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

Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 700 posts

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#501

Post by lamontcg »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #306
lamontcg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 ) > We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection. and they include a brief literature review: > Our findings are consistent with those from a case-control study of 884,828 persons re…

This study is, actually, irrelevant to disproving the claim above. It checks for the myocarditis infection from COVID-19, but it doesn't actually control for vaccination status. The people studied either are believed to have been COVID-19 infected, or had been vaccinated, but there was no designated unvaccinated control group. In which case, you are potentially using "breakthrough cases" of COVID-19 causing Myocardit…

Update by the same authors:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....

Risk of myocarditis following infection before vaccination was 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] greater than the risk of vaccination, and risk of myocarditis following infection after vaccination was 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87] greater than the vaccination itself.

Easier to digest press release:

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#502

Post by hammock »

jjcon wrote: post #303
sfusato wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stopped recommending further boosters to younger people after the 1st booster. These 50+ or 65+ only recommendations are rather recent. That's all I'm saying. You would need to account only from the 2nd booster onwards basically.

> They stopped recommending further boosters to younger people after the 1st booster. Which country(s) specifically changed their guidance about boosters after the 1st booster was released? Again I'm not aware of large swings in policy in most of these countries. Some aren't recommending 4th doses yet but I don't think any have changed policies about boosters after the fact.

You are reading the wrong news sources then. So many European countries have changed their recommendations “after the fact” especially for children and young adults

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#503

Post by hedora »

yucky wrote: post #376
bluGill wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chance of a male under 30 having issues is also virtually zero.

Sounds like there never was a reasonable case for mandates then :)

For young people the risk of death goes from something like 0.1% to 0.01% with the vaccine (just aiming for order of magnitude risks), which isn't a big deal for an individual.

However, when you are talking about populations of 10s of millions in low risk age ranges, it's 10,000's of preventable deaths!

Even if you don't care about the deaths (it's their choice to die; whatever), note that for every death, there are 10-100 long covid cases that are pulling resources from the health care system indefinitely.

The vaccine seems to cut those by about 90% too. Why should we waste tax dollars on medicare and welfare for anti-vaxxers?

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#504

Post by thrwy_918 »

ministryoftruth wrote: post #487
thrwy_918 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ACA covered none of it or a very small portion The ACA is not an insurance plan, so I assume you are using "ACA" as shorthand for "ACA-compliant insurance coverage". It is simply not plausible that an ACA-compliant plan would wholesale "not cover" a hospital stay for myocarditis, absent extremely niche and bizarre circumstances. Given that you don't seem very familiar with the specifics, I have to assume that y…

The reason that it's not covered is that insurance plans don't cover damages caused by experimental procedures that the insured chose to participate in. Recall that the vaccine is not FDA approved for children (only adults), it only has an emergency use authorization for children.

> Recall that the vaccine is not FDA approved for children (only adults), it only has an emergency use authorization for children

Falling while skiing is not FDA approved. A woodcutting axe applied to the hand is not FDA approved. Drinking bleach is not FDA approved. And yet, health insurance will cover medical complications arising from any of these actions.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#505

Post by hedora »

calculatte wrote: post #240
hedora wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Go ahead and ignore it, because that isn't what I said or implied at all.

Well, then how do you explain the discrepancy between all available data and the claims you are making?

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#506

Post by snowwrestler »

taolegal wrote: post #10

The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals. Exxon has an interest in minimizing (disregarding) the harmful effects of their products and same goes for Pfizer & friends who's got every govt funneling money to them seemingly without limit.

The mRNA vaccines were developed by BioNTech and Moderna, two small and relatively new companies specializing in that technology. BioNTech chose to partner with Pfizer to scale their vaccine production. This may have had some positive impact on the Pfizer brand. In contrast, Moderna chose to take investment and scale their own production.

In either case, people are taking the vaccines because of the physical benefits the vaccines provide, not because of how they feel about the corporate history of the companies producing them.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#507

Post by Izkata »

ben_w wrote: post #405
annexrichmond wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting the narratives you hear with regards to antivaxxers. My sister is vegan and is in many vegan, all-natural, etc Facebook groups. She told me there's a lot of overlap of people there and people who chose not take the COVID vaccine. One of her best friends is a teacher in Canada from Trinidad; she grew up without vaccines and similarly never gave her child the COVID vaccine These two examples just seeme…

> Although it still seems premature to call someone who only doesn't take the first mainstream mRNA vaccine an antivaxxer. Non-mRNA COVID vaccines do exist.

Sinovac (China) and Novavax (only just given EUA a few weeks ago) are AFAIK the only options if you want something more traditional. I think might have been one more, from India..? But J&J and AstraZeneca are adenovirus-vector, something almost as new as mRNA, and work by basically the same mechanism. Sputnik (Russia) is also adenovirus-vector.

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#508

Post by xracy »

spfzero wrote: post #466
xracy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is wild to me that people look at a number like 3/1,000,000 and don't think wow, that's 1900 Children who could die from something we have a vaccine for, that actively prevents the cause. Also, can you imagine losing a child to something that was preventable? You can play numbers and statistics all day, but we're talking about children's lives. You're probably not a parent? But for reference, go find examples of p…

I am a parent. It's not that I don't think some children should be vaccinated; some should. Overweight, diabetic, etc. We know where the risk is, and we know the vaccine reduces serious outcomes. It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to. Now if your argument is "what's the harm?, why not vaccinate everyone?" my answer would be we don't actually know what the harm might be to these kids later in life. No…

> It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to.

Early on, the goal was to reach herd immunity while we still had vaccines that were fairly effective at reducing transmission against the variants we had had, before they mutated.

But also, I don't know how familiar you are with gov't messaging. But the more widespread you make a message, the less nuanced you can make it. People at large don't take nuance very well, and people at large are bad at evaluating circumstances. So if you give them a message like "People over the age of 65 should get 3 doses, and people over 30 should get 2 doses, etc." You're going to end up with most of the people not knowing what to do.

To add to that, you have people "doing their own research" who have no idea what the requirements for actual peer-reviewed research is, screaming from the rooftops that you can't trust anything coming out of anyone's mouth. And they will latch onto any piece of nuance and tear it to shreds.

Now, I still think that American institutions have done a bad job communicating, but considering they were undermined at every step of the process, I'm inclined to believe that it's more reasonable for them to give a blanket across-the-board recommendation than it is to destroy their own goal by adding confusion of "nuanced recommendations".

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#509

Post by russdill »

nonethewiser wrote: post #463
russdill wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing a study with 200,000 people with a study with 43,000,000 people.

And you're comparing a study that monitored for less than a month to one that monitored for 4 months.

Can you point me to that? The abstract isn't calling that out very clearly to me.

"Inpatient myocarditis and pericarditis diagnoses were retrieved from day 10 after positive PCR. Follow-up was censored on 28 February 2021, with minimum observation of 18 days."

Re: Myocarditis after Covid vaccination: Research on possible long-term risks begins

#510

Post by snowwrestler »

pieter_mj wrote: post #85
wrycoder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as the EUAs were issued, the vaccine manufacturers shut down clinical trial followup and, in many cases, allowed vaccination of the control branch of the trials. Same for Paxlovid, where support for independent trials was refused.

I, probably with many others, didn't realize this could be the consequence of an EUA until you mentioned it here. Thank you.

It's not specific to EUA, this is commonly done when a Phase 3 trial shows a clear benefit. Essentially, once you're sure a medicine confers a real benefit, it becomes unethical to deny it to the control branch any longer.
Post reply on HN