[brandon272]

Seems weirdly selective to point to "over time it is 0%" ... well yes, I assume that if I never get another vaccination that at some point in time I may be susceptible to COVID.

What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. I'll take 50 or 60% over 0% any day of the week.

I am incredibly grateful for the vaccines, which have done (and continue to do) a tremendous amount of heavy lifting as far as global health and reducing severe illness and hospitalization is concerned, despite those who like to pretend that they are pretty much useless.

[kaczordon]

What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron.

The confidence interval is between 10%-60% for the booster, oddly selective of you to pick the highest number. The FDA standard is to have at least 50% VE, with lower bound CI >30% for EUA.

What this study does show is that immunity is trending down and will likely hit 0 within a few months once the antibody response wanes. So yes, omicron does spread easily which is the original point I was contesting.

In addition to this it is well known now that for men under 40 the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risk from the virus: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

[Tagbert]

From the Nature article

“We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.”

Vaccine = +2-10 myocarditis events

COVID infection = +40 myocarditis events

And…

“the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.”

I don’t see how you justify saying that the vaccine risk outweighs the risk form infection. That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40 but the increase was still less than the increase from the virus.

[kaczordon]

but the increase was still less than the increase from the virus.

Incorrect, you can clearly see from figure 2 on page 11 that the second dose of Moderna had a higher risk than the virus. Is there a reason you omit this?

That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40

The paper doesn’t contain a breakdown in the sex difference. This was for men and women.

The authors have an updated pre-print that breaks it down by sex and both Pfizer and Moderna had higher rates than the virus for men(page 13): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...

If the authors fixed the denominator for viral infection (i.e. used sero-prevalance), it would look even worse.

[brandon272]

> In addition to this it is well known now that for men under 40 the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risk from the virus

Absolutely false as noted by the other reply to this comment.

[kaczordon]

Absolutely false as noted by the other reply to this comment.

Don’t just blindly trust someone else’s comment.

You can clearly see from figure 2 on page 11 that the second dose of Moderna has a higher risk than the virus. The updated preprint also shows this for Pfizer.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... (page 13)

My other point on vaccine effectiveness against omicron stands as well.