[HN Gopher] Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna...
___________________________________________________________________
Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19
vaccine
Author : DantesKite
Score : 157 points
Date : 2021-10-07 19:21 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| mytoothhurts wrote:
| To the mods censoring me: I hate you all
| notoclotshot wrote:
| Geez, as the real data behind the vaccine slowly drips out I'm
| happier and happier I didn't inject an experimental drug in me.
| Especially considering all the "studies" thus far have taken
| place during summer when covid isn't an issue anyways.
|
| What we've learned since their release:
|
| - the spike protein is toxic
|
| - vaccine immunity is narrow, binding to only a few epitopes on
| the virus
|
| - immunity wanes quickly
|
| - IgA antibodies aren't produced by the vaccine, causing
| vaccinated to still suffer infection
|
| - heart inflammation becoming more and more common
|
| - the mrna accumulated literally all over the body, not just the
| muscle as we were initially told
|
| - manufacturing of these vaccines are subject to frequent
| contamination
|
| And that's just to name a few. Glad I wasn't dumb enough to take
| one for a disease that's not a risk to most healthy young people.
| mfer wrote:
| So, they are halting the Moderna vaccine due to myocarditis and
| recommending the Phizer shot for younger men.
|
| Yet, Israel found the Phizer shot lead to myocarditis issues [0].
|
| I wonder what the numbers are and what data decision makers are
| looking at.
|
| [0] https://archive.is/3bZoH/ (NYTimes)
| polack wrote:
| Sweden have had 125 reported cases of myocarditis for people
| that have used Pfizer and 44 that used Moderna. But then there
| have been 10,6 million shots of Pfizer administered and only
| 1,8 million shots of Moderna. So quite clear that the risk is
| higher for Moderna, even though the risk is low for both of
| them.
| Antipode wrote:
| Any current data on the rate amongst unvaccinated people?
| mach1ne wrote:
| I assume that the numbers reported (one comment quoted 6/39000)
| are actually lowballed, since you constantly hear about cases
| where symptoms obviously relevant to covid/vaccines are
| dismissed as not connected.
|
| I would guess decisionmakers take the reluctance to report into
| account when estimating the true risk factors.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >I would guess decisionmakers take the reluctance to report
| into account when estimating the true risk factors.
|
| I would guess they do no such thing.
| chippiewill wrote:
| Moderna and Pfizer are both very similar and likely cause
| Myocarditis for the same reason.
|
| However it's also likely that people will have a worse reaction
| to Moderna (if they have one) because the vaccine doses are far
| larger than with Pfizer.
|
| This is born out in the statistics that show that while we see
| Myocarditis for both vaccines, the prevalence seems to be
| higher for Moderna.
| bsaul wrote:
| All people here pointing that you still should get vaccinated
| because side effects of vaccines are still less likely :
|
| Let's not forget that :
|
| 1-some european country are already _past_ the delta variant wave
| (so you have to ponderate by the chance of actually getting
| infected)
|
| 2- we still have no idea what the new variant of the next wave of
| covid is going to look like, when it is going to happen, and if
| the vaccine is going to offer any protection.
|
| as an example, living in France, my personal choice atm is to not
| get the vaccine... ( and in all cases i'll definitely check for
| antibodies before getting a shot, in case i already got infected
| without knowing)
| solarkraft wrote:
| Is it rational? The same concerns have been raised about the
| BioNTech vaccine, yet that is still perfectly in use.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| ffs, what have we come to?
|
| This is HN, where smart, educated, science-literate people
| congregate.
|
| Reading the comments, I'm ashamed of us. We're better than this.
|
| Read the actual f*cking papers people. Not the YouTube videos,
| not the weird-ass political shit on FB. Not the New York Times,
| or even Reuters. The actual papers. We've all got SciHub
| (thankfully!), there's no excuse.
|
| If you don't think you're educated enough to grok the actual
| studies then you're probably not educated enough to understand
| the issues, and you probably shouldn't be contradicting the
| experts.
|
| Unless, of course, you think this is all a conspiracy, in which
| case I have a bridge to sell you...
| mytoothhurts wrote:
| Geez, as the real data behind the vaccine slowly drips out I'm
| happier and happier I didn't inject an experimental drug in me.
| Especially considering all the "studies" thus far have taken
| place during summer when covid isn't an issue anyways. What we've
| learned since their release:
|
| - the spike protein is toxic
|
| - vaccine immunity is narrow, binding to only a few epitopes on
| the virus
|
| - immunity wanes quickly
|
| - IgA antibodies aren't produced by the vaccine, causing
| vaccinated to still suffer infection
|
| - heart inflammation becoming more and more common
|
| - the mrna accumulated literally all over the body, not just the
| muscle as we were initially told
|
| - manufacturing of these vaccines are subject to frequent
| contamination
|
| And that's just to name a few. Glad didn't take the jab for a
| disease that's not a risk to most healthy young people.
| [deleted]
| gorwell wrote:
| A lot of comments here asking for specific numbers and making
| comparisons to other risks. That's exactly how one should be
| looking at this. What I don't understand is why people don't
| apply this same critical thought process to the risks of Covid?
|
| For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization from
| Covid is when unvaccinated?
|
| If you said >50%, you would be in good company. It's the most
| common answer.
|
| But what's the actual risk?
|
| <1%.
|
| When vaccinated, the risk is even lower! Yet people are still
| more afraid of Covid than myriad other risks we accept on a daily
| basis and don't even think about, and certainly don't rearrange
| our lives around. For whatever reason, we are avoiding a basic
| cost benefit analysis and vastly overestimate the risks.
|
| "92% overstate the risk that unvaccinated people will be
| hospitalized, and 62% overstate the risk for vaccinated people"
|
| https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
| tw04 wrote:
| There isn't a medical system on planet earth that is prepared
| or capable of having 1% of their population in the hospital at
| the same time.
|
| So "<1%" means absolutely nothing without context. And the
| context is: if we do nothing, we run out of hospital beds.
| Period. Full stop.
|
| Ignoring the massive financial burden on hospitals who are also
| not financially setup to have the entire hospital full of
| people sick with COVID - they are bleeding cash without
| elective surgeries. They can only bleed for so long without
| significant government intervention. The piddly sums being
| handed out for COVID patients that all the conspiracy theorists
| think the hospital is making hay off of is not enough to keep
| the doors open.
| lliamander wrote:
| 1% of the population is not getting COVID all at once. That's
| 1% of people who happen to have COVID _right now_. A much
| smaller number.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| "Beds" is a meaningless figure... it really refers to staff.
| Now they are massively firing nurses who won't get vaxxed
| (which should be red flag in and of itself, wonder what they
| are seeing day to day) which in turn leads to less beds...
| which then in turn helps justify the "need" for mandates. All
| of those nurses have been getting daily boosters of covid
| from actual patients every day and we are pretending like
| they all don't have preexisting immunity.
| javagram wrote:
| "Yet people are still more afraid of Covid than myriad other
| risks we accept on a daily basis" keep in mind a lot of people
| are older than 40 or have treasured family members who are 65
| or older.
|
| COVID's risk isn't symmetric across the population. It is
| definitely extremely dangerous though and killed 700,000
| Americans, for instance.
| bsder wrote:
| As someone who had a "mild" (I only had a 103 fever for 3
| weeks, swelling in all manner of weird places, and exhaustion)
| Covid Original Flavour(tm), I still have symptoms due to the
| aftermath even a year later.
|
| Research keeps increasing the percentage for people who have
| "long Covid" symptoms and the length of their duration.
|
| And I didn't have a symptom like losing my smell which seems to
| be _very_ common. Losing your sense of smell for a very long
| time _really_ sucks.
|
| People are _vastly_ underestimating the risks of actual Covid
| and _vastly_ overestimating any risks from the vaccine.
|
| And this is before we talk about the fact that people are dying
| of _treatable, non-Covid_ diseases because Covid patients who
| won 't get a vaccine are clogging the hospitals.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| _> For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization
| from Covid is when unvaccinated?
|
| > <1%_
|
| Risk numbers are totally useless when not stating the time over
| which the risk is incurred. A 1% lifetime risk is _very_
| different from a 1% daily risk.
|
| For example, the 0.89% population hospitalization rate in the
| last 1.5 years for the unvaccinated from the article you linked
| corresponds to a 38% chance of hospitalization over a 80-year
| lifespan. (Note that this is just an example to point out the
| problem with GP's reasoning, in reality this is an
| overestimation as it neglects that you build immunity after an
| infection).
| tshaddox wrote:
| My interpretation of that phrasing is that it refers to the
| risk of hospitalization from a single infection of COVID-19,
| so I don't think the time frame matters all that much (other
| than perhaps much later hospitalizations from long-term
| effects that we still don't know a lot about yet).
