61–70 of 407 posts
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.
Vaccines have never been promoted as 100% safe nor 100% effective.
> "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?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Comirnaty is the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. Spikevax the Moderna one. I dont know Swedish. Does it provide any numbers for Spikevax?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/03/studies-...
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…
Very odd.
> "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?
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... S…
> 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.
> "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?
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…
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.