Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination • Hacker News Board

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#31

Post by busymom0 » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

jmcgough wrote: post #28

PKop wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here again a blatant lack of clarity around the issue. Who are dying and at what rate? What are their comorbidities? What is the vax status of those that are dying, presumably many have taken the vaccine anyways yes? But you do you, is the point. I'm perfectly fine with my choice of not taking it: I'm not overweight, I lift weights and exercise regularly, have low bodyfat percent, I get plenty of sunlight for Vitamin…

> But you do you, is the point I've never understood this type of selfishness. If you get sick you will, on average, infect another 2-3 people. It's not just about you.

1. Covid shots do not prevent infection or transmission.

2. Since Delta, both vaxxed and unvaxxed cases have the same viral load.

3. Since December at least, boosted and vaxxed have higher RATE per 100k of covid infections.

So whatever benefit one gets is individual benefit only and not getting others sick in any different way as the vaxxed folks do.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#32

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #24

in_cahoots wrote: post #9

As someone who was trying to conceive while the vaccine rolled out, this isn’t surprising. People were regularly reporting basal temperature spikes, delayed ovulation, and delayed periods. This is a community that is extremely data-oriented, since with the right measurements you’re able to predict your fertile (or non-fertile) window. I was disappointed to see how little research there was into menstruation at the ti…

This lack of foresight is not something specific to this vaccine. It is the male bias ingrained in most western medicine. Due to fear of how experimental medicines will impact fertility and pregnancy, males are usually overrepresented in clinical trials which makes female specific side effects much harder to detect.

I agree. This is something that needs discussion.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#33

Post by greenthrow » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #9

As someone who was trying to conceive while the vaccine rolled out, this isn’t surprising. People were regularly reporting basal temperature spikes, delayed ovulation, and delayed periods. This is a community that is extremely data-oriented, since with the right measurements you’re able to predict your fertile (or non-fertile) window. I was disappointed to see how little research there was into menstruation at the ti…

Quick Googling shows that the cold and flu can impact ovulation. So it is not a surprise that Covid or its vaccines can as well, since it often presents as more severe.

It was still the correct choice of action for you to get the vaccine and potentially delay conception. It is safer for you and the baby if you are vaccinated.

This study is just providing confirmation to something that all medical professionals likely assumed is true, based on the common knowledge that the flu and cold and other illnesses can also affect fertility.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#34

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:13 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #23

mcronce wrote: post #20

> long after covid is any sort threat whatsoever People dying and people with - and still getting- long COVID would probably disagree with that statement.

Here again a blatant lack of clarity around the issue. Who are dying and at what rate? What are their comorbidities? What is the vax status of those that are dying, presumably many have taken the vaccine anyways yes? But you do you, is the point. I'm perfectly fine with my choice of not taking it: I'm not overweight, I lift weights and exercise regularly, have low bodyfat percent, I get plenty of sunlight for Vitamin…

My under 40 triathlete friend with no comorbidities who wound up in the ICU for a month and needed two surgeries to drain his lungs would beg to differ. Or my buddy down the block under 40 with no cormorbities who is now on beta blockers for long term Covid. As would folks like my Dad who the vaccine and first booster didn't work on due to his suppressed immune system from receiving my kidney.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#35

Post by airza » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #9

As someone who was trying to conceive while the vaccine rolled out, this isn’t surprising. People were regularly reporting basal temperature spikes, delayed ovulation, and delayed periods. This is a community that is extremely data-oriented, since with the right measurements you’re able to predict your fertile (or non-fertile) window. I was disappointed to see how little research there was into menstruation at the ti…

The problem is that most vaccines affect menstruation; for obvious reasons the uterus is a hotbed of immune activity in the human body.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#36

Post by busymom0 » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:14 PM UTC

mcronce wrote: post #20

> long after covid is any sort threat whatsoever People dying and people with - and still getting- long COVID would probably disagree with that statement.