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > My interpretation of that phrasing is that it refers to
| the risk of hospitalization from a single infection of
| COVID-19
|
| That interpretation is not supported by the source linked
| by GP. The risk you allude to (infection hospitalization
| rate) was generally reported as ~5% (it's probably halved
| now that half the population is vaccinated). See for
| example [0], the first Google hit I got, or the CDC COVID
| tracker [1], where reported hospitalizations divided by
| reported infections gives 3.6%.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7895685/
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-
| data/covidvi...
| packetlost wrote:
| But that risk level of catching COVID is more or less a
| 1-time event. Once you've caught it and recovered (or gotten
| vaccinated) it's no longer a _novel_ virus to your immune
| system and subsequent infections have an even lower risk for
| the vast majority of people. The real problem is when
| everyone in that 1% of hospitalizations catches it all at
| once, because we don 't have nearly enough hospital beds to
| treat even a fraction of that many people.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > But that risk level of catching COVID is more or less a
| 1-time event
|
| No. You can treat the risk of being hospitalized from COVID
| as a one-time event, but the risk of catching COVID is a
| continuous event until you've either caught it or it has
| been eradicated.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| >> For example, do you know what the risk of hospitalization
| from Covid is when unvaccinated?
|
| > Risk numbers are totally useless when not stating the time
| over which the risk is incurred. A 1% lifetime risk is very
| different from a 1% daily risk.
|
| In this specific case the timeframe is not relevant. The
| metric here was "probability that you will be hospitalized IF
| you are infected with COVID-19". That means the timeline is
| "however long it takes to get better from Covid". Adding
| "lifetime risk" to that doesn't make sense, and "daily risk"
| makes even less sense (for example, someone who is sick for
| 130 days, is admitted to a hospital, and dies, would be
| counted as adding 1 "positive day" and 129 "negative days",
| making it an awful metric).
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > The metric here was "probability that you will be
| hospitalized IF you are infected with COVID-19".
|
| That's a good metric, but it's not the metric the numbers
| GP quoted were for. Those numbers were for the metric
| "probability that you would catch COVID-19 and be
| hospitalized with it over the past 1.5 years". That's
| fundamentally something different.
|
| What's your alluding to is also known as infection
| hospitalization rate, and while numbers differ (it's hard
| to accurately count infections), in the unvaccinated
| population it's generally somewhere around 5%.
| zehnfischer wrote:
| There is actually a defined measure for the risk that may lead
| to an early death: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
| sergiotapia wrote:
| It's heretical to say such things and "anti-science" as branded
| by the media. The fact that California now wants kids to get
| the vaccine is bonkers to me. Kids don't even feel this shit if
| they catch it. Pharmaceutical companies must be paying big
| bucks to the politicians in that state.
| s5300 wrote:
| If kids "don't even feel this shit if they catch it"
|
| Why have pediatric ICU beds been near or at capacity and care
| as a whole on the brink of failure from months of completely
| fucked working conditions for the doctors and nurses?
|
| Along with other kids not dealing with COVID having life
| saving medical procedures/treatments indefinitely delayed
| until beds are back down below a certain fill for some amount
| of time? I've personally had to see effects this in my
| extended family.
|
| Seriously - what is wrong with you? What makes you have to
| say things/come to conclusions like this when you're very
| clearly factually incorrect?
|
| https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/pediatric-
| hospital-b...
|
| https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/number-
| of...
|
| https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210816/u-s-reports-
| record-...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kids-sick-covid-are-
| fil...
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/24/health/covid-
| hospitalizations...
|
| https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/bs-md-pediatric-
| cov...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/02/picu-
| hosp...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Kids don't even feel this shit if they catch it.
|
| In general, sure, but that's a bit like arguing people should
| be able to drive drunk because drunks are more likely to
| survive a car accident.
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/odds-
| favo...
|
| > A retrospective study of nearly 8,000 trauma patients found
| that seven percent of people who came in sober died of their
| injuries, while those who were hurt while drunk only died one
| percent of the time. A positive blood alcohol level seemed to
| increase the likelihood of survival, even after the
| researchers took into account the age of the patient and the
| severity of the injury. Trauma patients who came in to the
| hospital drunk were discharged sooner, too.
|
| The impact on _others_ can be significant, and important.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| Then the establishment should just be honest about it
| instead of trying to fear-porn parents into wanting to
| "protect your kids from the deadly disease".... Just
| say.... we are going to put your kids at risk from the
| vaccine because we think the ends justify the benefits for
| old people.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > instead of trying to fear-porn parents
|
| > we are going to put your kids at risk from the vaccine
|
| A bit on the nose, don't you think?
| javagram wrote:
| Covid is more dangerous to kids than chicken pox, we still
| vaccinate kids for chickenpox though. Hundreds of children
| have died of Covid-19. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-
| COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
| makomk wrote:
| Not all countries vaccinate kids for chickenpox. The UK
| still doesn't for example. I'm pretty sure it's easily the
| least necessary of the childhood vaccinations.
| Jensson wrote:
| Chickenpox vaccine lasts a lifetime, giving it to kids
| protects them as an adult as well.
| [deleted]
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Covid has a death rate of around 2% globally. Not sure where
| you are getting your <1% chance of being hospitalized from.
| ImaCake wrote:
| The parent comment is valuable, but the numbers do seem
| wrong. I think it is part of the argument for ending strict
| lockdowns once vaccination rates are high.
| gfodor wrote:
| Death rate is highly misleading given the skew of outcomes
| based on a few factors we have known for a long time now such
| as age.
| nemothekid wrote:
| From a public health point of view, deciding whether you should
| take the vaccine or not is an undoubtedly selfish and short-
| sighted way to calculate risks. It assumes that hospitalization
| carries no second-order risks which simply is not the case.
|
| For any given area, the question that must be asked is if a
| COVID outbreak were to occur does that given area have the
| health resources to manage an outbreak. <1% risk is meaningless
| if you don't have an ICU bed. It becomes a public policy
| problem when someone in a car accident can not get adequate
| resources or if nurses are doing 18 hours shifts.
| rohitb91 wrote:
| Or the odds of dying of covid for young people vs a car
| accident. car accidents are significantly more dangerous.
|
| And before people bring up side effects or other long term
| damage, most people don't die in car accidents and suffer from
| ptsd, whiplash, broken bones etc.
|
| Yet bring this up and you're automatically an anti Vaxxer.
|
| People are absolutely terrible at evaluating personal risk.
|
| One of my coworkers drove across Canada to visit home at one
| point instead of taking a flight because of covid.
|
| Young people should be more concerned with staying away from
| opioids, social media, friends that are racing cars, and binge
| drinking at parties.
|
| Yet, the media has 14 year olds terrified of covid.
|
| Lunacy.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Yet bring this up and you're automatically an anti Vaxxer.
|
| I would only make that guess if you brought up car accidents
| _and_ were opposed to driving test requirements, wearing seat
| belts, car safety regulations, etc.
| mahogany wrote:
| I think I'm missing your point. This article is talking about
| the relative risk of developing myocarditis, but you are
| talking about the risk of hospitalization from COVID. Wouldn't
| the correct comparison be to look at the risk of myocarditis
| after catching COVID? Or going the other way, shouldn't we be
| comparing the risk of _hospitalization due to COVID (if
| unvaccinated)_ to that of _hospitalization after receiving the
| vaccine_?
