10 ms·

https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/thl-monitoring-myocarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-are-rare-in-finland-and-also-occur-in-those-infected-with-covid-19 https:

https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/thl-monitoring-myocarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-are-rare-in-finland-and-also-occur-in-those-infected-with-covid-19 https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/thl-monitoring-myocarditis-... According to Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, an additional 4 cases per 100k men under the age of 30. They also note that having covid is a risk factor for myocarditis. So perhaps still worth it to take the shot. Possibly they are doing this to put out the antivax wildfires in social media by reacting to statistical information about risks. So as to show that when there are scientifically established risks, there will be reaction to that as well.

nabla9 5y ago
It seems like if you take everything into account, taking the vaccine might not provide any benefit from men under 30. Any medical intervention must be beneficial to justify the use. If it's so and so, or equal risk, then it's not done. EDIT: The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
- neuronexmachina 5y ago
  Based on the data in the study linked below, the risk for myocarditis among COVID-19 patients is 0.146%, and 0.009% among people without COVID-19 (study was done pre-vaccine). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm > During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009% among patients without COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, the risk for myocarditis was higher among males (0.187%) than among females (0.109%) and was highest among adults aged ≥75 years (0.238%), 65–74 years (0.186%), and 50–64 years (0.155%) and among children aged <16 years (0.133%).
  - nabla9 5y ago
    The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The number of C19 fatalities under 30 in the US appears to easily exceed the number of vaccine-related myocarditis cases. The overwhelming majority of those myocarditis cases followed a benign course. Later Another thing to consider is that the myocarditis rate from C19 itself may exceed that of the vaccine, which would basically refute the argument against vaccination. (By all means, pick vaccines strategically.)
  - nabla9 5y ago
    It's not necessarily the same here in the Nordics. The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
  - zosima 5y ago
    But the vast majority of covid fatalities under 30, would be in people with comorbidities. You could easily argue for vaccinating everyone with comorbidities <30, without arguing for vaccinating everyone. Also, even in apparently benign myocarditis, there may be heart damage which will not become apparent for many years.
    - nabla9 5y ago
      Vaccinations are not stopping. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    That number for under 30’s is full of people who are extremely fat or otherwise have preexisting health problems. If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.
    - pixl97 5y ago
      40% of Americans are obese. States with the highest level of obesity also have the lowest rate of vaccination. An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
- bserge 5y ago
  I mean, yeah. If vaccines don't protect against virus spread... Fuck it, let people decide. Either take a vaccine or risk getting Covid in the wild. Just make it so you can't use a hospital bed in that case. It's only fair to people who are actually forced to go to the hospital, as opposed to gambling for it.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Vaccines do protect against spread though. Not perfectly mind you, but the effect is still significant if a significant portion of the population is vaccinated.
  - curmudgeon22 5y ago
    Should smokers be denied medical treatment related to that choice too?
    - tartoran 5y ago
      If they overwhelmed the medical system to the detriment of others then yes. And this is coming from an ex smoker who knew it was bad for you when begun smoking. Now this is slightly different for other age groups that started their habit when the tobacco industry were paying doctors to promote smoking.
      - manwe150 5y ago
        Fortunately, I don’t know anyone addicted to getting the vaccine daily, so the proposed choice is nonsensical.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Smokers are routinely denied organ transplants if they refuse to quit. Same thing for alcohol. "Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing." https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/ https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
    - 5y ago
- djbebs 5y ago
  It never did.
tessierashpool 5y ago
Yeah, the anti-vax hockey player Josh Archibald recently caught COVID and developed myocarditis as a consequence. It's among the known sequelae. Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine. (One of many many sources: https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521 https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521)
- angelzen 5y ago
  Tangent note: I wonder if this tweet illustrates yet another way Twitter is driving us crazy. > Please, get vaccinated. > I will respect your decision, but I would also like to have you on the team the next 3 seasons. Here is the data, consider getting a vaccine.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data. 1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis? 2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as such? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people complaining about all manner of possible vaccine reactions to completely dismissive doctors, and filling out a VAERS report is time consuming and already overwhelmed medical practitioners are unlikely to spend 30+ minutes on a report. 3. Does vaccine (or covid) induced myocarditis have long term consequences, even if asymptomatic or mild? I've read repeatedly that myocarditis of any severity represents some degree of permanent damage but have not been able to conclusively verify this statement. 4. Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain tens (hundreds?) of billions from vaccines+boosters, when we know that these same companies have been repeatedly sued in the past for dangerous/defective medications (and vaccines) as well as deliberately sociopathic business practices? We are talking about a massive conflict of interest from parties which have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in the past. And then with respect to VAERS self reporting, the average person has been convinced that the vaccine is safe and is not likely to connect strange symptoms weeks after vaccination with the vaccine, if they even know about VAERS or the European equivalent. There's far too much uncertainty in the positive data to support such a rigid social orthodoxy around expression of negative sentiment toward the vaccine.
CRConrad 5y ago
> They also note that having covid is a risk factor for myocarditis. So perhaps still worth it to take the shot. No: Absolutely not worth it to take that particular shot, as there are others available which don't have that side effect.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  The data I've seen seems to show that the Moderna vaccine is the best of them in terms of long-term efficacy against breakthrough infection and hospitalization. I got Pfizer, and honestly I wish I would've had Moderna regardless of some very slim chances of myocarditis. My increased chances of getting a breakthrough infection on the Pfizer vaccine outweigh my chances of getting myocarditis on Moderna.
- phnofive 5y ago
  Viral myocarditis is serious but not life threatening and self-resolves in less than a year; the vaccine-induced cases are even more mild than that.
- 8note 5y ago
  Is it likely that if both the vaccine and the virus cause it, that the symptom could be related to the spike protein itself? In that case, I'd expect all of the vaccines to have a similar risk, and it's only been spotted in one so far
  - nojokes 5y ago
    It has been clearly spotted in 2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna). There is limited information about vector based vaccines. It is fairly clear that adverse effect is dose dependent and it may be the reason why we do not see that many with vector vaccines - immune system creates some immunity against the vector virus and actual amount of vaccine entering cells is limited. It is also evident from the limited immune response from vector vaccines.
- amluto 5y ago
  The best available data suggests that _that_ particular shot is rather more effective after a few months than its competitors.
bawolff 5y ago
I think the reasoning is, they have two vaccines, one that in rare cases causes this one that doesn't. Even if the liklihood of the side effect is very low and the severity is also pretty low (its generally not life threatening or anything), if you have two vaccines, one that causes the side effect and one that doesn't, why would you use the one that does, regardless of how insignificant the risk is in absolute terms. The comparison isn't moderna vs no vaccine (in which case moderna would win the risk trade-off). The comparison is moderna vs pfizer.

