|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tagbert
1609 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.