| marvin wrote:
| The real ethical tradeoff is "what's your chance of
| contracting covid and getting complications in the one-week
| delay between cancelling your Moderna appointment and getting
| the Pfeizer vaccine instead" vs. "what's the chance of
| getting myocarditis from side effects of the Moderna
| vaccine".
|
| Seems like most people in this thread hear "Scandinavian
| authorities are stopping the vaccination program", when the
| recommendation is rather to switch vaccines for men under a
| certain age.
|
| The ethical consideration is not particularly complicated,
| and Scandinavian health authorities are not risk-averse
| idiots. They simply care about an equation that might lead to
| a couple of saved lives in total. I think this level of care
| speaks highly of the intentions of the healthcare systems in
| Scandinavia.
| summerlight wrote:
| > But what's the actual risk? > <1%.
|
| Where did you get that number? As of Sep 29, 2021, US reported
| 43,289,203 cases where 3,047,033 of them are hospitalized,
| including vaccinated. This is nowhere close to <1%. I'm pretty
| sure the number could be much higher with saner medical
| insurance system.
| tylersmith wrote:
| He's considering the odds of both getting covid, and then
| ending up in the hospital. There are more than 300mm people
| in the US, so your chances of both getting covid and then
| being hospitalized is < 1%. If you already have covid then
| it's closer to 7%.
| gorwell wrote:
| From the page I linked:
|
| The correct answers to hospitalization risk can be calculated
| using data from the Department of Health and Human Services
| (via HealthData.gov) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
| and Prevention (CDC). One needs only the following figures:
| 1) the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people 2)
| total hospitalizations resulting from COVID-19 3)
| hospitalizations of vaccinated people. We used data through
| August 9, 2021, one week before the survey was fielded. At
| that time, total hospitalizations from COVID-19 were
| estimated to be 2.6 million, with 7,608 vaccinations found
| among vaccinated people. The size of the vaccinated and
| unvaccinated populations was nearly equal on August 9 (with
| 168 million vaccinated and 163 million unvaccinated).
|
| A simplistic analysis of these numbers would yield
| hospitalization rates of 0.005% for the vaccinated population
| (1 case in 22,118) and 1.6% for the unvaccinated population
| (1 case in 62), but those numbers exaggerate the benefits of
| the vaccine because the unvaccinated population confronted
| many more days of risk, since vaccination was gradually
| rolled out starting in December of 2020. For that reason, we
| take the average population totals over the relevant periods
| for each population (March 1, 2020-Aug. 9, 2021 for the
| unvaccinated population and Dec. 15, 2020,-Aug. 9, 2021, for
| the vaccinated population). The adjusted population of
| vaccinated people comes to 83 million and 295 million for the
| vaccinated population, since the entire U.S. population was
| unvaccinated -- except a small number of participants in
| clinical trials --up until December of 2020.
|
| Using these adjusted figures, we calculate that the
| hospitalization rate for the vaccinated population is 0.01%
| (or 1 in 10,914), and the rate for unvaccinated adults is
| 0.89% (or 1 case in 112 people). In both cases, therefore,
| the correct answer is less than one percent, but the implied
| efficacy rate of vaccination is 99% at preventing
| hospitalizations. This is calculated as the hospitalization
| rate for the unvaccinated minus the hospitalization rate for
| the vaccinated, divided by the unvaccinated rate. In other
| words, it is the percentage decrease in hospitalization risk.
| This high rate of protection -- even against Delta -- is
| consistent with a recent article published in the Lancet,
| which reviewed large-scale empirical data from the United
| States and around the world.
|
| Some may argue that patients may have been hospitalized as a
| result of COVID but not diagnosed as such. We think this is
| highly unlikely to result in significant downward bias in the
| rates of hospitalization risk since testing at hospitals
| became widespread after only a few weeks at the start of the
| pandemic, and the vast majority of hospitalizations would
| have occurred since May of 2020, given data on deaths, which
| are more comprehensively documented. Nonetheless, using
| various modeling assumptions, CDC epidemiologists estimate
| that the actual number of hospitalizations may be 1.8 times
| higher than the reported number. If these estimates are
| accurate, the true rate of hospitalization risk for the
| unvaccinated population is 1.6% and as high as 0.2% for the
| vaccinated population. In either case, the public's
| misunderstanding of risk is roughly just as inaccurate. One
| criticism of these inflated estimates is that they assume
| that many people were hospitalized while asymptomatically
| carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus, leading to an undetected case.
| The problem with this reasoning is that it would count people
| admitted to the hospital for non-COVID reasons who
| coincidentally had an asymptomatic infection. These cases
| were correctly omitted from official statistics since the
| absence of symptoms cannot cause hospitalization.
|
| A more serious limitation is that we count each admission
| from COVID-19 into a hospital as a unique person. In fact, we
| know from scholarly research that some patients are
| readmitted multiple times. One paper estimates that 9% of
| COVID-19 patients were readmitted to the hospital. This
| implies that, at minimum, our hospitalization estimates
| should be multiplied by 0.91 to capture only hospitalizations
| of unique individuals. Doing so would shrink both
| hospitalization risk estimates, and they would still both be
| well below 1%.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Ah, this is doing something dumb/misleading: it's not
| conditioning the chance of hospitalization on catching
| covid.
|
| That is, the normal way someone interprets the question
| "what is the chance you're hospitalized due to covid" is
| "what is the chance you're hospitalized due to a covid
| infection", while you're actually asking "what is the
| chance you, a randomly chosen person, will be hospitalized
| due to covid [in the next year]". They're conditioning on a
| time window, and not a case rate.
|
| Another way of looking at their approach is to consider
| what happens over the lifetime of a person. If you have a
| .89% chance of being hospitalized due to covid this year,
| what's the chance over your lifetime? Unless the risk
| drastically drops, it's something like a 30% chance of
| being hospitalized over the next 40 years, or for me, very
| close to a 50% chance of being hospitalized over my entire
| life.
| MatteoFrigo wrote:
| Cumulative numbers since the beginning of time are kind of
| meaningless to evaluate risk, though. They can be useful to
| assess the damage when all is said and done, but risk is
| about the future and not the past. Also, probabilities should
| be per unit time, otherwise they go up forever by definition.
|
| I think a better assessment of risk comes from the UK data ht
| tps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
|
| From Table 3, we learn that somebody unvaccinated in their
| 20's has a chance of 10/100,000 to end up in the hospital
| over a period of 28 days. So something like .1% per year.
| Vaccination reduces the risk by a factor of O(10), old age
| increases it by a factor of O(10). These data refer to a
| recent snapshot of a 28-day period, and I'd feel safer to
| assume that the next month looks more like the previous month
| than March 2020.
| tomp wrote:
| In 6 months we've gone from "vaccines are 100% safe and well
| tested and there's no chance of long-term side effects
| whatsoever" to 3 out of 4 "main" vaccines being not recommended
| for different groups of people.
|
| Great for science, not so great for trust in public officials &
| experts.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| Scandinavia, and the western world, are not as desperate for
| vaccines as they were 6 months ago. So it makes sense that
| these governments and public health officials would change
| their recommendations to be more conservative with respect to
| side effects. No vaccine or medication has 0 risk, it's about
| balancing the risk of the vaccine with the current risk of the
| actual disease.
| [deleted]
| pstuart wrote:
| Vaccines have never been promoted as 100% safe nor 100%
| effective.
| [deleted]
| 542458 wrote:
| I feel you're taking the wrong message away here - the
| countries in question have more than enough doses, and can pick
| and choose between the vaccines. None of the vaccines are more
| dangerous than covid itself, but the government is recommending
| that (since they have an adequate supply) their people
| shouldn't bother with the ones that are potentially extremely
| marginally more risky. If the "best" vaccine didn't exist,
| they'd still be recommending the next best one.
| tomp wrote:
| There's a lot of nuance that you're not taking into account.
| For example, previously infected benefit minimally from
| getting vaccinated (they're already better protected than
| non-infected but vaccinated individuals). The risks of covid
| are strongly correlated with age and healthiness, as are
| risks of vaccines (e.g. affects particularly young men).