nabla9 5y ago

It seems like if you take everything into account, taking the vaccine might not provide any benefit from men under 30. Any medical intervention must be beneficial to justify the use. If it's so and so, or equal risk, then it's not done. EDIT: The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.

neuronexmachina 5y ago
Based on the data in the study linked below, the risk for myocarditis among COVID-19 patients is 0.146%, and 0.009% among people without COVID-19 (study was done pre-vaccine). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm > During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009% among patients without COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, the risk for myocarditis was higher among males (0.187%) than among females (0.109%) and was highest among adults aged ≥75 years (0.238%), 65–74 years (0.186%), and 50–64 years (0.155%) and among children aged <16 years (0.133%).
- nabla9 5y ago
  The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
tptacek 5y ago
The number of C19 fatalities under 30 in the US appears to easily exceed the number of vaccine-related myocarditis cases. The overwhelming majority of those myocarditis cases followed a benign course. Later Another thing to consider is that the myocarditis rate from C19 itself may exceed that of the vaccine, which would basically refute the argument against vaccination. (By all means, pick vaccines strategically.)
- nabla9 5y ago
  It's not necessarily the same here in the Nordics. The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
- zosima 5y ago
  But the vast majority of covid fatalities under 30, would be in people with comorbidities. You could easily argue for vaccinating everyone with comorbidities <30, without arguing for vaccinating everyone. Also, even in apparently benign myocarditis, there may be heart damage which will not become apparent for many years.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Vaccinations are not stopping. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  That number for under 30’s is full of people who are extremely fat or otherwise have preexisting health problems. If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    40% of Americans are obese. States with the highest level of obesity also have the lowest rate of vaccination. An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
bserge 5y ago
I mean, yeah. If vaccines don't protect against virus spread... Fuck it, let people decide. Either take a vaccine or risk getting Covid in the wild. Just make it so you can't use a hospital bed in that case. It's only fair to people who are actually forced to go to the hospital, as opposed to gambling for it.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Vaccines do protect against spread though. Not perfectly mind you, but the effect is still significant if a significant portion of the population is vaccinated.
- curmudgeon22 5y ago
  Should smokers be denied medical treatment related to that choice too?
  - tartoran 5y ago
    If they overwhelmed the medical system to the detriment of others then yes. And this is coming from an ex smoker who knew it was bad for you when begun smoking. Now this is slightly different for other age groups that started their habit when the tobacco industry were paying doctors to promote smoking.
    - manwe150 5y ago
      Fortunately, I don’t know anyone addicted to getting the vaccine daily, so the proposed choice is nonsensical.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Smokers are routinely denied organ transplants if they refuse to quit. Same thing for alcohol. "Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing." https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/ https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
  - 5y ago
djbebs 5y ago
It never did.

