5 ms·

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 benefic

by 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.
    - acchow 5y ago
      To make matters worse "Only 22.2% of obese women and 6.7% of obese men correctly classified themselves as obese" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234679/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234679/
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Except the risk is not 0 if you don't have comorbidities. People keep throwing this statement out as though somehow the risk of vaccination is higher then the risks due to viral infection. It is not. The risks of adverse reactions to COVID infection is reduced across the board if you are fully vaccinated regardless of your health status. Also worth noting: plenty of young people have comorbidities they don't know about yet, because they haven't found them. It is actually quite difficult to exclude yourself from the "has comorbidities" risk group apriori. A common one is in fact undiscovered heart conditions for people in their 30s, since they usually only become an issue later in life when symptoms are more likely to present.
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      I literally wrote, “If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.” If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >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 No, because you need to consider not just the odds of getting myocarditis from covid vs vaccine (Pc:Pv), but the bayesian probabilities of getting infected (Pi) or vaccinated (1) and then getting myocarditis, such that the full risk analysis would look more like Pi*Pc:Pv[1]. Point being when you are talking about vaccinating the entire population, you can easily end up in a position where there are more cases of heart inflammation from fully vaccinating the population than simply letting the virus run its course. I believe the term is relative risk reduction but don't quote me. 1. This isn't quite right, there should be a 1-x term or two in there somewhere to account for the probabilities of getting vaccinated/infected and not developing myocarditis, but its been a few years since my probability course...In any case the point still stands, that the vaccine may be less likely to cause heart inflammation does not imply that it would produce fewer cases overall if a sizeable proportion is vaccinated. To properly estimate that you need an accurate estimate for the myocarditis rate from both covid and vaccine, which I don't think anyone has.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    This is true and if it was flu kind of virus with very low reproduction number, it would be right but Delta variant has very high reproduction number and it is guaranteed to infect eventually almost everyone who is without immune response against it. There is also this fact that myocarditis has high prevalence among teenage boys (even CDC might underestimate it) and it looks like it is caused by some form of immune reaction and its occurrence is immune reaction size dependent (Moderna causes more myocarditis than Pfizer that causes more than AstraZeneca). It allows to postulate that it might be that the people who get myocarditis after vaccination have high risk of getting it after infection.
- bjourne 5y ago
  Even if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for society you cannot make that calculation. You cannot administer a vaccine to a healthy person just because it doesn't increase their risk of dying as much as it decreases someone else's risk of surviving. Young healthy men should not be coerced into accepting an elevated risk because getting to herd immunity or whatever might save old and at risk persons. For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Can't make what calculation? The one you just conceded I could make?
  - 8note 5y ago
    I don't think that's the right question or comparison. If this young person below 30 gets a side effect from the vaccine, is that side effect worse than what they'd get by having the virus? It should be clear that we aren't going to suppress or eradicate covid, so you shouldn't be comparing getting the vaccine or nothing happening, but getting covid with or without the vaccine
    - bjourne 5y ago
      It doesn't matter if the virus is worse than the vaccine since the vaccine is intentionally administered. Someone who is cautious might attempt to avoid the virus altogether thus their risk might be much lower than the average. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Covid won't mutate so that you will have to refill your vaccination every year to stay immune like with vaccines against the flu. If so, mass vaccinations probably won't be employed again and we'll only vaccinate at risk groups.
      - nojokes 5y ago
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.

by nabla9 5y ago

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.
  - acchow 5y ago
    To make matters worse "Only 22.2% of obese women and 6.7% of obese men correctly classified themselves as obese" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234679/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234679/
- XorNot 5y ago
  Except the risk is not 0 if you don't have comorbidities. People keep throwing this statement out as though somehow the risk of vaccination is higher then the risks due to viral infection. It is not. The risks of adverse reactions to COVID infection is reduced across the board if you are fully vaccinated regardless of your health status. Also worth noting: plenty of young people have comorbidities they don't know about yet, because they haven't found them. It is actually quite difficult to exclude yourself from the "has comorbidities" risk group apriori. A common one is in fact undiscovered heart conditions for people in their 30s, since they usually only become an issue later in life when symptoms are more likely to present.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    I literally wrote, “If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.” If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.
twofornone 5y ago
>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 No, because you need to consider not just the odds of getting myocarditis from covid vs vaccine (Pc:Pv), but the bayesian probabilities of getting infected (Pi) or vaccinated (1) and then getting myocarditis, such that the full risk analysis would look more like Pi*Pc:Pv[1]. Point being when you are talking about vaccinating the entire population, you can easily end up in a position where there are more cases of heart inflammation from fully vaccinating the population than simply letting the virus run its course. I believe the term is relative risk reduction but don't quote me. 1. This isn't quite right, there should be a 1-x term or two in there somewhere to account for the probabilities of getting vaccinated/infected and not developing myocarditis, but its been a few years since my probability course...In any case the point still stands, that the vaccine may be less likely to cause heart inflammation does not imply that it would produce fewer cases overall if a sizeable proportion is vaccinated. To properly estimate that you need an accurate estimate for the myocarditis rate from both covid and vaccine, which I don't think anyone has.
- nojokes 5y ago
  This is true and if it was flu kind of virus with very low reproduction number, it would be right but Delta variant has very high reproduction number and it is guaranteed to infect eventually almost everyone who is without immune response against it. There is also this fact that myocarditis has high prevalence among teenage boys (even CDC might underestimate it) and it looks like it is caused by some form of immune reaction and its occurrence is immune reaction size dependent (Moderna causes more myocarditis than Pfizer that causes more than AstraZeneca). It allows to postulate that it might be that the people who get myocarditis after vaccination have high risk of getting it after infection.
bjourne 5y ago
Even if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for society you cannot make that calculation. You cannot administer a vaccine to a healthy person just because it doesn't increase their risk of dying as much as it decreases someone else's risk of surviving. Young healthy men should not be coerced into accepting an elevated risk because getting to herd immunity or whatever might save old and at risk persons. For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Can't make what calculation? The one you just conceded I could make?
- 8note 5y ago
  I don't think that's the right question or comparison. If this young person below 30 gets a side effect from the vaccine, is that side effect worse than what they'd get by having the virus? It should be clear that we aren't going to suppress or eradicate covid, so you shouldn't be comparing getting the vaccine or nothing happening, but getting covid with or without the vaccine
  - bjourne 5y ago
    It doesn't matter if the virus is worse than the vaccine since the vaccine is intentionally administered. Someone who is cautious might attempt to avoid the virus altogether thus their risk might be much lower than the average. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Covid won't mutate so that you will have to refill your vaccination every year to stay immune like with vaccines against the flu. If so, mass vaccinations probably won't be employed again and we'll only vaccinate at risk groups.
    - nojokes 5y ago

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.