| There's many variables that individuals can take into account
| when deciding what to do.
|
| Note that I'm mainly criticising anti-scientific propaganda
| sold as science, and forced vaccinations, not vaccination
| itself (in general or specifically for COVID).
| Delk wrote:
| It seems the number of myocarditis cases in Finland has
| been in the order of a few cases out of a few hundred
| thousand vaccinated in the specific demographic, so perhaps
| approximately one per 100,000, give or take.
|
| That's still not far from 100 percent, and the 100 percent
| might be substantially more correct than "not 100 % safe"
| in terms of the impression it gives.
|
| Of course _nothing_ is actually 100 percent, in anything,
| ever, but sometimes it 's practically close enough from an
| epidemiological point of view that some people probably
| find it easier to round things. Better than saying that
| there may be some rare risk of this or that, because some
| people are going to get hung up on that, and that might
| cause more harm than good.
|
| Public communication about these kinds of risks is anything
| but easy to get right.
| tssge wrote:
| What about those who have natural immunity?
|
| As someone who has recovered from covid before the vaccines,
| it feels unfair to be forced to take the vaccine when the
| risks seem to outweigh the benefits.
|
| No one seems to even notice the people with natural immunity,
| we are always skipped when having a discussion about
| vaccines.
| phero_cnstrcts wrote:
| Still the mantra is to vaccinate even more!
| solarkraft wrote:
| Indeed, as the benefit obviously massively outweighs the
| risk.
| pmalynin wrote:
| Yes we should. I'm 25 and had the full moderna shot. 4 out of
| 100k is less than me dying in a car wreck when driving to
| work every day.
|
| Please...
| trangus_1985 wrote:
| Correct. These vaccines are pretty safe, but we're at the
| part of the cycle where we're able to shave off .1% of risk,
| and thus are doing so.
| peakaboo wrote:
| All these comments fall to the bottom, which means the majority
| believes the vaccine is safe and effective.
|
| The majority also supports the censorship carried out by all
| social media platforms.
|
| I think it has always been like this. The majority follows what
| they are told and the minority doesn't get listened to.
| andybak wrote:
| There's a diverse range of minorities that don't get listened
| to and there's a lot of them. That's pretty much clear from
| the definition of "minority"
|
| And some or even most of those minorities are completely
| deluded and/or misinformed.
|
| So I'm not entirely clear what conclusion you're expecting us
| to draw.
| freyir wrote:
| It falls to the bottom because it lies about the facts
| (vaccines were never declared 100% safe and effective) and
| reaches an incorrect conclusion (if one vaccine is determined
| to be safer than another, it doesn't follow that vaccines are
| objectively unsafe, or that being unvaccinated is safer than
| being vaccinated).
|
| It's a silly comment to make, and potentially harmful. The
| majority of people in this case don't, on average, "follow
| what they're told." They're very capable of evaluating facts
| and data and responding accordingly. That's what's happening
| here.
| iammisc wrote:
| > he majority of people in this case don't, on average,
| "follow what they're told." They're very capable of
| evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly.
| That's what's happening here.
|
| Given articles like this, it seems unclear that this is
| true.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-
| shooting...
|
| It seems obvious that large portions of the two major
| parties, as well as independents are completely factually
| wrong on salient aspects of COVID.
| kryptiskt wrote:
| They are advised to take the alternative because there is an
| alternative. Otherwise, Moderna is still much better than not
| getting a shot.
| ipatec wrote:
| depending on your age
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Here in Canada, we've had the mix-n-match push in June - a
| large Pfizer shipment was delayed and there was tons of
| Moderna, and entirely coincidentally at the very same time mix-
| n-match was approved, and the official line became "mRNA
| vaccines are 100% interchangeable. You get what you get.
| Vaccine shoppers are horrible ignorant people. The science on
| this is settled." With all the attendant media propaganda (is
| it still propaganda when its perpetrators are certain it's for
| a Very Good Cause?)
|
| At the very same time, the CDC website said that mixing
| vaccines is *not* recommended, in nice bold letters. Our
| Canadian science was special though.
|
| As you say, when we learn new things about these (generally
| very safe) vaccines, this is great for science, but not so much
| for people who constantly evoke it to conceal that their
| decisions are also about politics and logistics.
|
| I just wish these public health boffins would drop the holier-
| than-thou smugness and stop treating the population like
| they're simpletons undeserving of the gory details. And the
| details are gory, necessarily so, in the middle of a pandemic
| when you're faced with tons of lesser-of-two-evils choices.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Germany has been (suddenly) mixing and matching since the
| AstraZeneca vaccine was found causing thrombosis issues.
| Consensus seems to be that it's as good as 2 mRNA shots.
| georgekv wrote:
| From NEJM Israeli study on Pfizer:
|
| "In our study, definite or probable cases of myocarditis among
| persons between the ages of 16 and 19 years within 21 days after
| the second vaccine dose occurred in approximately 1 of 6637 male
| recipients and in 1 of 99,853 female recipients."
|
| Moderna shot is worse then for boys. What again is the rush to
| vaccinate the lowest risk age group?
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730?query=re...
| lightsighter wrote:
| > What again is the rush to vaccinate the lowest risk age
| group?
|
| Because they still contribute to chain of transmission to the
| most vulnerable members of society, likely in a disproportional
| way since younger members of society tend to socialize more.
| Fighting a virus is a collective action. In order to stop
| transmission to the vulnerable members, you need to cut edges
| along all paths through the graph. Furthermore, additional
| spread, even among healthy people with no side effects,
| increases the probability of mutations that lead to more fit
| variants capable of causing even more sickness and death.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the
| virus to others, with or without mutations. The idea that
| vaccinated people are 'safe to be around' is an outdated
| fantasy.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| this is exactly why the dogmatic culture around vaccines is
| toxic. Nobody should be forced to take a vaccine before the
| side effects are even known.
| nicce wrote:
| You really don't have time to wait 5 years for "complete"
| results.
|
| People don't understand basic math and threat modeling. How
| likely you are going to get covid and how serious it can be
| (for you and others)? How likely you get something serious
| from vaccine (only you) but most likely avoid serious covid
| (and spread it less to others)?
|
| Of course, forced vaccine might look bad from very selfish
| perspective, but benefits from bigger picture are obvious
| even with side effects.
| [deleted]
| kaitai wrote:
| Note a cultural memory component: in Finland (and Norway, Sweden)
| there was a rash of narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccinations
| of 2009-2010. Gov't was criticized for not reacting quickly
| enough (to be fair, side effect was not observed until
| vaccinations were ~complete, and so it was all just rearguard
| action after that). Lots of memory, bad press about kids being
| damaged. There is a cultural-political component here beyond the
| science.
|
| https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/03/studies-...
| thepasswordis wrote:
| In nordic countries these vaccines are restricted. In the US,
| they're _required_.
|
| Very odd.
| iammisc wrote:
| That's because the US is descending into authoritarianism and
| the nordic countries value freedom, economic and civil.
| bserge wrote:
| Oh please.
| Delk wrote:
| They're restricted in the sense that the health authorities
| stopped recommending a specific covid-19 vaccine for a
| particular demographic. That demographic -- young males under
| 30 -- are recommended and given a vaccine from another vendor
| (practically Pfizer) instead.
|
| That's rather different than the impression you might get from
| "these vaccines being restricted", or something similar.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Also interesting to note that each of the Nordic countries also
| has a vaccination rate higher than the US's:
| https://covid19.healthdata.org/finland?view=vaccinations&tab...
| noetic_techy wrote:
| The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding
| significantly the more we learn and the more fervent the mandates
| become. We pulled the swine flu vaccine for way less back in
| 2010, I think it was 12 cases of GBS only! The fact that I know
| of people who have either had mycarditis AND clots tells me the
| rate is much higher then reported by VAERS.
|
| The reason damn near everyone except for adamant anti-vax have
| the perception that VACCINE=SAFE/GOOD is that 93% of experimental
| candidates are rejected and it takes 10-15 years of trails and
| data to get full approval. It's the reason you are confident
| giving it to your own children the safety standards are so
| stringent. These comparisons to your chances of car accidents and
| being struck by lighting are totally bogus, you need to compare
| the data to past vaccines! And yet we think we got this
| mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula right on the first try times 3
| different brands with 2 years of reduced trials?
