Live data from Hacker News

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

medrxiv.org

161–170 of 207 posts

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

#161

It seemed likely early on that the risks of vaccination exceeded the benefits for healthy young people, but the argument was they should get vaccinated anyway so they wouldn't be able to transmit the virus to someone more vulnerable. Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission, the argument for vaccinating healthy young people is pretty weak.

>Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission You seem to be assuming the answer to that is either true or false. Isn't it much more likely that vaccines prevent some transmission and the question is how much.

The viral load in vaccinated infections has been demonstrated to be the same as unvaccinated infections in multiple studies now. And a perfect example is here in Ontario where 80% of the cases are in vaccinated individuals even though 77% of the population is actually vaccinated.

The shots might be helpful as a potential severe symptom mitigator which wanes but it should never have been called a "vaccine" as it neither prevents infection, nor prevents transmission.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fl…

Thanks for clarifying the flu details. As for lockdowns- hindsight is 20/20, but I would do the following-

Issue public health advisory encouraging people to eat healthier, exercise, and possibly even offer subsidies on healthy groceries and vitamins. Vitamin D deficiency is highly correlated to negative outcomes with covid infection. To this day, our federal health organizations haven't even issued statements encouraging people to eat healthier or even do something simple and easy like address vitamin D deficiency. The messaging has been negligent at best.

I would not engage in a fear campaign, and lock people inside. Most spread was occuring between family members confining themselves inside, and stress wreaks havoc on your immune system. We've been subjected to fear induced mass psychosis for the past two years, and as a result have acquired a learned helplessness when it comes to our personal health.

I would also take steps to address to hospital staffing and capacity issues. In the USA, hospitals always run at near capacity, for financial reasons. Instead of refusing to upset that delicate balance game they play, incentives should have been put into to place to bolster staffing so that hospitals wouldn't be overwhelmed. Simply not using hospitals had the effect of killing many more people that were now missing early health screenings.

I would have also liked to see only the most vulnerable be locked down, and only on a volunteer basis. A western, non authoritarian government, has no way to truly implement lockdowns effectively. Partial lockdowns have no benefits, since they didn't actually stop the spread of anything. Instead they caused irreparable harm where they were implemented with very little benefit. Basically security theater. I understand the original intentions, but the prolonged lockdowns, justified by poor metrics of "success" quickly became a political response instead of a scientific response.

Lastly, outpatient clinical attempts at treating covid with repurposed existing drugs should have been prioritized. Trump's warp speed and prep act created insane incentives to actively hamper any attempts to treat covid except pharma approved methods. This whole response feels like the AIDS response all over again, except with more media coverage, widespread corruption, and money at play.

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

#163
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> myocarditis often goes away on its own I was under the impression myocarditis was when some heart tissue died and doesn't recover.

Myocarditis is an inflammation that can, and often does, heal fully.

You are confusing it with ischemia (heart attack basically), where cells are no longer supplied with oxygen and die.

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legit question--would you have higher chances of surviving COVID-19 had you gotten it without the vaccine?

I don't think that's the right question to ask. Obviously my chances of surviving COVID would be higher with the vaccine than without. The real question is, which has an overall higher risk for someone of my age, sex, and health status, a COVID infection or the vaccine? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

No post body was provided.

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

#165
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, many of the covid tests did not distinguish between the flu and covid. What do you mean when you say that tests did not distinguish between COVID and the flu? Are you referring to simultaneous infection? I'm not aware of any PCR or antigen tests for COVID which would produce positive results for flu patients. Nor any antigen or rapid molecular assa…

Someone stated this to me as well and I asked for a source. They provided:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/07/no_author/cdc-to-withdra...

Which appears to use one sentence, taken out of context (read the very next sentence), from a CDC post recommending that PCRs be used to test for both flu and covid simultaneously because, well, we're in flu season and people might have either one when they show up at a hospital sick.

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

#166
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.

Sorry... what? what do you mean?

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

#167
post #106

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.

100% chance of what exactly?

100% chance of getting "exposed" to the risk of vaccine induced myocarditis because you make the choice to get the vaccine.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a mix of focused protection and "we can't control it, it's a force of nature like the weather". The latter is not mere fatalism, by the way. It's simply acceptance that at this time, with our current level of understanding and abilities, we cannot stop respiratory illnesses from spreading and frankly, even claims about stopping "severe illness" are all horribly confounded by massive conflicts of interest and a c…

First half I agree, second half builds on a sense of suspicion and mistrust over the other and on a sense of having “them” figured out, which is a nice pleasure to indulge in, but I don’t buy it at all

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry... what? what do you mean?

The vaccine is intended to be an intramuscular injection. The risk of myocarditis is possibly linked to an accidental intravenous injection. With aspiration, the person performing the injection has a chance to detect that they hit a blood vessel instead of the muscle and try again.

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

#170

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…

If you got Pfizer, your risk is lower than Moderna for myocarditis. Fairly similar to COVID-19 itself according to this paper. There is also pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia that they covered in their original paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0#Sec30

Unfortunately not stratified by age and sex there (what a shame when it is obviously greatest interest here, what were they thinking, like actually, what were they thinking?) but the risk should be clearly higher for COVID-19 as it is non-existent for vaccines.

As such, the original paper was bad as they did not stratify by important parameters but this paper might be even worse as they do not include other complications that would significantly change the picture.

I also feel wary about the method they are using - perhaps somebody could share thoughts about this? They used self controlled case series (SCCS) for IRR. I am not fully confident that this kind of analysis can be used for such data in this setting.

Post reply on HN