Live data from Hacker News

Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

reuters.com

41–50 of 415 posts

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#41
post #20
post #6

The interesting table with absolute numbers is on page 18 of [0]. Expected and observed cases are cases of myocarditis / pericarditis here. Crude rate is the number of cases per 1 million administered doses. Use landscape mode if you are reading this from a mobile device, the table is narrow enough for that. Age group Doses Crude Expected Observed administ. rate cases cases 12–15 yrs 134,041 22.4 0–1 2 16–17 yrs 2,25…

Crude rate seems to be observed cases per million doses administered. So a lot more incidents than expected, but still extremely rare (0.002% of doses). Edit: missed an extra "0" in that percent, thanks for the the catch everyone who did

[deleted]

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#42
post #2

It'd be nice if they mentioned how many cases there were, compared to number of shots.

The whole article could use a lot more context, which has been typical of COVID reporting. For one thing: is heart inflammation a rare side-effect for vaccines and/or immune responses generally? If not, to what degree (if any) does this exceed rates we see for other vaccines? That should be second-paragraph-of-article sorts of information.

[deleted]

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#43

Anecdote: I had this reaction to the 2nd dose of the Pfizer vaccine, saw a cardiologist and she mentioned that she’s been seeing this quite a bit after the second dose. Have had to lay low for a month, but it seems like the symptoms are finally passing.

Anecdote: I too experienced this reaction, albeit after the first dose. Noticeable but not significant heart pain beginning approximately 4 hours after getting the first vaccine. Speaking with medical professionals, they said symptoms should improve with time, and they have nearly completely across the 1.5 months since. Unsure if worth noting, but I had very strong immune responses to both the first and second doses.

Pure, unadulterated speculation:

It felt like the mRNA took hold in both my arm, _and_ my heart. Which given the proximity and paths between, is not entirely surprising.

It felt like the vaccine entered my bloodstream and was taken up, in part, by the heart. Which then started making spike protein and soliciting an immune response.

I'd really love to learn more about this, but haven't been able to find any good resources. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'm all ears!

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#45
post #20
post #6

The interesting table with absolute numbers is on page 18 of [0]. Expected and observed cases are cases of myocarditis / pericarditis here. Crude rate is the number of cases per 1 million administered doses. Use landscape mode if you are reading this from a mobile device, the table is narrow enough for that. Age group Doses Crude Expected Observed administ. rate cases cases 12–15 yrs 134,041 22.4 0–1 2 16–17 yrs 2,25…

Crude rate seems to be observed cases per million doses administered. So a lot more incidents than expected, but still extremely rare (0.002% of doses). Edit: missed an extra "0" in that percent, thanks for the the catch everyone who did

You mean 0.002% not 0.02%

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#47
post #2

It'd be nice if they mentioned how many cases there were, compared to number of shots.

The whole article could use a lot more context, which has been typical of COVID reporting. For one thing: is heart inflammation a rare side-effect for vaccines and/or immune responses generally? If not, to what degree (if any) does this exceed rates we see for other vaccines? That should be second-paragraph-of-article sorts of information.

Exactly this.

I'm curious how much we're seeing effects that are present but just haven't been measured previously, because of the size of the newly-vaccinated population.

The second dose is obviously very stressful on the body - people are often down for a couple days dealing with the reaction - so it seems unsurprising that there's /some/ kind of measurable secondary effect. Stress is known to correlate with heart attack.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#48
post #38

Slightly off topic, but it is quite interesting that US media very consistently uses "Pfizer" if the news is good and some variant of "Pfizer/Biontec" if the news is bad. The opposite holds of course for the German press, which addresses the vaccine as "Biontec" when the news is good.

My skept-o-meter is twitching. I'd have to see actual numbers backing that up, as it looks much more like confirmation bias to me.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#49
post #20
post #6

The interesting table with absolute numbers is on page 18 of [0]. Expected and observed cases are cases of myocarditis / pericarditis here. Crude rate is the number of cases per 1 million administered doses. Use landscape mode if you are reading this from a mobile device, the table is narrow enough for that. Age group Doses Crude Expected Observed administ. rate cases cases 12–15 yrs 134,041 22.4 0–1 2 16–17 yrs 2,25…

Crude rate seems to be observed cases per million doses administered. So a lot more incidents than expected, but still extremely rare (0.002% of doses). Edit: missed an extra "0" in that percent, thanks for the the catch everyone who did

For those getting worried like I was, it’s 0.002% or one in 50,000, not 0.02% or one in 5,000.

Re: Heart inflammation cases in young men higher than expected after mRNA vaccines

#50
post #35

This is based on VAERS data. I encourage the curious to look at this data. I did. I would characterize its quality as so poor that probably no conclusions at all can be drawn from it. And I usually find myself defending the use of noisy and/or small data in similar situations.

I've heard less than 1% of adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS.
Post reply on HN