tessierashpool 5y ago

Yeah, the anti-vax hockey player Josh Archibald recently caught COVID and developed myocarditis as a consequence. It's among the known sequelae. Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine. (One of many many sources: https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521 https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521)

angelzen 5y ago
Tangent note: I wonder if this tweet illustrates yet another way Twitter is driving us crazy. > Please, get vaccinated. > I will respect your decision, but I would also like to have you on the team the next 3 seasons. Here is the data, consider getting a vaccine.
twofornone 5y ago
>Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data. 1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis? 2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as such? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people complaining about all manner of possible vaccine reactions to completely dismissive doctors, and filling out a VAERS report is time consuming and already overwhelmed medical practitioners are unlikely to spend 30+ minutes on a report. 3. Does vaccine (or covid) induced myocarditis have long term consequences, even if asymptomatic or mild? I've read repeatedly that myocarditis of any severity represents some degree of permanent damage but have not been able to conclusively verify this statement. 4. Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain tens (hundreds?) of billions from vaccines+boosters, when we know that these same companies have been repeatedly sued in the past for dangerous/defective medications (and vaccines) as well as deliberately sociopathic business practices? We are talking about a massive conflict of interest from parties which have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in the past. And then with respect to VAERS self reporting, the average person has been convinced that the vaccine is safe and is not likely to connect strange symptoms weeks after vaccination with the vaccine, if they even know about VAERS or the European equivalent. There's far too much uncertainty in the positive data to support such a rigid social orthodoxy around expression of negative sentiment toward the vaccine.

CRConrad 5y ago

> They also note that having covid is a risk factor for myocarditis. So perhaps still worth it to take the shot. No: Absolutely not worth it to take that particular shot, as there are others available which don't have that side effect.

mullingitover 5y ago
The data I've seen seems to show that the Moderna vaccine is the best of them in terms of long-term efficacy against breakthrough infection and hospitalization. I got Pfizer, and honestly I wish I would've had Moderna regardless of some very slim chances of myocarditis. My increased chances of getting a breakthrough infection on the Pfizer vaccine outweigh my chances of getting myocarditis on Moderna.
phnofive 5y ago
Viral myocarditis is serious but not life threatening and self-resolves in less than a year; the vaccine-induced cases are even more mild than that.
8note 5y ago
Is it likely that if both the vaccine and the virus cause it, that the symptom could be related to the spike protein itself? In that case, I'd expect all of the vaccines to have a similar risk, and it's only been spotted in one so far
- nojokes 5y ago
  It has been clearly spotted in 2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna). There is limited information about vector based vaccines. It is fairly clear that adverse effect is dose dependent and it may be the reason why we do not see that many with vector vaccines - immune system creates some immunity against the vector virus and actual amount of vaccine entering cells is limited. It is also evident from the limited immune response from vector vaccines.
amluto 5y ago
The best available data suggests that _that_ particular shot is rather more effective after a few months than its competitors.

bawolff 5y ago

I think the reasoning is, they have two vaccines, one that in rare cases causes this one that doesn't. Even if the liklihood of the side effect is very low and the severity is also pretty low (its generally not life threatening or anything), if you have two vaccines, one that causes the side effect and one that doesn't, why would you use the one that does, regardless of how insignificant the risk is in absolute terms. The comparison isn't moderna vs no vaccine (in which case moderna would win the risk trade-off). The comparison is moderna vs pfizer.