| People were labelled anti-vaxxers because they were opposed to forced vaccination? I can't say that this is a sentiment that's new to me. 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. |
Yes, but wouldn't we expect this to apply to both groups at the roughly same rate?
> 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.
This is not true according to the pre-print (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...), page 10. In fact, it shows that Moderna's second dose is associated with higher incidence rate against baseline. Though if we compare with post-covid, there is an overlap in the 95% CI --though IRR for 2nd dose Moderna is higher.
> 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.
Fair point. Yes, certainly further stratification would lead to a loss in statistical power and making the point estimates meaningless, but it would be nice to see it in case there is still some point estimates that show statistically significant results because I suspect that the risk of myocarditis goes up inversely with age.