|
| That's all gone out the window for the sake of the pandemic
| emergency and that's fine as long as the choice is clear and
| consensual, let those who want it take the risk, but don't
| mandate it. The VAERS data is abysmal, worse then the past 50
| years of all vaccine combined, and yet people are now in the mode
| of dismissing the VAERS system entirely because its self
| reported, with no alternative to fall back to! The FDA even had
| the option of setting up a separate system for covid vaccine
| adverse event reporting and rejected it. Fine, then VAERS it is!
| The only system we have ever had to judge this by.
|
| At what point is it ethical to hand someone a long list of side
| effects that occur at x50+ higher rates then past vaccines and
| then say "but you must take this or you can't work".
|
| I think in 10 years, we will see this technology as higher risk
| but much faster turn around times compared to traditional
| vaccines. Just be up front about it and let people choose.
| iratewizard wrote:
| Here's my vaccine anecdata. My wife and I are at the age when
| everyone we know is starting to have kids. My wife and I got
| pregnant on the first try, and 3 of her other friends had
| similar easy success. All 4 unvaccinated. On the vaccinated
| side of her friends there are two miscarriages, one stillbirth,
| one who has been trying since June, one trying much longer than
| that, and one that we think has been trying for a while but
| hasn't announced it to the group.
|
| If these were caveman times and those people were drinking from
| a different stream, we would tell them not to drink from it.
| 3/3 success stories vs. 3 traumatic failures and two or three
| infertility issues.
| timothycrosley wrote:
| While we are sharing meaningless anecdotes, almost everyone I
| know (since I live in Seattle) has been vaccinated. No one
| has reported any issues, a couple have since successfully had
| a child. None have even gotten a breakthrough infection of
| covid. Among friends I know from back east, who haven't
| gotten vaccinated, one had just turned 30, only health issue
| was obesity. He died. One was 35, best shape of any of my
| friends, was in ICU for 7 days with double pneumonia. And one
| miscarriage.
|
| But hey, the good thing is, we also have data. And the data,
| shows no correlation between vaccination and these problems
| you're referring to, and yet a VERY HIGH correlation (and
| some good reasons to say causation) between getting covid and
| having these issues.
| iratewizard wrote:
| What's the hospitalization rate for 20s - 40s for getting
| the vaccine? What's the hospitalization rate for covid?
| pyronik19 wrote:
| Do we even know the real number? VAERS is highly
| underreported and how many vaccine cases are just getting
| labeled as "covid cases"... I love the southpark skit
| about this "covid related"... worth a watch.
| timothycrosley wrote:
| This is complete nonsense. If anything VAERS would be
| over-reported, the people who are most against
| vaccination, blast it so often I see it in my facebook
| feed more often than advertisements. Anyone can add to
| VAERS, and I'm sure with all the antivaxx advertisement
| of it, they DO. Not to mention that doctors are required
| to, and report even unrelated deaths that happen right
| after vaccination. Meanwhile the reporting standards for
| covid, are the same as flu, nothing's changed there just
| a bunch of people grasping at straws, toward what goal I
| can't imagine.
| iratewizard wrote:
| Pure conjecture from someone riled up with fear and
| anger. Turn off your propaganda box.
| justsee wrote:
| It's not as settled as you seem to think.
|
| Leading vaccine developer Nikolai Petrovsky (who's working
| on a traditional, protein-based vaccine) recently mentioned
| in an interview that if he had a pregnant wife he'd advise
| her to avoid both the virus and the vaccine (something only
| the privileged could attempt, so not a one-size-fits-all
| recommendation) [1]
|
| (In a more technical interview aimed at a scientific
| audience, he outlines a number of issues he has with the
| current options. [2])
|
| One of Petrovsky's key issues is that on pregnancy and
| children, the sensitivity is so high and risks so great
| that there is usually a much, much higher bar before
| vaccines are authorised for use: that's been the history of
| traditional, protein-based vaccines where it can take
| decades before they're authorised for use in pregnant
| women, babies, children.
|
| Pfizer only began their pregnancy and safety trials in
| February this year - so only a little over 7 months ago. It
| is designed to observe pregnancy through to newborns
| reaching 6 months of age, and will complete in a year.
|
| So we currently have no safety data in pregnancies from
| pre-conception via all-important and sensitive first
| trimester, through to full term + 6 months.
|
| Keep in mind the WHO changed position on safety and aligned
| with the CDC on recommending the vaccine 3 weeks before
| Pfizer even started its safety trials.
|
| None of this is to say that getting Covid isn't currently
| provably worse than getting a current vaccine.
|
| It's just to say the safety data is incomplete, there are
| still unknowns which could change the calculation
| significantly considering the nature of the technology
| used, and we just won't fully understand the issues for
| some time to come.
|
| (Also keep in mind that with mandates, the proposal is for
| all to receive the current options, but the alternative is
| not for all pregnant women to become infected. The risk
| calculation generally assumes wrongly here.)
|
| [1] https://www.doctorlewis.com.au/podcast-1/2021/7/19/epis
| ode-2...
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_2Rq1zoRg&t=3063s
| timothycrosley wrote:
| I personally think avoiding getting infected ever, just
| is so impractical as to not lay out as an option. As
| evidence more and more is showing both infected and
| vaccinated people are likely to spread the infection
| (even if they don't get symptoms) as soon as 3 months
| after the acquired "immunity". Combined with how
| infectious delta is, this third choice of never getting
| infected just feels disingenuous.
| floor2 wrote:
| > let those who want it take the risk
|
| This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious
| disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual
| will emit particles of the virus which will cause other people
| to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially die.
|
| The rules of society are generally built around preventing and
| minimizing harm to other people. Sometimes that harm is
| intentional and obvious, like person A punching person B. Many
| times that harm is unintentional and non-obvious, which is why
| we need regulations to make buildings have safety-codes for how
| they're wired to the electric grid or controlling what
| chemicals can be emitted into the air or groundwater.
|
| We don't let people say "it's my choice to drive drunk at
| 100mph (160km/h), if you want to drive slower and sober that's
| your choice" because when a drunk driver kills someone it's
| obvious to everyone the cause-effect and responsibility.
| Spreading a disease that kills someone is fundamentally the
| same thing, it's just not as obviously observable.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| >This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious
| disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual
| will emit particles of the virus which will cause other
| people to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially
| die.
|
| This argument would be stronger if a) People who wanted to be
| vaccinated couldn't get the vaccine that protects them and b)
| if vaccinated people themselves weren't able to spread the
| virus too.
|
| All in all you are cramming down a rushed vaccine down
| peoples throat at the risk of their livelihoods for marginal
| impacts in the virus's ability to spread and little
| significant risk to those who are already vaccinated.
| tguvot wrote:
| >And yet we think we got this mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula
| right on the first try times 3 different brands with 2 years of
| reduced trials?
|
| Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for
| a long time (decades). What was done in last year is to encode
| specific mRNA and trial it. Not the entire "envelope".
|
| Nice historical overview:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| > _Actually mRNA vaccines /tech been in development and
| trials for a long time (decades)._
|
| Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire
| development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would
| include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion
| engine when talking about how much safety testing had been
| carried out for a new model car.
|
| The usual safety trials were not carried out for these
| vaccines, full stop.
| nojokes wrote:
| Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000
| people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash
| tests.
|
| But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out
| unless the medicine is administered to larger group of
| people.
|
| This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept
| under extended surveillance.
| tguvot wrote:
| >Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire
| development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would
| include the initial work on inventing the internal
| combustion engine when talking about how much safety
| testing had been carried out for a new model car
|
| Not obviously. Many people think that tech only appeared
| for first time "yesterday"
|
| >The usual safety trials were not carried out for these
| vaccines, full stop.
