4 ms·

> The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported. And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation c

> The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported. And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation cases were reported. While five of the European cases saw someone die, the EMA says these were all in older people or those with other conditions. The cases were most commonly found in men under 40 and within 10 days of a second dose. The majority of those recovered quickly with the normal treatments for myocarditis and pericarditis as well as rest. So there was a total 321 people under the age of 40 that got the heart inflammation side effect, with almost all of them recovering from it (only 5 died). That's after 197 million doses. This is EU data from the EMA. Now for Covid, granted now I'm switching to US data (from the CDC), there's been: 0-4 yr: 1421 5 - 17 yr: 2361 18 - 49 yr: 57120 hospitalizations due to Covid. That's a total of 60902 younger people that needed hospitalization (granted this includes 40 - 49 yr old, while the EMA data is under 40, but even just the 0-4 year old group shows a lot more Covid related hospitalization than heart inflammation due to vaccines. There's also 25 reported death from Covid in the under 18. With Covid though, it is hard to know what the denominator is, like we don't know if that's out of 20 million people exposed to Covid, or 200 million, etc. That makes it a little harder to compare, thought my guess is there is probably less than 197 million under 49yr old in the US that got exposed to Covid, since the population count under 49 year is 210 million, so that would mean almost everyone under 49 yr would have been exposed to Covid, which I find unlikely. Which would make the data for Covid even worse proportionally to the vaccines. Almost all vaccines ever have some rare side effects, all drugs do really, people even die from simple things like peanut butter or honey. The thing is, Covid has much worse effects, so it's a matter of risk mitigation. You can make your own risk assessment based on the data, I feel its pretty one-sided with Covid being a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from it, even if you are under 18, and definitely if you are 18 to 40 year old. You can decide for yourself, but also consider that under 18 put over 18 at risk as well, so that's another consideration to take into account when choosing if to get vaccinated or not.

RustyRussell 5y ago
I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immunization/vaccine-safety https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result). For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo. Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!
- didibus 5y ago
  > If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply! Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it. I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion? I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.
- kazinator 5y ago
  > how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time. Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.) So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks. Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?
  - RustyRussell 5y ago
    Yeah. Do you have data on reinfection rates?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

RustyRussell 5y ago

I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immunization/vaccine-safety https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result). For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo. Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!

didibus 5y ago
> If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply! Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it. I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion? I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.
kazinator 5y ago
> how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time. Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.) So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks. Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?
- RustyRussell 5y ago
  Yeah. Do you have data on reinfection rates?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]