias that can affect the authors.
First need to know what the risk of myocarditis is when being vaccinated and having covid, and how much lower the risk of covid-infection is when having been vaccinated.
I don't think all of that data is available right now, so I would hesitate coming with certain conclusions about the right thing to do for young people. (Especially boys)
Also I would be a little careful using the 6x estimate for myocarditis caused by covid infection for these age groups, as in these age groups there may be quite a few undetected/asymptomatic covid infections. (That is it may be that: P(detected infection | covid, myocarditis) >> P(detected infection | covid) in young people)
This is probably also the reason the health authorities stopped recommending the Moderna vaccine for that demographic. Since the Pfizer vaccine is available, and AFAIK it's not in short supply, it's pretty much just a question of which vaccine to use for that demographic.
When I got the second (Pfizer) shot, I was also given a leaflet saying that extreme physical exertion should be avoided for a few days afterwards as that might increase the risk of myocarditis.
Also, since the vaccine doesn't prevent contraction of Covid, does it really make sense to frame this as though the two risks are mutually exclusive?
The study is still ongoing in Finland, but as the early results seem to match with the other nordic countries the limitation has been placed.
[1] (Page is only in Finnish still as it was written today). https://thl.fi/fi/-/thl-ohjeistaa-tarjoamaan-alle-30-vuotiai...
They looked at 25 "averse events", and only half of them (12 of the 25) had higher prevalence with the vaccine than in the control group, which is what "no difference" looks like. The normal way you protect against this is by adjusting for the fact that you're doing multiple tests (one for each of the 25 adverse events), but "As is standard practice for studies of safety outcomes, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.". Am I missing something?
Or to put it differently, if the vaccine puts you at risk for intracranial hemorrhages, does it also protect you against acute kidney injury (irrespective of Covid)? The difference is just as big in the other direction.
I'm starting to think that we should redesign all the older vaccines to be more like those ones.
But the risk of getting COVID in any time period is less than 1 (based on % of population that has actually had it, possibly less than 0.1 or 10% per year), so it's worth waiting for the safest vaccine for certain groups.
Given it's not slowing down, the likelihood of getting covid is actually quite high over time.
The Scandinavian solution will likely be to just delay vaccination for a week while a dose of the Pfeizer vaccine is tracked down. The change of contracting covid in that timeframe is very small.
These ethical considerations are necessarily local.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Personally, I've effectively been self-isolating since January. Why should I get a shot now? Especially if it's going to wear off in 5 months?
Without a more detailed case behind this it feels like "just trust us".
I'd really like some trust but verify. The lack of ability to verify many of these directions, especially with some of them from different organizations contradicting each other, is bothersome.
While that's both vaccines, it's still quite rare especially given the large population size (2.3M people), especially considering for under 16s your risk of myocarditis is 37x more likely if you get Covid [2].
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
[2] https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-myocar...
In a world where people like to talk about their opinions, it's great to have some form of foundation. When I speak to folks and can talk about these details it often sways opinions on those who aren't at the extremes. I wish more people shared data and the foundation for their opinion.
I doubt that it would be 0/2M
Spikevax: 5 cases out of about 49000
Comirnaty: 6 out of about 380000
I think these are numbers from Finland specifically and not the larger study.
"Ontario now recommending against Moderna vaccine for men 18-24 years old...This comes after public health officials determined there is a 1 in 5,000 risk of myocarditis — a form of heart inflammation — following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine."
Here's the weekly Ontario report on vaccine side effects: at the end is the myocarditis/pericarditis breakdown:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza...
> In adjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 had, on average, 15.7 (95% CI = 14.1–17.2) times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients without COVID-19;
Okay, so it's 'just' an order of magnitude higher. Unfortunately, myocarditis is one of the least serious side effects of COVID.
If you have a choice between a vaccine that offers 95% protection against COVID, and a 1 in 5000 chance of myocarditis, and one that offers 90% protection against COVID, and a zero chance of myocarditis, you're better off taking the former. You're also far better off taking either one, compared to being unvaccinated.
Now you've already been caught making false claims once, the decent thing to do would be to stop being so cocksure and apologize, not dig in.
> The risk of myocarditis is substantially increased for those who contract COVID-19, and vaccination is the best way to protect against this.
So even if only Moderna is available to you, you are still safer getting it than COVID-19. I think these countries are just making sure that each demographic gets the safest vaccine for them which is great.
Interestingly enough, my father was in the hospital at the same time being monitored for a potential heart attack.
The were both going through exactly the same testing and treatment. In other words, my young son was, among other things, being tested for the heart attack enzyme.
In this case it was the Pfizer vaccine. The rest of the family, myself included, got Moderna.
The issue --with kids-- seems to have been that the second dose had to be lower than what they were/are giving them. I haven't followed developments since he got out. He had a three month checkout and all was well.
While our entire family is vaccinated, this event made me realize that we must not vilify those who have doubts.
Yes, of course, I wish everyone was vaccinated. And yet, I have to ask myself: What would we had done had we known there was a potential for our young kid to actually suffer a heart attack because of the vaccine? As small as the probability of something like that might be, I am not sure how I would answer the question. My wife is an MD. Her opinion is we probably would have given them just one dose. Still, it's easy to say things like that after the fact.
Heart damage typically can cause lasting effects. Many people may have heart damage and not even know it.
I'm not making any specific claims, just that it's unknown.
Here's an explanation of how a heart cannot or very slowly repairs: https://www.uclahealth.org/heart/cardiac-repair-regeneration
My cardiologist says that without an MRI he can't diagnose me and my insurance did not cover it. It's quite likely imo that there is a relevant diagnosis not being made because it's inaccessible.
I would suggest you report it to VAERS, but everyone's decided that data should just be ignored so what's the point?
> I find it frustrating that we’re still not putting numbers on statements like this in news articles.
This article on the same general topic has numbers:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/health/covid-vaccine-chil...
> A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now
> Myocarditis, a rare side effect, occurs mostly after the second dose. So in some countries, officials are trying out single doses for children....
> Officials in Hong Kong as well as in Britain, Norway and other countries have recommended a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 12 and older — providing partial protection from the virus, but without the potential harms occasionally observed after two doses....
> Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data on myocarditis in June, and unanimously voted to recommend the vaccine for children ages 12 and older, saying the benefits far outweighed the risk.
> Agency research has estimated that for every million vaccinated boys ages 12 to 17 in the United States, the shots might cause a maximum of 70 myocarditis cases, but they would prevent 5,700 infections, 215 hospitalizations and two deaths. Studies have also shown that the risk of heart problems after Covid-19 is much higher than after vaccination....
> The latest analysis, which was published on Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination in Israel was highest among males aged 16 to 29. About 11 of every 100,000 males in that age group developed the condition a few days after being vaccinated, a rate higher than most earlier estimates. (The risk was negligible in females of any age.)
That article also had some interesting discussion about reducing vaccination for young people because of myocarditis. Whether that's a wise decision or not really depends on how well the country in question has contained COVID.
The numbers I saw were about 1.0 per 100k were hospitalized for 2-3 days. No deaths and half those recovered completely after a month.
I haven't seen anyone say this but that's probably the same risk of myocarditis you get from the flu. And 100 times lower than the risk from covid.