|
| Kinda yes and kinda no. They were trialing technology for a
| long time to know overall safety profile. In a moment that
| it's clear, it's not much different than early flu vaccine
| updates that don't go through "usual safety trial"
| leereeves wrote:
| That article says an mRNA vaccine for influenza was in
| clinical trials in 2015, but it never made it to market. What
| happened to it?
| tguvot wrote:
| no idea. my guess is that flu mutates quickly and they
| couldn't figure out what to target exactly
| Certhas wrote:
| Anecdote. Fear mongering. Misleading statistic.
| Misleading/demonstrably wrong information presented with an air
| of "obviously". Conspiracy... What is eroding trust in vaccines
| are narratives like this. You pretend like every single point
| you raise (accelerated development, VAERS) doesn't have a clear
| explanation that is readily available with a single search. You
| pretend as if these "issues" you identify are swept under the
| rug to push unsafe vaccines on people, when in fact they are
| openly and frequently discussed. It's a (sadly common)
| argumentative sleight of hand.
|
| Back when the virus was less infectious and it was plausible to
| get to herd immunity with 60% of the adults vaccinated, I
| thought a good information campaign can get you there. In the
| US about a third of the population believes that Biden won
| through Voter fraud. Factual information, no matter how well
| presented or corroborated, only gets you so far if someone with
| a megaphone has a narrative to push.
| [deleted]
| mythrwy wrote:
| Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? How
| exactly did you determine this? (to be clear I'm not
| suggesting he did, only questioning your methods of
| determining truth).
|
| "Back when it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60%
| of adults vaccinated".
|
| That was never possible with these series of vaccines which
| don't prevent transmission, don't give full protection, and
| don't last very long. It's frankly stunning to me someone
| would make such a statement at this point in time.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud?
|
| Yes.
|
| > How exactly did you determine this?
|
| By waiting for all the people who _did_ assert voter fraud
| to present their hard evidence in court. There wasn 't any.
|
| It's like asking whether it's "factual" that Obama is a
| human man instead of a secret lizard person wearing an
| advanced nanotech disguise. I can't affirmatively prove the
| non-existence of something, but that doesn't mean it's less
| of a fact.
| mythrwy wrote:
| You are claiming an article of faith as fact. It isn't.
|
| You can assert probabilities but you can't prove a
| negative.
|
| Appeal to ridicule doesn't change that.
| cletus wrote:
| > The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding
| significantly ...
|
| There are many problems. That's not one of them. Here is a
| better list of problems:
|
| 1. People don't understand what "research" means. Hint:
| watching a Youtube video with no peer-reviewed research is not
| "research";
|
| 2. People fundamentally don't understand and assess risk
| correctly. This long predates the anti-vaxxer hyseria. It's
| why, for example, people are afraid to fly but not (usually)
| afraid to drive when the chances of dying while driving are
| significantly higher;
|
| 3. We've had 700,000 deaths of Covid-19 in the US. According to
| the CDC, 1% of those are for people aged under 30. It's also
| likely the Covid deaths are underreported (eg New York not
| attributing nursing home deaths to Covid last year) but let's
| take the conservative view. That's 7,000 Americans under 30 who
| have died from Covid. Roughly 120M/330M people are under 30 so
| that puts the death rate at roughly 6 per 100,000 people. Even
| the most pessimistic view of negative side effects of vaccines
| rooted in reality is significantly less than that. Thus the
| correct risk response is to take the vaccine;
|
| 4. I've long held the view that climate change won't be fixed
| by collective altruism. The only option (IMHO) is for the
| solution to be economic. Covid has done nothing but confirm
| this for me. Climate change involves massive collective cost
| and inconvenience. Taking a vaccine involves the mildest
| inconvenience and, at best, one in a million odds of serious
| negative results yet people won't even do that.
|
| 5. The deep-rooted idea that unfettered selfishness if a virtue
| combined with anti-intellectualism is a pervasive and dangerous
| problem.
|
| 6. This idea that the whole world is in on this conspiracy to
| hide the truth is farcical narcissism. Occam's Razor tells you
| this is wrong. People just aren't competent enough to keep
| secrets. It's what gives me confidence there are no aliens in
| Area 51 and that pretty much every conspiracy theory is
| bullshit.
|
| 7. People conflate long-term drug side effects with vaccine
| side effects. Drugs have complicated interactions with pretty
| much every part of body chemistry and these can take years to
| surface. Immune responses are entirely different and very quick
| with a narrower risk profile. It's why we already know of
| issues like clotting with AZ and (allegedly) slightly elevated
| mycarditis risk with young people and Moderna, mere months into
| their usage;
|
| 8. We've now administered billions of doses of Covid vaccines.
| If there were serious problems they'd be evidence by now;
|
| 9. People don't understand what "emergency authorization" (from
| the CDC) actually means. It's essentially an administrative not
| medical issue. The Covid vaccines still went through Phase 3
| clinical trials;
|
| 10. All the while claiming the true dangers are hidden, the
| VAERS data is confused and misstated. For one, it's reporting
| of what could be potential side effects to those who have had
| the vaccine. That data is mined for patterns to identify
| issues. Those issues have largely not been identified as you
| and others have claimed.
|
| It's sad to me how many people who supposedly have a science
| education are able to fall for this crap. I mean just look at
| the vaccination rates of nurses (/sigh).
|
| It's hard not to look at all this and think that humanity is
| screwed.
|
| It may seem macabre (and it is) it's that the unvaccinated now
| are ~99% of Covid deaths and one can view this as evolution in
| action.
| justsee wrote:
| You seem to have a few misconceptions here:
|
| 1. That only uneducated 'researchers' have concerns, and ill-
| formed ones. Petrovsky, as a leading vaccine developer,
| outlines a clear, educated position on why it's still
| reasonable to have concerns over the current options [1]
|
| 2. That because billions of doses have been administered,
| there are no serious problems. You can certainly make a very
| sound case that Covid side effects are worse in defence of
| using these current options. But they are irrefutably far
| less safe and effective (relatively) than any other vaccines
| authorised and widely used over the last few decades.
| Considering this it's understandable why there is still
| concern over overdone claims around the safety of the current
| options. Even in a pandemic numerous regulatory authorities
| have had to add additional warnings and modify use of the
| current options.
|
| 3. Your last cited point on Covid deaths is very wrong. You
| just need to look at UK statistics (and other countries) to
| realise there is something very, very odd about the claimed
| US stats from the CDC.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_2Rq1zoRg&t=3063s
| iratewizard wrote:
| The USDA and AHA recommended cutting out saturated fat for
| decades and eating 9-13 daily servings of bread and grain.
| The authorities you say all should blindly follow are grossly
| incompetent and shown to be wrong time and time again. How
| long has the medical field been failing with its
| reproducibility crisis? How many deaths per year are
| attributed to malpractice in the US?
|
| If you want to listen to a bunch of well meaning morons and
| take their experimental treatment, have fun. The rest of us
| will appreciate your sacrifice up until the point you try to
| drag us into your suicidal cult.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Actually what happened with the 2010 swine flu vaccine was that
| people developed narcolepsy starting about a year after the
| first shots were administered (many of them to people who were
| never at particularly high risk from the swine flu itself). It
| took about another year after those symptoms first arose for
| authorities to acknowledge the link to Pandemrix.
| [deleted]
| orf wrote:
| ~2.7 cases of myocarditis per 100k. Deadly car crashes in the US
| is about 11 deaths per 100k (between 3.3 and 25 when looking at
| states directly, 18.2 worldwide average). That's not even
| counting indirect deaths caused by car fumes.
|
| So to the person posting the same thing from new accounts about
| vaccines being a great risk to yourself, I hope you take driving
| and crossing the road as seriously as you take getting vaccinated
| because that's _faaar_ more dangerous (especially if you live in
| Wyoming).
| deepnotderp wrote:
| I think it's interesting that your comment is being interpreted
| as downplaying the risks of covid and is getting anger because
| of that.
|
| An interesting lesson in human psychology.
| lliamander wrote:
| That's like saying "War and Peace isn't a big book because it
| isn't even as big as the smallest car". Yes, both can be
| measured in the same units (e.g. weight or volume) but that
| doesn't mean the comparison makes sense.