1. Covid vax does not prevent long covid:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/05/25/long-covid-...

2. Healthy young people under 50 or even 60 were not dying or getting hospitalized. Whatever risk they want to take, they should be able to take it without mandates. Since the vax does not prevent infection or transmission, one is only taking individual risk and not affecting others.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#37

Post by fernandotakai » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:16 PM UTC

mcronce wrote: post #20

> long after covid is any sort threat whatsoever People dying and people with - and still getting- long COVID would probably disagree with that statement.

i took all three shots and got covid about two weeks ago. it was HARSH. no sense of smell, no sense of taste, 3 days with high-ish fever (39C), the body ache was crazy bad and worse of all: brain fog. i managed to avoid going to the hospital, but barely.

and that's with 3 shots. i'm almost sure i would be in an ICU if i didn't get any shots.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#38

Post by iratewizard » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

ellisv wrote: post #30

SoftTalker wrote: post #8

"Vaccine trial protocols do not typically monitor for major adverse events for more than 7 days" I am stunned by this. Seven days? Is there really no reason to think that a vaccine candidate might have adverse effects more than a week later?

Given that the vaccine itself is out of your system within a few days, and if effective begin triggering an immune response, I don’t think there’s not much reason to monitor for safety beyond that point.

Thalidomide is out of your system by your first grandchild.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#39

Post by abathur » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #9

As someone who was trying to conceive while the vaccine rolled out, this isn’t surprising. People were regularly reporting basal temperature spikes, delayed ovulation, and delayed periods. This is a community that is extremely data-oriented, since with the right measurements you’re able to predict your fertile (or non-fertile) window. I was disappointed to see how little research there was into menstruation at the ti…

I think (at least) three big problems intersect here:

1. the sci/med establishment seems to have some ongoing ~bias issues that I don't fully understand when it comes to listening to and taking lay people seriously (especially women)

2. it's hard to do complex synthesis of relative risks and rewards across different studies measuring different things for different reasons

3. we've had a lot of uninformed and malicious actors splashing about in the information ecosystem

It's a two-way street. Researchers and public health officials both need to take women seriously and they need to have faith that they can research or discuss details like this frankly through their normal semi-public publication channels without people who don't grok or don't care about the nuance of their research using it as an info-cudgel to induce FUD that ruins lives.

To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant this past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it hurting the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late December, post-covid complications nearly took her and the baby in late February, and she had to live in the hospital until she delivered in June.

Re: Trends in menstrual bleeding changes after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

#40

Post by mlyle » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

busymom0 wrote: post #31

jmcgough wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you do you, is the point I've never understood this type of selfishness. If you get sick you will, on average, infect another 2-3 people. It's not just about you.

1. Covid shots do not prevent infection or transmission. 2. Since Delta, both vaxxed and unvaxxed cases have the same viral load. 3. Since December at least, boosted and vaxxed have higher RATE per 100k of covid infections. So whatever benefit one gets is individual benefit only and not getting others sick in any different way as the vaxxed folks do.

> 1. Covid shots do not prevent infection or transmission.

It does look like there's about a 20-30% reduction of infection from random surveys of the population and from nucleocapsid seroprevalence assays; transmission-once-infected is very difficult to measure, but it would be surprising if it did not have some effect.

> 2. Since Delta, both vaxxed and unvaxxed cases have the same viral load.

There's a key fallacy here: we're looking at a population of cases detected by similar means and then found that they have similar viral loads. Not too surprising of a finding (survivorship bias, basically).

There's some data indicating that viral copy assays are not good proxies for finding true infectious shedding -- and that vaccinated individuals can be much better in this regard despite having higher loads. e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0

> 3. Since December at least, boosted and vaxxed have higher RATE per 100k of covid infections.

This is absolutely and completely untrue. There's been a couple of times where the vaxxed have been higher in the data series, but the overwhelming trend in the data has been the opposite. e.g. right now in Santa Clara County, where I am, the unvaccinated case rate is approximately 268 per 100,000 per week; the fully vaccinated case rate is about 46 per 100,000.

Of course, people who elect vaccination don't behave exactly the same as those who don't... and so many people in S.C.C. are vaccinated that the exact number of unvaccinated has some uncertainty (but it's not off by a factor of 5).