4 ms·

Crude rate seems to be observed cases per million doses administered. So a lot more incidents than expected, but still extremely rare (0.002% of doses). Edit:

Crude rate seems to be observed cases per million doses administered. So a lot more incidents than expected, but still extremely rare (0.002% of doses). Edit: missed an extra "0" in that percent, thanks for the the catch everyone who did

_Microft 5y ago
Thanks! It also says that in the footnote. I added it to the comment.
thebean11 5y ago
But it's only been a few months since administration, will the gap between expected and actual keep growing, or will they eventually level out?
- delecti 5y ago
  Considering it mentions this is showing up within 1 week of administration, and there are already millions of "doses administered" accounted for in the figures, I wouldn't expect the rate to change significantly either way. I'm not a statistician though.
- drknownuffin 5y ago
  Post-viral myocarditis / pericarditis usually occurs in the days to weeks (up to about a month, generally) following a viral infection.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pama 5y ago
You mean 0.002% not 0.02%
Swenrekcah 5y ago
For those getting worried like I was, it’s 0.002% or one in 50,000, not 0.02% or one in 5,000.
- Kognito 5y ago
  I don’t have the exact figures to hand but a rough googling seems to suggest a 1 in 100k risk for clotting in the AZ vaccine for young adults which of course, in many countries has been withdrawn for such rates in those groups. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/apr/11/how-big-are-the-blood-clot-risks-of-the-az-jab https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/a...
- iso1210 5y ago
  I think in general percentages less than 0.1% should be reported as "1-in-XXX". Certainly when I create pages to measure packet loss I put 1 in 50,000 rather than 0.002%
  - penagwin 5y ago
    As a data oriented person I would prefer if the percentage is always available, otherwise I have to calculate it to use with other numbers. For example: (chance of getting covid) * (chance of specific side effect) = chance of getting covid and experiencing side effect.
  - tomp 5y ago
    All percentages should be reported as "1-in-XXX". The difference (in "certainty", not "risk") between 90% (1-in-10) and 95% (1-in-20) is the same as the difference between 98% (1-in-50) and 99% (1-in-100).
- b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
  Yes, let's all look at statistics and not recognize these are real people who are developing heart damage from 'safe' vaccines.
  - pfg 5y ago
    A 0.002% risk of experiencing myocarditis due to the vaccine seems a better deal than catching COVID, which brings a ~0.3% risk of experiencing (symptomatic) myocarditis in a (to my non-expert understanding) similar demographic[1]. Many experts assume COVID will become endemic, so this is not a theoretical risk. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2780548 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
xvector 5y ago
As jb775 said, most cases simply won’t be reported. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual rate is 10-50x higher.

_Microft 5y ago

Thanks! It also says that in the footnote. I added it to the comment.

thebean11 5y ago

But it's only been a few months since administration, will the gap between expected and actual keep growing, or will they eventually level out?

delecti 5y ago
Considering it mentions this is showing up within 1 week of administration, and there are already millions of "doses administered" accounted for in the figures, I wouldn't expect the rate to change significantly either way. I'm not a statistician though.
drknownuffin 5y ago
Post-viral myocarditis / pericarditis usually occurs in the days to weeks (up to about a month, generally) following a viral infection.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pama 5y ago

You mean 0.002% not 0.02%

Swenrekcah 5y ago

For those getting worried like I was, it’s 0.002% or one in 50,000, not 0.02% or one in 5,000.

Kognito 5y ago
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but a rough googling seems to suggest a 1 in 100k risk for clotting in the AZ vaccine for young adults which of course, in many countries has been withdrawn for such rates in those groups. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/apr/11/how-big-are-the-blood-clot-risks-of-the-az-jab https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/a...
iso1210 5y ago
I think in general percentages less than 0.1% should be reported as "1-in-XXX". Certainly when I create pages to measure packet loss I put 1 in 50,000 rather than 0.002%
- penagwin 5y ago
  As a data oriented person I would prefer if the percentage is always available, otherwise I have to calculate it to use with other numbers. For example: (chance of getting covid) * (chance of specific side effect) = chance of getting covid and experiencing side effect.
- tomp 5y ago
  All percentages should be reported as "1-in-XXX". The difference (in "certainty", not "risk") between 90% (1-in-10) and 95% (1-in-20) is the same as the difference between 98% (1-in-50) and 99% (1-in-100).
b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
Yes, let's all look at statistics and not recognize these are real people who are developing heart damage from 'safe' vaccines.
- pfg 5y ago
  A 0.002% risk of experiencing myocarditis due to the vaccine seems a better deal than catching COVID, which brings a ~0.3% risk of experiencing (symptomatic) myocarditis in a (to my non-expert understanding) similar demographic[1]. Many experts assume COVID will become endemic, so this is not a theoretical risk. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2780548 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...

xvector 5y ago

As jb775 said, most cases simply won’t be reported. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual rate is 10-50x higher.