|
|
|
|
|
|
by ODILON_SATER
1631 days ago
|
|
|
I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated with the vaccines would not be fully revealed in time. I believe the right move would've been to let people decide, especially after became clear that vaccination did not protect against infection in the medium run with Israel data being abundantly clear already in late spring of this year. I still believe vaccination rates amongst the old would have been extremely high, protecting those who are at-risk the most. I saw this happening in countries like Brazil, old people rushed to take the jab despite no clear mandates in the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign --although a lot of people got the Sinovac which are not as effective as Pfizer or Moderna. > This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are
a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg. Also, the bit about Males only. Pretty sure if you stratified the population even further, you'd find that young females are also at a significantly higher risk of myocarditis for vax vs post covid. As some mentioned here, it would be nice if the age intervals were a bit more stratified. |
|
|
The Israel data clearly showed that the vaccine was protective against infection in the medium term. Just not as much as originally.
>A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg.
We actually don't know that. We see from this data that you can have myocarditis without the usual symptoms of a strong immune reaction. For all we know, there could have been a hundred thousand cases of myocarditis from COVID that didn't come with associated COVID symptoms and resolved themselves, going without any diagnosis.
Actually, we generally don't even know the real rate of myocarditis in the general population. It's relatively common that someone is admitted to the hospital for another symptom and myocarditis is diagnosed, without the patient even noticing.
As for females, for any age, there is zero statistically significant result for myocarditis included to the vaccine, at all. So for all we know, the vaccine may cause zero myocarditis in females. It's almost certain that further stratification would help.
The reason why there was not anymore stratification is because myocarditis due to the vaccine is so rare that if you do stratify it, you cannot come to any conclusion.
It's possible that there is a misestimation of the background risk. However, given that most cases of myocarditis are mild, the vast majority of myocarditis cases without a positive COVID test almost certainly went undiagnosed, so this is a fair comparison. Cases that have been diagnosed can also be misatributed to background risk, if there are no other covid symptoms and thus no covid test is administered.