Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#71

Post by aulin »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #23
hnuser847 wrote: post #17

Wow, I just got the Pfizer booster a few days ago and I'm an under-40 male who has previously had pericarditis... I was worried about the risk being greater than the reward for my age group but didn't have the age-stratified data to prove it. Kind of regretting it now, especially since I only got it at the urging of my wife. I just needlessly increased the odds of a giving myself a heart issue for absolutely no reaso…

Your overall odds of death from covid went down. And as I understand it, myocarditis often goes away on its own or can be treated at home.

It largely depends on the affected area... It can kill you instantly if it takes conduction centers, kill you years later if it damages the muscle or it can leave no consequences at all. It can go unnoticed and still leave you with long term damages.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#72

Post by roenxi »

coolso wrote: post #57
simonsarris wrote: post #2

This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. It reads: > Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males a…

> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (w…

They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small.

But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't especially motivated by evidence.

Actual scientists will usually be circumspect until the evidence is overwhelming.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#73

Post by michaelmrose »

coolso wrote: post #57
simonsarris wrote: post #2

This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. It reads: > Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males a…

> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (w…

No post body was provided.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#74

Post by yonaguska »

sudosysgen wrote: post #53
yonaguska wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? One friend with this exact issue was never hospitalized, was told that it couldn't possibly be due the vaccine, but ended up with several visits to a cardiologist and now had to deal with the long term effects. So no- there was no hospitalization. Technically. And they will never show up in any data set either. Because we aren't even tracking this stuff correctly in the USA.

Yes, your friend had no hospitalization. We don't count people who see a doctor a few times and have long term side-effects as hospitalized from COVID, so in an apples-to-apples comparison the example of your friend should not go into that column. Here is the source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 : > A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case wa…

In that case, I'm wondering how valuable the hospitalization metric is. Someone can be incidentally hospitalized, and discharged with no serious long term issues, the ER is the only option for many non insured in the USA, while a life altering long term side effect may never result in hospitalization, but is something that should go into the risk profile of either catching covid or an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But we have to work with what we have.

Another question- if I go into the hospital for a broken arm, then fail a covid test- am I counted as a covid hospitalization? I remember watching one video early on in the pandemic of a "whistleblower nurse" lamenting the scenario where a patient would be admitted into the hospital for some reason, test negative for covid, be held for quarantine, then test positive for covid- presumably because they caught covid while in the hospital.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#75

Post by 1123581321 »

kuhewa wrote: post #65
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're defending against. The science proves you wrong. The inflammatory response is primarily triggered by the [1] spike protein. "We observed that spike (S) protein potently induces inflammatory cytokines and chemokines including IL-6, IL-1β, TNFα, CXCL1, CXCL2, and CCL2" I'm curious to see the fuller data set on adolescent males since it does seem initially that moderna may be more likely t…

Well, yes, the spike protein induces an immune response. That's the entire purpose of using it as an antigen in a vaccine. If you don't see the daylight between that and your original claim that 'saturating the body with spike protein' which gets uptaken in tissue in the heart as metabolic substrate which then results in myocarditis, I don't know what to say.

You misquoted him twice; he said "The spike protein RNA vaccine saturates the body" and clarified he was referring to the response mechanism of the vaccine by saying "the vaccine saturates", which you referred to in the first sentence of the comment I'm replying to. It seems like you two are discussing the same thing, as a third party.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#76

Post by thjkgfgrrioppo »

nradov wrote: post #16
rubyist5eva wrote: post #13

Yeah but what's my risk of actually catching covid-19 vs. 100% if I just walk into my pharmacy and ask for the shot.

Over the long run your risk of catching a SARS-CoV-2 infection approaches 100%. The virus can never be eradicated and we'll all be exposed to it occasionally. Vaccination — and other measures to strengthen your immune system — can reduce the risk of serious COVID-19 symptoms to fairly low levels. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

But since the vaccine only works for a couple of months, doesn't it make more sense to consider the risk of catching Covid in that short time frame?

It seems likely that future Covid strains will be less deadly, too, just as the flu has years that are more or less deadly than others.

Also, isn't a fraction of the population immune to begin with?

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#77

Post by unityByFreedom »

yonaguska wrote: post #69
unityByFreedom wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> given the rate of deaths are 10-20x worse than the worst flu years. I have a hard time accepting this premise. Mostly because the flu was somehow eradicated at the outset of mass covid testing, many of the covid tests did not distinguish between the flu and covid. Furthermore, I believe that we actually responded to covid in a way that caused excess covid deaths by over counting deaths and actively suppressing unpa…

> the flu was somehow eradicated at the outset of mass covid testing,

Did you know "the flu" is actually many strains, the most prevalent of which changes season to season? It is not surprising to me that Covid "won out" this season. Plus a record number of people got the flu vaccine during the pandemic. Here is what the CDC says about lower flu numbers [1]

> many of the covid tests did not distinguish between the flu and covid.

That's just not true.

> lockdowns that pushed a huge portion of the world into poverty

What would you do to mitigate the spread of a pandemic?

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#78

Post by esyir »

yonaguska wrote: post #43
sudosysgen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a horribly misleading comparison. Compare the risk of illness with severity similar to heart complications, or compare death rates. Don't compare one to the other. The majority of myocarditis cases due to the vaccine don't even require hospitalization.

Source? One friend with this exact issue was never hospitalized, was told that it couldn't possibly be due the vaccine, but ended up with several visits to a cardiologist and now had to deal with the long term effects. So no- there was no hospitalization. Technically. And they will never show up in any data set either. Because we aren't even tracking this stuff correctly in the USA.

That's my story too. Only after the second jab did they start to go "I think you might have an allergy".

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#79

Post by thjkgfgrrioppo »

sudosysgen wrote: post #64
robhunter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of serious COVID-19 symptoms are already at quite low levels in the < 40 male group.

Yes, and WAY higher than the risk of serious symptoms for the virus. For males 18-29 the risk of hospitalization is 0.4% compared to 0.1% for myocarditis, and most myocarditis cases do not require hospitalization. Risk of severe disease is of course much more than risk of hospitalization.

I am older than 40 and according to qcovid my risk of hospitalization is about 0,1%, so I doubt your 0,4% number. I am slightly overweight, which increases my risk by about 20%. But I doubt all the 18-29 year olds in your group are so obese that they get to 0,4%.

Re: Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex [pdf]

#80

Post by loceng »

michaelmrose wrote: post #73
coolso wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (w…

Quoted post unavailable.

Just to point out you're making assumption of someone's competency, ability, and then go yourself to make vague and broad, unbacked claims; you do seem to be parroting common mainstream talking points to counter-narrative talking points - just observation of mine.

Likewise, there are actual answers regarding background levels of myocarditis, etc, and in fact it's far more complex than either of us are going to begin to discuss here.

And in regards to mortality rate, pretty much all research/numbers show that comorbidities/underlying health is the main factor - and which we could dive into the nuance, however your final claim immediately is obviously dismissable - but the easiest rebuttal is to parrot back to what seems to be a highly arrogant attitude: what makes you so sure your analysis (or sources) are so correct?

Post reply on HN