Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mlyle 1218 days ago
The problem with this is that there's simpler explanations. Myocarditis is more frequent with C19 infection than vaccination, so it seems spike protein circulating is "enough".

Also this study didn't find significant uptake of mRNA in the heart (though it did find notable uptake in the lungs).

1 comments

The Mycocarditis line is not true - it highly depends on gender and age. Repeating that its more frequent for infection outright is wrong, it is only in certain sub-populations (female, older).
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....

See tables 3 and 4.

Moderna does seem to have an effect in the direction you name; the Pfizer vaccine seems to have a lower risk than infection in all categories. Overall, the myocarditis risk is lower with vaccination than infection with both Moderna and Pfizer, but it may not be in some subpopulations with Moderna.

It’s such a dumb topic too - because when you focus solely on the myocarditis risk stratification between Covid and the vaccine, you lose sight of all of the other morbidities that come with Covid. It’s like that video making the rounds right now where Bill Maher is trumpeting that the infection provides as strong protection against severe disease compared to the vaccine. Cool! Not actually surprising but kind of misses the obvious point that it involves you getting Covid, a serious, highly transmissible disease, when you could get the same protection without the illness.. I guess you could use the evidence to adjust guidance on vaccine schedule but protection still wanes over time so..
It's dumb to dismiss it.

Finland, Denmark and Sweden recommend against getting vaccination for young men as they have almost no risk with Covid outside of extreme co-morbidities.

They didn't actually do that - and you should change your media diet if you sincerely believe that they did.

Denmark is probably the most stark -- after they had >80% uptake in their initial vaccination drive and then Omicron proved to be less dangerous, they no longer recommend boosters for under 50s unless you have risk factors.

Sweden still recommends 3 doses for everyone over the age of 18 (https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disaster....) They no longer recommend that all children receive the vaccine but that's a much more neutral stance than "recommend against getting it".

And Finland still recommends the vaccine for everyone, almost regardless of age (https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...)

You may be confusing their recommendations with their preference of the Pfizer over the Moderna vaccine in men?

So they did stop recommending it? Tbh I’m not tracking every countries exact status and don’t need to to make the point, in fact your citations only strengthen it.

There’s are a whole list of countries that have backed off recommending vaccines for the young and that alone is enough to disprove your attempt to dismiss a very, very important topic.

By doing so you potentially have moral responsibility to men who may be missing out on critical info that could save their lives. The data supports it and the fact that many very pro vaccine countries are now stepping back their recommendation is a massive positive indicator that it’s worth discussing.

I don’t have to prove beyond a doubt it’s unsafe, just that there’s gray area. You meanwhile called any gray area dumb, and therefore need to prove beyond a doubt that it has clear benefit to young men. It doesn’t.

And yes the banning of Moderna is a huge, massive piece data because we know it’s much worse re: Myocarditis. So we basically know for a fact it’s a bad trade off for young men. Pfizer would require your own research but again it’s not clear it’s even neutral. So why argue it’s dumb to even discus? This is the sort of weird argumentation I’ve seen throughout the pandemic where it’s like a religion that can’t ever admit faults lest it all come apart. You can admit there were mistakes and are flaws, it’s ok, it doesn’t ruin your belief system at all.

I'm not sure if you're arguing in bad faith or are simply confused about the facts.
I think the data still supports what I said, even in that article, but also if you want to be really accurate you'd need a meta review of a variety of articles I've read now in detail, and my general intuition is its clear that < ~30yr old men are higher risk.