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

81–90 of 207 posts

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

#81

Post by sudosysgen »

yonaguska wrote: post #74
sudosysgen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It's quite rare to be incidentally hospitalized. If you are hospitalized, you are very very sick. You don't get hospitalized for a broken arm, you get a cast and maybe some painkillers and you're sent home.

If you are sick enough to be hospitalized, you are likely to be sick enough that COVID is dangerous to you and requires medical attention.

The vast majority of people hospitalized with covid have long term side effects. You need to be seriously in bad shape to be hospitalized. See: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

Since we're doing anecdotes, I have a friend who recently got an infection (not COVID) that left him bedridden and so dizzy he couldn't walk more than few steps, the doctors decided against hospitalization as he presented to the hospital because his symptoms were too mild. They ran a few tests, determined it was an infection, prescribed antibiotics and sent him home.

So yes, hospitalization is a very good predictor. Fyi, hospitalization rates for the general population is right around 0.1%, more or less, and definitely a lot less for people under 40, in normal times

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

#82

Post by coolso »

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.

> Despite this you have immediately concluded that the media is lying to you and making it up as they go along.

This is not true, although reading my post back I can somewhat see why you would think that. I stated

> So where were these people and the media getting their information from, or were they just making it up?

The paragraph immediately following this was intended as an "and if they were making it up" continuation. I will edit my original post to clarify.

> Why are you so sure this analysis is correct?

One thing this study has going for it over the media and internet commenters just stating things like "scientists and doctors say that" is that here, we actually see some data, rather than the media or others basically saying the data exists, somewhere out there, source: "just trust us".

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

#83

Post by henearkr »

nradov wrote: post #14

An animal study found that aspiration during injection could reduce the risk of vaccine induced myocarditis. It hasn't been reproduced in humans but this seems like something worthy of further research. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

Would make totally sense, as a possible mechanism -- and its remedy -- of how the heart would be affected.

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

#84

Post by snidane »

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.

Did you just accuse him of making conclusions without evidence while responding with absolute certainty?

This discussion is about discussing an actual study that can back up the calculatio of covid vs vax side effects. Afaik, prior to that there hasn't been such evidence so all the risk calculations were essentially pulled out of one's bottom.

Since you're accusing him of insufficient evidence for his mere hypotheticals, can you actually provide evidence for your absolute statements?

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

#85

Post by kuhewa »

1123581321 wrote: post #75
kuhewa wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting them even if I paraphrased. The vaccine doesn't saturate the body, and there's no evidence the heart is subject to these side effects due to lipid vesicles being uptaken from circulation because the heart uses them as substrate. Then to not leave any doubt, they cite McCullough on the topic who is way off the rails beyond available evidence.

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

#86

Post by sudosysgen »

thjkgfgrrioppo wrote: post #79
sudosysgen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

I don't know about qcovid but these two sources disagree : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33729203/ https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/

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

#87

Post by sudosysgen »

mrhands556 wrote: post #68
sudosysgen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the mortality rate of the vaccine? Because this is the myocarditis rate, and the vast majority of cases didn't even require hospitalization. If you want to compare mortality rates, share a link. And yes, the virus prevents heart complications from infection, because it prevents symptomatic infection.

It’s pretty evident at this point it doesn’t prevent symptomatic infection. Death rate on both is close to 0. My point is if the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection (protecting other people) the vaccine risk vs reward is negligible for this age group. It should be purely up to the person to make their own decision. Not anyone else’s. Treat it like the flu shot. I was vaccinated when I saw 90% at preventing infections,…

3 doses of pfizer seen to have more thab 75% protection against even Omicron.

It was 90% before mutations for two doses

The death rate on both are very low but much higher for the virus. However, the risk of hospitalization is significant with the virus, and much, much higher than with the vaccine.

I don't want to be hospitalized. That's a very bad time. The people that may die because I took up a hospital spot probably agree.

The flu doesn't threaten to collapse the healthcare system without vaccines. COVID does.

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

#88

Post by 1123581321 »

kuhewa wrote: post #85
1123581321 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting them even if I paraphrased. The vaccine doesn't saturate the body, and there's no evidence the heart is subject to these side effects due to lipid vesicles being uptaken from circulation because the heart uses them as substrate. Then to not leave any doubt, they cite McCullough on the topic who is way off the rails beyond available evidence.

Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association with McCullough, but I don't know the name and it doesn't appear in the study (I haven't listened to the podcast.) I'm sure there's more to what you mean by disagreeing with the mechanism the other user proposed.

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

#89

Post by buddhistdude »

jMyles wrote: post #54
unityByFreedom wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?

> Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? It's a very heterogenous sub, but I don't think you'll find the kind of anti-vax thinking that suggests that, eg, childhood vaccination is unhelpful to a society, if that's what you're asking. If you are asking more strictly about sentiment toward the currently available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, I think that by and large we think they're a marvel of engineering, bu…

Is there a consensus of how to deal with the covid situation between the people of this sub? If yes, what would that be?

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

#90

Post by Izkata »

mrhands556 wrote: post #41
sudosysgen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a laughable analysis. You are comparing the risk of death to the risk of a serious side effect. Why not compare apples to apples and compare the risk of heart complications requiring hospitalization (a fraction of the myocraditis and pericarditis cases caused by the vaccine) to the hospitalization rate of infection? You can normalize that by the 75% efficacy against Omicron if you want.

Who says the vaccine prevents heart complications from infection? All the statistics I’ve seen compare mainly mortality. From a pure risk vs reward of vaccine vs no vaccine, measuring mortality seems reasonable. When in history have we vaccinated to prevent side effects?

> When in history have we vaccinated to prevent side effects?

Polio.

* Around 72% have no symptoms.

* Around 25% have flu-like symptoms.

* The remaining 3% develop serious symptoms/damage.

* Paralytic polio hits around 0.5%, of which around 5-10% die when the paralysis reaches the lungs.

So including all infections, not just paralytic polio as you'll find in most searches (where they give the 5-10% statistic), the death rate was around 0.01% - 0.025%

https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/index.htm

Post reply on HN