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

121–130 of 207 posts

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

#121

Post by sudosysgen »

Ancapistani wrote: post #113
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.

> 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. No, this is the rate of hospitalization or death due to myocarditis. > The outcomes of interest in this study were hospital admission or death from myocarditis. Myocarditis was defined as the first hospital admission in the study period or death using International…

This is actually not the case. In the UK, outpatient treatment and observations are considered to result in an admission, even if there is no inpatient care (hospitalization).

See : https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/hospitals/going-into-hospita...

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

#122

Post by javagram »

thjkgfgrrioppo wrote: post #76
nradov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no evidence that the "vaccine only works for a couple of months".

The vaccine has continued to show efficacy against hospitalization and death (severe covid) even as there has been some waning in infection immunity over a period of multiple months (more than 2 or a couple months though). See e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a2.htm "During February 1–September 30, 2021, mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalizations among U.S. veterans ≥120 days after receipt of the second dose was 86% for Moderna and 75% for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines"

Future covid strains may be more or less deadly - data coming in on Omicron indicates it's more deadly than original COVID but perhaps slightly less deadly than delta. Still quite dangerous to an unvaccinated or immune naive individual.

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

#123

Post by ODILON_SATER »

javagram wrote: post #116
ODILON_SATER wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated wit…

> I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination Unlikely because the most of the same people chose not to get vaccinated themselves well before any mandates or requirements came into force, and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post.…

I have seen many people arguing for the vaccines as an effective treatment whilst defending people's choice to refuse the vaccine. Though I got vaccinated, I was surely forced to do so else I would've lost my job, but I delayed as much as I could. However, I was very clear to advise my parents (in their late 60s) to be the first in lie to take the vaccine because I knew the risks associated with COVID far outweighed any risk associated with the vaccine. And I know of many people with similar views, though they apply to a different age group, like many parents not wanting to vaccinate their children because they understand how rare of a event is death from covid for a healthy kid.

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

#124

Post by sudosysgen »

robhunter wrote: post #115
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.

That 0.4% chance is not random though - it's heavily weighted toward 18-29 year olds with severe existing co-morbidities, extremely high BMI's, etc. For an otherwise healthy 18-29 year old, it appears that the risks from taking the vaccine are comparable / slightly exceed the risks of getting Covid. Your statement that most myocarditis cases do not require hospitalization is inconsistent with the public health data O…

Wait a second. You went from one dataset to another. You can't do that without re-doing the entire analysis.

According to the dataset you are citing, the rate of myocarditis for 18-29 yo. is 129 per million, which is 0.0129%.

COVID hospitalization rates are 0.4%.

So with that dataset instead of this one, you run as 40x higher chance to be hospitalized from COVID than from vaccine-related myocarditis.

And it is quite likely that comorbities have an effect in vaccine-related myocarditis hospitalizations.

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

#125

Post by TrispusAttucks »

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.

Perhaps we would be more in agreement if "saturated" was replaced with dispersed or diffused?

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

#126

Post by ODILON_SATER »

sudosysgen wrote: post #117
ODILON_SATER wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated wit…

People were labelled anti-vaxxers because they were opposed to forced vaccination? I can't say that this is a sentiment that's new to me. The Israel data clearly showed that the vaccine was protective against infection in the medium term. Just not as much as originally. >A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually c…

> Actually, we generally don't even know the real rate of myocarditis in the general population. It's relatively common that someone is admitted to the hospital for another symptom and myocarditis is diagnosed, without the patient even noticing.

Yes, but wouldn't we expect this to apply to both groups at the roughly same rate?

> As for females, for any age, there is zero statistically significant result for myocarditis included to the vaccine, at all. So for all we know, the vaccine may cause zero myocarditis in females. It's almost certain that further stratification would help.

This is not true according to the pre-print (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...), page 10. In fact, it shows that Moderna's second dose is associated with higher incidence rate against baseline. Though if we compare with post-covid, there is an overlap in the 95% CI --though IRR for 2nd dose Moderna is higher.

> The reason why there was not anymore stratification is because myocarditis due to the vaccine is so rare that if you do stratify it, you cannot come to any conclusion.

Fair point. Yes, certainly further stratification would lead to a loss in statistical power and making the point estimates meaningless, but it would be nice to see it in case there is still some point estimates that show statistically significant results because I suspect that the risk of myocarditis goes up inversely with age.

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

#128

Post by sysOpOpPERAND »

mhh__ wrote: post #109
cblconfederate wrote: post #98

I wish these papers were printed in journals that publish the reviewer comments. In fact i think it should be a requirement for all journals. Unfortunately all online commentary ends up becoming a pissing contest where everyone is trying to outwit each other instead of attacking the paper itself from all angles.

Oh god yes. Considering the leech-like synecdoche journals are for all that stinks in academia at the moment, I really wish they'd try and make a better place for public discussion between experts than Twitter spats. There are probably far too many papers that academics have discovered flaws in but don't have time to do anything about

i am agreeing with you and parent comment, there is definitely room for growth in how these journals are presented. i think having access to the full discussion would be an amazing step forward for the science community as well as those who are interested in grasping a deeper understanding of how and why the discussion decided to go with their findings

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

#129

Post by basch »

spurgu wrote: post #100
nradov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aspiration is pulling back the syringe plunger prior to injection to ensure the needle tip is in the correct tissue and not in a vein. This isn't typically done for COVID-19 vaccinations, and there is some controversy in medical circles about whether this should be a standard procedure. https://f1000research.com/articles/3-157/v3

I saw a statistic of Denmark (who are aspirating) vs Norway (who aren't), and vaccine complications[0] were something like 1 in 25.000 in Denmark vs 1 in 15.000 in Norway[1], so there was a clear difference. [0] Or myocarditis specifically? [1] Don't quote me on these numbers, they are ballpark numbers from my memory

isnt that backwards from the expectation?

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

#130

Post by unityByFreedom »

javagram wrote: post #120
jMyles wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Lockdowns necessarily cause stratification by socioeconomic status rather than by risk. Even in an 'effective' lockdown, we still see spread among the "essential workers" who keep society going, and in their households, which are disproportionately likely to be multigen. How do you explain countries like Vietnam, China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, where Covid was eliminated from their societies via lockdown (an…

> It's true that only China and Taiwan have retained Covid-Zero status in the face of Delta

China now has local transmission in Xian, known for the terracotta warriors. It's arguable they never stopped local transmission and simply stopped reporting cases and deaths accurately once covid took off outside China. They stopped recording deaths at around 4,000 in March 2020.

Post reply on HN