3 ms·

2.7 per 100k [1] according to an Israeli study. Couldn’t find these details on the Scandinavian study. This article at least in text said you’re more at risk of

2.7 per 100k [1] according to an Israeli study. Couldn’t find these details on the Scandinavian study. This article at least in text said you’re more at risk of getting it from Covid than the vaccine — I wish this context with numbers were always printed in these cases. The non-scientifically trained public isn’t taught or should be expected to know how to contextualize these things. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

mfer 5y ago
The Israeli study was on Phizer. Finland is recommending people people not take Moderna and instead take the Phizer. Without a more detailed case behind this it feels like "just trust us". I'd really like some trust but verify. The lack of ability to verify many of these directions, especially with some of them from different organizations contradicting each other, is bothersome.
- azinman2 5y ago
  New study using Kaiser data with both Pfizer and Moderna all ages [1]. 15 cases out of 2,392,924 (0.8 cases per 1 million first doses and 5.8 cases per 1 million second doses over a 10-day observation window), of which all were men with a median age of 25 years. While that's both vaccines, it's still quite rare especially given the large population size (2.3M people), especially considering for under 16s your risk of myocarditis is 37x more likely if you get Covid [2]. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2784800 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... [2] https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-myocarditis-risk-children-083121 https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-myocar...
  - mfer 5y ago
    Thanks for the data. In a world where people like to talk about their opinions, it's great to have some form of foundation. When I speak to folks and can talk about these details it often sways opinions on those who aren't at the extremes. I wish more people shared data and the foundation for their opinion.
    - 8note 5y ago
      What's missing is how many people you'd expect to have some myocarditis in absense of covid or the vaccine. I doubt that it would be 0/2M
Mikeb85 5y ago
> This article at least in text said you’re more at risk of getting it from Covid than the vaccine But the risk of getting COVID in any time period is less than 1 (based on % of population that has actually had it, possibly less than 0.1 or 10% per year), so it's worth waiting for the safest vaccine for certain groups.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  It obviously depends on your lifestyle, which is also why it should never be mandated. I call this the risk coefficient – it's different for everyone. Personally, I've effectively been self-isolating since January. Why should I get a shot now? Especially if it's going to wear off in 5 months?
  - azinman2 5y ago
    It don't wear off to 0, you're risk of hospitalization or death is far far far greater if you're unvaccinated (even with declining efficacy of catching it), the safety profiles are known to be great especially considering the hundreds of millions vaccinated, and unless you're very extreme you'll want to come out of the woods at some point.
- azinman2 5y ago
  44.1M verified cases in the out of 329.5M ~= 13%, and that's with verified cases, so it's likely much higher. My guess is younger people are even more likely to get it given their lifestyle is highly social at that age, and risk tolerance is similarly high. Given it's not slowing down, the likelihood of getting covid is actually quite high over time.
  - krona 5y ago
    As with transmissibility, the virulence is not constant over time.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Not to mention as time goes by, many other things are de-risked such as literally our understanding of vaccine side effects and proper mitigations, and new therapies.
robbedpeter 5y ago
27 out of a million, or 1 out of 37000. For some reason using "whole people" in statistics makes it seem a little more real to me, 2.7 of 100k seems too dry and remote.
justinpombrio 5y ago
Wow. I'm trying to do a sanity check on this study, and I'm not convinced they found anything but noise? They looked at 25 "averse events", and only half of them (12 of the 25) had higher prevalence with the vaccine than in the control group, which is what "no difference" looks like. The normal way you protect against this is by adjusting for the fact that you're doing multiple tests (one for each of the 25 adverse events), but "As is standard practice for studies of safety outcomes, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.". Am I missing something? Or to put it differently, if the vaccine puts you at risk for intracranial hemorrhages, does it also protect you against acute kidney injury (irrespective of Covid)? The difference is just as big in the other direction.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  I'm not sure any of the studies that measured it for any of the 3 main vaccines are distinguishable from noise. All the numbers that I managed to find weren't. I'm starting to think that we should redesign all the older vaccines to be more like those ones.

mfer 5y ago

The Israeli study was on Phizer. Finland is recommending people people not take Moderna and instead take the Phizer. Without a more detailed case behind this it feels like "just trust us". I'd really like some trust but verify. The lack of ability to verify many of these directions, especially with some of them from different organizations contradicting each other, is bothersome.

azinman2 5y ago
New study using Kaiser data with both Pfizer and Moderna all ages [1]. 15 cases out of 2,392,924 (0.8 cases per 1 million first doses and 5.8 cases per 1 million second doses over a 10-day observation window), of which all were men with a median age of 25 years. While that's both vaccines, it's still quite rare especially given the large population size (2.3M people), especially considering for under 16s your risk of myocarditis is 37x more likely if you get Covid [2]. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2784800 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... [2] https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-myocarditis-risk-children-083121 https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/08/31/covid-myocar...
- mfer 5y ago
  Thanks for the data. In a world where people like to talk about their opinions, it's great to have some form of foundation. When I speak to folks and can talk about these details it often sways opinions on those who aren't at the extremes. I wish more people shared data and the foundation for their opinion.
  - 8note 5y ago
    What's missing is how many people you'd expect to have some myocarditis in absense of covid or the vaccine. I doubt that it would be 0/2M

Mikeb85 5y ago

> This article at least in text said you’re more at risk of getting it from Covid than the vaccine But the risk of getting COVID in any time period is less than 1 (based on % of population that has actually had it, possibly less than 0.1 or 10% per year), so it's worth waiting for the safest vaccine for certain groups.

TechBro8615 5y ago
It obviously depends on your lifestyle, which is also why it should never be mandated. I call this the risk coefficient – it's different for everyone. Personally, I've effectively been self-isolating since January. Why should I get a shot now? Especially if it's going to wear off in 5 months?
- azinman2 5y ago
  It don't wear off to 0, you're risk of hospitalization or death is far far far greater if you're unvaccinated (even with declining efficacy of catching it), the safety profiles are known to be great especially considering the hundreds of millions vaccinated, and unless you're very extreme you'll want to come out of the woods at some point.
azinman2 5y ago
44.1M verified cases in the out of 329.5M ~= 13%, and that's with verified cases, so it's likely much higher. My guess is younger people are even more likely to get it given their lifestyle is highly social at that age, and risk tolerance is similarly high. Given it's not slowing down, the likelihood of getting covid is actually quite high over time.
- krona 5y ago
  As with transmissibility, the virulence is not constant over time.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Not to mention as time goes by, many other things are de-risked such as literally our understanding of vaccine side effects and proper mitigations, and new therapies.

robbedpeter 5y ago

27 out of a million, or 1 out of 37000. For some reason using "whole people" in statistics makes it seem a little more real to me, 2.7 of 100k seems too dry and remote.

justinpombrio 5y ago

Wow. I'm trying to do a sanity check on this study, and I'm not convinced they found anything but noise? They looked at 25 "averse events", and only half of them (12 of the 25) had higher prevalence with the vaccine than in the control group, which is what "no difference" looks like. The normal way you protect against this is by adjusting for the fact that you're doing multiple tests (one for each of the 25 adverse events), but "As is standard practice for studies of safety outcomes, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.". Am I missing something? Or to put it differently, if the vaccine puts you at risk for intracranial hemorrhages, does it also protect you against acute kidney injury (irrespective of Covid)? The difference is just as big in the other direction.

marcosdumay 5y ago
I'm not sure any of the studies that measured it for any of the 3 main vaccines are distinguishable from noise. All the numbers that I managed to find weren't. I'm starting to think that we should redesign all the older vaccines to be more like those ones.