11–20 of 29 posts
[flagged]
“The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Not sure that's the right question to ask, in my opinion the right question is, "for this dose of the vaccine, at this time, do the future risks of not getting the vaccine outweigh the future risks of getting the vaccine". You have to calculate that for each dose of the vaccine, and for various proposed vaccine dose spacing options. If there are more than one vaccine available for use, add permutations for those.
[flagged]
I'm vaccinated, and I test regularly because I interact with higher risk people. Never infected. The reason you're downvoted is you're bringing anecdotes to a "multiple large studies with millions of data points" fight.
My point wasn't about the anecdotes, but the fact that it isn't a risk comparison of being vaccinated or getting infected, but rather the risk of vaccination AND infection vs. infection.
And presumably being infected once is tantamount to vaccination.
If you're vulnerable there's an argument but from my vantage covid vaccination for the majority of healthy people is just needless and excessive exposure to spike protein.
> with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm vaccinated, and I test regularly because I interact with higher risk people. Never infected. The reason you're downvoted is you're bringing anecdotes to a "multiple large studies with millions of data points" fight.
> The reason you're downvoted is you're bringing anecdotes to a "multiple large studies with millions of data points" fight. My point wasn't about the anecdotes, but the fact that it isn't a risk comparison of being vaccinated or getting infected, but rather the risk of vaccination AND infection vs. infection. And presumably being infected once is tantamount to vaccination. If you're vulnerable there's an argument bu…
"The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine."
[flagged]
The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ The lie that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections and that public health entities like the AHA are lying about it needs to end to protect your credibility.
Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? It says:
"were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19"
which is good but I don't think necessarily rules out transmission, right?
I've asked this before, but why the "just not 100%"? That seems to imply that it's somewhere close to 100%, which I think you'll find is not the case in recent data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason you're downvoted is you're bringing anecdotes to a "multiple large studies with millions of data points" fight. My point wasn't about the anecdotes, but the fact that it isn't a risk comparison of being vaccinated or getting infected, but rather the risk of vaccination AND infection vs. infection. And presumably being infected once is tantamount to vaccination. If you're vulnerable there's an argument bu…
That first time you get infected, you are at higher risk of myocarditis than if you were vaccinated and then infected. That's what this article is about. "The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one…
> [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively)
> The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]).
Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14.
They also very importantly mention that vaccination has a higher risk of myocarditis for men under 40.
In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk.
> Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
Presumably repeated infections carry less risk over time, I see no mention of this scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ The lie that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections and that public health entities like the AHA are lying about it needs to end to protect your credibility.
Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16, so that would have been pre omicron. Is that relevant anymore? Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? It says: "were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19" which is good but I don't think necessarily rules out transmission, right? I've asked this before, but why the "just not 100%"? That seems to imply that i…
This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections.
> Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here?
Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no symptoms.
> why the "just not 100%"?
Because vaccine conspiracy theorists don't understand statistics and like to use anecdotes instead. The vaccine reduces infections. It doesn't prevent them 100%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That first time you get infected, you are at higher risk of myocarditis than if you were vaccinated and then infected. That's what this article is about. "The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one…
Can you square this for me: > [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively) > The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% C…
No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap.
It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36]
> In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk
It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) understand statistics better than you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16, so that would have been pre omicron. Is that relevant anymore? Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? It says: "were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19" which is good but I don't think necessarily rules out transmission, right? I've asked this before, but why the "just not 100%"? That seems to imply that i…
> Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16 This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections. > Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no…
> Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site.
In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study. Which it obviously is a win, but doesn't meet the stronger criteria that you were claiming, which is that it stopped transmission. Maybe not a huge difference, but it is a difference.
With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? My understanding is that efficacy against infection 90 days after your last shot is well below 50%, going down to basically nothing by something like 180 days. That's not what I'd infer from someone saying "it doesn't prevent them 100%".