Live data from Hacker News

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

medrxiv.org

51–60 of 207 posts

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

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a horribly misleading comparison. Compare the risk of illness with severity similar to heart complications, or compare death rates. Don't compare one to the other. The majority of myocarditis cases due to the vaccine don't even require hospitalization.

Source? One friend with this exact issue was never hospitalized, was told that it couldn't possibly be due the vaccine, but ended up with several visits to a cardiologist and now had to deal with the long term effects. So no- there was no hospitalization. Technically. And they will never show up in any data set either. Because we aren't even tracking this stuff correctly in the USA.

Yes, your friend had no hospitalization. We don't count people who see a doctor a few times and have long term side-effects as hospitalized from COVID, so in an apples-to-apples comparison the example of your friend should not go into that column.

Here is the source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737:

> A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock (Out of 100 cases)

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

#54
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This guy made a graph of their data, which makes it a little more clear: As another commenter as has pointed out, the graph in question in included in the PDF version of this preprint (which you can see here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v... ). I want to add: "this guy" is Vinay Prasad, a professor of oncology at UCSF and an incredibly prescient thinker through the COVID-19 pandemic,…

Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?

> 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, but have an array of assessments and opinions regarding pandemic-timeline vaccination, what it's meant to accomplish, and whether genuine public health decisions in such a context can ever be made independently of profit motivations of vaccine makers. As for the mod team, I think I can confidently say that we view the vaccines as very useful tools and owe the engineering teams (both who have worked these decades to make mRNA platforms a reality and those who lost sleep to crank these vaccines out) a debt of gratitude.

> And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?

By "the flu", I presume you mean the H3N2 influenza which began as the 1968 pandemic and has since been endemic, causing seasonal outbreaks most years, rather than epidemic influenza which of course happens from time to time (eg, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic).

I don't think there's any remaining need to speculate: the wealth of evidence clearly demonstrates that COVID-19 is far more likely than seasonal influenza to result in hospitalization and death for the elderly with comorbidities, less likely than influenza to do so in young and middle-aged healthy people, and similarly likely as influenza for people in the middle.

This has been evident, and has held true, since last summer, when John Ioannidis published this paper on the topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...

I want to point out that opposition to lockdowns, almost without exception, does not turn on the population mortality rate of the pathogen in question. In fact, if the pathogen were even more dangerous, we suggest that lockdowns are likely to be an even worse idea.

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.

To the degree that lockdowns actually slow spread, this means that people in the high-risk tier (in this case, mostly elderly people) have to isolate _longer_ to wait for the spread to complete among the lower risk tiers. This may be acceptable for affluent households with remote jobs and the ability to have all of their needs met via delivery, but is obviously untenable for our marginalized neighbors who cannot afford periods of extended isolation.

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

#55
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are large CIs around the mean increase with Pfizer booster, but the mean doesn't fall into the confidence interval for second dose Moderna. Does not appear to be tracking as commensurate.

ah sure, I don't think I would have called them "commensurate" – but was I wrong to think of both rates as "elevated"?

heh, re-read my comment and I totally said "about as much", so never mind. Sloppy on my part.

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

#57

This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. It reads: > Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males a…

> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this.

This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (which I ended up not experiencing, by the way, that I know of - and I got two shots of Moderna which I specifically chose because it has more antibodies) a slew of people would show up to admonish, bring up the typical "anti-vaxxer!" arguments, and state that the risk of getting it from COVID was far far greater. I recall every media article on the subject stating the same thing.

So where were these people and the media getting their information from, or were they just making it up?

And if the latter is the case, it's when people and the media do things like this that people either begin to distrust science more, or use it as another example of why science shouldn't be treated like religion and how the media and people picks and chooses which scientific information to share with the public to fit the narrative they're pushing. It's just sad all around.

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

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?

There is a definite overlap in people skeptical of lockdowns and the vaccines, but the sub tries to steer clear of vaccine skepticism due to it being technically off topic, and something that would get the sub nuked. Not that you asked me- I would classify it as "different" than the flu, that it affects different individuals differently, and that the original variant was definitely something more scary than the flu.…

No post body was provided.

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

#59
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very defensive response. I am not making any claims that are unsupported by the CDC's own data. Just because a response is rare doesn't make it any less true. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...

The fact the CDC recognizes myocarditis results from infection of vaccination does not support your claim that it is a direct result of "spike protein saturating the body". It is an immune response, not a direct effect of the protein. If it was a response to the protein, it wouldn't occur primarily after the second dose of Moderna, it would occur with equal likelihood after both first and second doses.

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 to trigger this rare myocardial response due to its much higher potency.

The S1 and S2 components of the spike protein linger in the body for up to 12 months. So it would seem that the second dose would be harsher since there is already a reserve of S in the body.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7987013/

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

#60
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are asking when in history we vaccinated to prevent infectious disease induced morbidity?

When have we vaccinated to prevent infectious disease induced side effects excluding morbidity.

What do you mean by 'side effects' of infectious disease excluding morbidity? Positive side effects of infection?
Post reply on HN