..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?