|
| You have to compare things which are in some sense alternatives
| of each other. The question is not "is the vaccine safer than
| driving" but "is the vaccine safer than _not getting the
| vaccine_? ".
|
| Sure, if you don't get the vaccine there's a certain risk of
| getting COVID and subsequently having serious disease (though
| if you are a young and healthy that risk appears to be
| relatively low).
|
| And certainly the vaccine lowers your risk of getting serious
| disease (for now) but it doesn't entirely erase that risk. So
| now you have figure out what the long-term risks of adverse
| reaction to the vaccine are, plus the long-term risk that you
| will still get serious COVID disease anyway (due to the narrow
| immunity provided by the vaccine).
|
| For young, healthy people it's not clear to me the vaccine is
| all that much safer than not getting it. If you can show me, by
| a breakdown of these risks by age and health, that the I'm
| wrong and the vaccine is much safer I would be very open to it.
| As it is, I've tried to find something comprehensive and I
| cannot.
| makomk wrote:
| The trouble with myocarditis caused by the mRNA vaccines is
| that even though the risk is low, for some of the age groups it
| seems to be higher than the risk of them being hospitalized due
| to Covid. (A risk which a lot of people seem to overestimate,
| but that's another story.) So even though they should be more
| worried about crossing the road than the vaccine, it's also
| entirely rational for them to consider the vaccine a bigger
| danger than Covid itself.
| blub wrote:
| There's no connection between car crashes in the US and risk of
| myocarditis from the vaccine in Sweden. Each country is looking
| at the risk for its own citizens.
| orf wrote:
| As I said in the post you're replying to some people
| commenting here believe that the takeaway from this is that
| the vaccine is a great risk while interacting with cars
| daily, which is a far greater risk that they pay no attention
| to.
| DantesKite wrote:
| The risk profiles are different, since one is multiplicative
| and one is additive.
|
| One car crash won't cause 100,000 car crashes, but an
| infectious disease can.
| 542458 wrote:
| The post you're replying to is a bit unclear - it's talking
| about the risk of contracting myocarditis, not COVID.
| yabones wrote:
| The rate might be higher, but the cluster effect is completely
| different.
|
| If you're in traffic, the only people you can "spread" a car
| accident to are the other cars around you. But with infectious
| disease, you have a chance of spreading it to everybody you
| contact, all day every day.
|
| You can't sit near somebody on the bus who transmits car
| accidents to you. Nor can you get in a car accident because
| your child caught it from school from a classmate whose parent
| got it from somebody they work with.
|
| Statistically it might make sense, but that's not how the real
| world works. _Lies, damned lies, and statistics._
| orf wrote:
| Sure, I agree, but I was referring to 2.7 cases of
| myocarditis per 100k after taking the vaccine. The cluster
| effect is still different but not as wildly different as
| comparing rates of COVID per capita to car crashes.
| megablast wrote:
| > If you're in traffic, the only people you can "spread" a
| car accident to are the other cars around you.
|
| Or pedestrians or cyclists, or anyone that goes near a car.
| And since roads are everywhere, that is every single person.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > "A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark
| found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax
| had a slightly higher risk than others of developing
| myocarditis," he said.
|
| I find it frustrating that we're still not putting numbers on
| statements like this in news articles. How slight?
| jdlyga wrote:
| I wonder if it's because it's a higher dose. Slightly better
| protection against covid and slightly higher risk of side
| effects.
| peakaboo wrote:
| Does it matter? You may have noticed that you are not allowed
| to be against the vaccine.
|
| What's the point then to even discuss any numbers? All of this
| should appearently be decided by experts, isn't that the
| general consensus?
| azinman2 wrote:
| 2.7 per 100k [1] according to an Israeli study. Couldn't find
| these details on the Scandinavian study. This article at least
| in text said you're more at risk of getting it from Covid than
| the vaccine -- I wish this context with numbers were always
| printed in these cases. The non-scientifically trained public
| isn't taught or should be expected to know how to contextualize
| these things.
|
| [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
| mfer wrote:
| The Israeli study was on Phizer. Finland is recommending
| people people not take Moderna and instead take the Phizer.
|
| 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.
| azinman2 wrote:
| New study using Kaiser data with both Pfizer and Moderna
| all ages [1]. 15 cases out of 2,392,924 (0.8 cases per 1
| million first doses and 5.8 cases per 1 million second
| doses over a 10-day observation window), of which all were
| men with a median age of 25 years.
|
| 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/f
| ullar...
|
| [2] https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-
| myocar...
| mfer wrote:
| Thanks for the data.
|
| 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.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| 27 out of a million, or 1 out of 37000. For some reason using
| "whole people" in statistics makes it seem a little more real
| to me, 2.7 of 100k seems too dry and remote.
| justinpombrio wrote:
| Wow. I'm trying to do a sanity check on this study, and I'm
| not convinced they found anything but noise?
|
| 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.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I'm not sure any of the studies that measured it for any of
| the 3 main vaccines are distinguishable from noise. All the
| numbers that I managed to find weren't.
|
| I'm starting to think that we should redesign all the older
| vaccines to be more like those ones.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > This article at least in text said you're more at risk of
| getting it from Covid than the vaccine
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| The CDC estimated that 36% of Americans had been infected
| as of May 2021. Numbers are certainly higher now.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
| updates/burd...
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| It obviously depends on your lifestyle, which is also why
| it should never be mandated. I call this the risk
| coefficient - it's different for everyone.
|
| 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?
| azinman2 wrote:
| It don't wear off to 0, you're risk of hospitalization or
| death is far far far greater if you're unvaccinated (even
| with declining efficacy of catching it), the safety
| profiles are known to be great especially considering the
| hundreds of millions vaccinated, and unless you're very
| extreme you'll want to come out of the woods at some
| point.
| nojokes wrote:
| In Scotland about 8% of 12-15 year olds got it in 5 weeks
| after the beginning of the school year. UK did not
| vaccinate <16 year olds till 20th September. Now they got
| forced natural immunity.
| azinman2 wrote:
| 44.1M verified cases in the out of 329.5M ~= 13%, and
| that's with verified cases, so it's likely much higher. My
| guess is younger people are even more likely to get it
| given their lifestyle is highly social at that age, and
| risk tolerance is similarly high.
|
| Given it's not slowing down, the likelihood of getting
| covid is actually quite high over time.
| krona wrote:
| As with transmissibility, the virulence is not constant
| over time.
| gfodor wrote:
| Not to mention as time goes by, many other things are de-
| risked such as literally our understanding of vaccine
| side effects and proper mitigations, and new therapies.
| marvin wrote:
| These are US numbers, though. Norway, e.g., has tested
| like crazy and diagnosed 4% of its population with covid
| throughout the pandemic. Given that the US numbers for
| covid cases are at least three times higher, the risk
| assessment will necessarily be different.
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| CDC's numbers are here, if you're curious:
| https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
| deverant wrote:
| Taken from https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12132652 (sorry, in
| Finnish):
|
| 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.
| nojokes wrote:
| They say less than 5.
| mortehu wrote:
| On the other hand communication during this pandemic has been
| littered with point estimates where confidence intervals should
| have been used. Based on the FHI announcement, I think the
| result is not significant, but the decision was made because
| the Moderna vaccine is now redundant in Scandinavia.
| jbergstroem wrote:
| In sweden, this seems to be the "recommendation" from the
| government: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-
| press/nyhets...
|
| ..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?
| mschild wrote:
| Comirnaty is the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. Spikevax the
| Moderna one.
|
| I dont know Swedish. Does it provide any numbers for
| Spikevax?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Can somebody please get moderna and pfizer a new person to
| come up with these names?
| CookiesOnMyDesk wrote:
| only numbers are from july, 19 cases of each *carditis
| after 20m doses.
| barney54 wrote:
| But how many doses are in men under 30? That is the right
| subpopulation to look at, not the entire population.
| CookiesOnMyDesk wrote:
| Ask the Swedes, not me.
| bserge wrote:
| I assume that's compared to normal figures (which are what,
| btw?).
|
| Because if normal figures showed 145 cases of myocarditis out
| of 177M people, that would be embarrassing as fuck.
| schmichael wrote:
| Indeed. A little clicking, and I couldn't find numbers either.
| Luckily raw numbers aren't all that necessary for decision
| making because:
|
| > 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.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| They don't because if they put numbers and also described the
| usual clinical course of these cases it would show the issue to
| be a nothing burger.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The study is preliminary - but they're being cautious and
| recommending young men switch to the Pfizer vaccine since the
| risk of myocarditis is lower.
|
| 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.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Typically how severe is the post-Covid myocarditis in young
| males versus that which can be induced by the vaccine?
|
| 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?
