Hacker News Reader

Comment by gypsyharlot | Hacker News Reader

This is competely wrong. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...

As I read the text of the study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...) it directly says: "First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population." Is it another study you have where the risk [] is higher after Moderna/Pfizer than after COVID?

"in the overall population" does a lot of heavy lifting there. Young males are both more vulnerable to vaccine-induced myocarditis and far less vulnerable to severe covid than the general population.

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed"

Why is that article still a preprint?

While there are several problems with that paper, it should be noted, as an epidemiologist, that the publication timelines for COVID-19 papers have gone well and truly pear shaped.

Are there any problems with that paper that would invalidate their conclusion that myocarditis is more likely in young men who get Moderna than young men who get Covid?

My biggest concern is the studies that have been comparing myocarditis induced by the vaccine vs. those with MIS-C from COVID-19 that show that they're not necessarily directly comparable - the vaccine-induced version is also milder.

It is elevated, but the implications of that depend wildly on things like case rates, as events/vaccine doses is static, and events/cases is dynamic. A conclusion reached in Sept., 2021 misses a huge upswing in cases in young men from Omicron, which while milder on a per-case bases has also caused a lot more cases (to use a gaming analogy, making better saving throws, but making a lot of them).

Do you have a source on the vaccine-induced myocarditis being milder? If that's true then it is indeed a crucial thing to keep in mind when interpreting these results.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v...

It was posted less than two months ago, that’s a pretty normal time frame for a paper to stay in review depending on the field and journal. Often there are two rounds of review even if the reviews only call for minor revisions

I've not read the article, but others are using it to present the opposite opinion.

Could you elaborate? I'm actually interested more in your opinion than on the mainstream one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com