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| The study you linked does not prove what you think it does.
| Check out the inclusion criteria:
|
| > 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.
| nicoburns wrote:
| As a young male who got myocarditis from both covid and the
| vaccine, the other thing that's worth knowing that I wish I'd
| known earlier: if you do get it, then the best thing to do to
| prevent long-term damage is to avoid exercise completely
| (potentially for 6 months to a year, or until you've been
| cleared by a doctor).
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Just out of curiosity, did you get COVID first and then
| decided to get the vaccine later on? Or was it the other
| way around? I'm guessing the former - I've had friends who
| had COVID and their doctors still advised them to get the
| vaccine - and find it quite troubling if so. We've known
| for so long now how robust natural immunity is - and before
| we "knew for sure" any sane person's priors would still
| assume natural immunity works the way it does for any other
| respiratory pathogen - yet there was a concerted
| institutional/media push to act as if immunity literally
| didn't exist, or the more subtle form that immunity might
| exist but that vaccine immunity is "better".
|
| 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.
| basch wrote:
| One answer I can think of is if you caught covid and then
| got regeneron. A month later, after the regeneron wears
| off, you'd probably want to build up your body's
| immunity.
| bserge wrote:
| Because the officials are fucking cretinoids who can't
| understand it.
|
| 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.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Is rest the only treatment for it?
|
| Also, how was it diagnosed?
| zosima wrote:
| Not quite enough info available yet, to be certain.
|
| 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)
| kaczordon wrote:
| This isn't true, the risk for young men 22 and younger from
| vaccine induced myocarditis exceeds the risk from COVID. Even
| more true for 17 and younger males: https://www.medrxiv.org/c
| ontent/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
|
| https://www.science.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-
| bet...
| rcpt wrote:
| > exceeds the risk from COVID
|
| 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.
| nojokes wrote:
| Tracy Beth Hoeg was touting ideas against children
| vaccination well before this study she coauthored.
|
| 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.
| keneda7 wrote:
| Do you if the study you link considers someone who gets
| myocarditis that is vaccinated and had covid as vaccine
| caused case or covid caused case? I couldn't find it in the
| full text.
| Delk wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| citilife wrote:
| The long-term studies I am way more curious about.
|
| 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
| that_lurker wrote:
| Taken and translated from THL's website[1] (Finnish Institute
| for Healt and Welfare ) "in its study, THL has examined the
| incidence of myocardial inflammation requiring hospitalization
| in different age groups. In boys and men aged 12-39 years, a
| total of 6 cases of myocarditis have been reported in Finland
| per 381,000 doses of Comirnaty and less than 5 cases per less
| than 49,000 doses of Spikevax in Finland. A total of less than
| five cases of myocarditis have been reported in girls and women
| of the same age, and the prevalence of myocarditis in women and
| girls after vaccination has not differed from that normally
| seen in the general population."
|
| 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...
| yes_man wrote:
| https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/thl-monitoring-myocarditis-...
|
| 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.
| CRConrad wrote:
| > They also note that having covid is a risk factor for
| myocarditis. So perhaps still worth it to take the shot.
|
| No: Absolutely _not_ worth it to take _that_ particular shot,
| as there are others available which don 't have that side
| effect.
| phnofive wrote:
| Viral myocarditis is serious but not life threatening and
| self-resolves in less than a year; the vaccine-induced
| cases are even more mild than that.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| Yeah, the anti-vax hockey player Josh Archibald recently
| caught COVID and developed myocarditis as a consequence. It's
| among the known sequelae.
|
| 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)
| twofornone wrote:
| >Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk
| of myocarditis from a vaccine
|
| 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.
| fspeech wrote:
| The virus is very proinflammatory so it's not surprising
| that vaccines that simulate parts of the virus are also
| proinflammatory. There even appears to be a dose
| dependence: Moderna packs in a lot more than Pfizer-BNT.
| So there is a rational framework to think about this.
| What is bizarre is how people could in the same breath
| show a lot of fear of the vaccine but then brush off the
| risk from uncontrolled viral reproduction in one's body
| from an infection.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Why are we putting so much faith into the statements
| and research of pharmaceutical companies
|
| 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.
| angelzen wrote:
| Tangent note: I wonder if this tweet illustrates yet
| another way Twitter is driving us crazy.
|
| > 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.
| nabla9 wrote:
| It seems like if you take everything into account, taking the
| vaccine might not provide any benefit from men under 30. Any
| medical intervention must be beneficial to justify the use.
| If it's so and so, or equal risk, then it's not done.
|
| EDIT: The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under
| 30 are given Pfizer.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Based on the data in the study linked below, the risk for
| myocarditis among COVID-19 patients is 0.146%, and 0.009%
| among people without COVID-19 (study was done pre-vaccine).
|
| 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%).
| nabla9 wrote:
| The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under
| 30 are given Pfizer.
| tptacek wrote:
| The number of C19 fatalities under 30 in the US appears to
| easily exceed the number of vaccine-related myocarditis
| cases. The overwhelming majority of those myocarditis cases
| followed a benign course.
|
| _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.)
| twofornone wrote:
| >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
|
| 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.
| nabla9 wrote:
| It's not necessarily the same here in the Nordics.
|
| The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under
| 30 are given Pfizer.
| zosima wrote:
| But the vast majority of covid fatalities under 30, would
| be in people with comorbidities.
|
| 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.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Vaccinations are not stopping. Men under 30 are given
| Pfizer.
| CheezeIt wrote:
| That number for under 30's is full of people who are
| extremely fat or otherwise have preexisting health
| problems. If you're under 30 and seemingly healthy your
| fatality rate is much lower.
| XorNot wrote:
| Except the _risk is not 0_ if you don 't have
| comorbidities.
|
| 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.
| pixl97 wrote:
| 40% of Americans are obese. States with the highest level
| of obesity also have the lowest rate of vaccination.
|
| An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state
| of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
| djbebs wrote:
| It never did.
| bserge wrote:
| I mean, yeah. If vaccines don't protect against virus
| spread... Fuck it, let people decide. Either take a vaccine
| or risk getting Covid in the wild.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> "A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and
| Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna
| Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing
| myocarditis," he said.
|
| > 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.
| l1ambda wrote:
| https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-now-recommend...
|
| "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."
| vkou wrote:
| Which is, by the way, still multiple orders of magnitude
| lower than the risk of myocarditis from catching COVID.
| teekert wrote:
| Yeah I hate that, is it something real or are my chances lower
| than being bitten to death by a dog?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Why are people only focusing on numbers. There are tons of
| negative stuff with higher odds of happening to you but I
| don't want to risk myocarditis. I'd rather get bitten, unless
| it's a rabid dog.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Because people focus on the idea that the vaccine induced
| myocarditis is bad, while ignoring the rate of myocarditis
| from the condition the vaccine is there to prevent. But
| you're right, there's a whole spectrum of other problems.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| > The cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were "generally
| mild," and individuals "tend to recover within a short time
| following standard treatment and rest," Pfizer said in a
| statement.
|
| This is the closest I got to any of the study. If you can link me
| to the actual study paper, you're my hero.
| georgekv wrote:
| Don't have nordic study but here's NEJM Israeli one from the
| other day:
|
| "In our study, definite or probable cases of myocarditis among
| persons between the ages of 16 and 19 years within 21 days
| after the second vaccine dose occurred in approximately 1 of
| 6637 male recipients"
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730?query=re...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-07 23:01 UTC)