11 ms·

This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from

This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. It reads: > Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. This guy made a graph of their data, which makes it a little more clear: https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1475145220618526729 https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1475145220618526729

busymom0 5y ago
That graph in that tweet is included in the study's PDF. It's the very last page of the PDF and has more graphs too. I wish the study's age group was more specific (the authors admit they don't have enough data for the 13-17 age group to make it more specific). Aka, I would like to see 10 year age group intervals. From other studies, the risks is highest in 16-24 if I remember right? There's a study out of Public Health Ontario, ON, Canada which compares the risks depending upon the intervals between first and second dose. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...
jMyles 5y ago
> This guy made a graph of their data, which makes it a little more clear: As another commenter as has pointed out, the graph in question in included in the PDF version of this preprint (which you can see here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full.pdf+html https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...). I want to add: "this guy" is Vinay Prasad, a professor of oncology at UCSF and an incredibly prescient thinker through the COVID-19 pandemic, and someone with whome I've had the joy to correspond and repeatedly be impressed by his straightforward, evidence-based, dry-witty way of thinking, writing, and speaking. He's a significant up-and-come in medical science, without a doubt, and someone to follow if you are interested in science-based policy. We had the pleasure of hosting an AMA with him on /r/lockdownskepticism which you may find enjoyable and educational: https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/m0ll33/hi_im_vinay_prasad_from_the_university_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/m0ll33/...
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    There is a definite overlap in people skeptical of lockdowns and the vaccines, but the sub tries to steer clear of vaccine skepticism due to it being technically off topic, and something that would get the sub nuked. Not that you asked me- I would classify it as "different" than the flu, that it affects different individuals differently, and that the original variant was definitely something more scary than the flu. Especially due to the novelty of the spike protein. Now- I view omicron as about as dangerous as the flu for a much smaller subset of people than the flu is dangerous for. Especially when you account for age and comorbidities. The flu kills children, while covid generally does not.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      - yonaguska 5y ago
        > given the rate of deaths are 10-20x worse than the worst flu years. I have a hard time accepting this premise. Mostly because the flu was somehow eradicated at the outset of mass covid testing, many of the covid tests did not distinguish between the flu and covid. Furthermore, I believe that we actually responded to covid in a way that caused excess covid deaths by over counting deaths and actively suppressing unpatentable treatments for covid. I think we hospitalized people that didn't need to be hospitalized, and we told people not to do anything until they needed to be hospitalized. We then started putting too many people on vents, giving them Remdesiver(toxic with highly questionable efficacy), and putting covid patients in nursing homes with the most vulnerable population. Not to mention lockdowns that pushed a huge portion of the world into poverty, nutritional deficiency, and much more susceptible to adverse effects from disease as a result. But those are just my thoughts- I don't think we have good enough data, nor will we ever- to actually make strong conclusions either way.
ozdave 5y ago
Thanks for the explanation. > argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID The way I read this is the risk of myocarditis is greater with vaccination, but this does not tell me about the overall risk of serious illness/death from Covid for vaxed VS unvaxed. So - risk of myocarditis goes up - but is it still overall safer to be vaccinated for the under 40 males, or not? Not pushing any angle or side here - just looking for clarity (as much as possible).
- mrhands556 5y ago
  IFR for males under 40 is 500/1000000 or .05% if they’re infected. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That's a horribly misleading comparison. Compare the risk of illness with severity similar to heart complications, or compare death rates. Don't compare one to the other. The majority of myocarditis cases due to the vaccine don't even require hospitalization.
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      Source? One friend with this exact issue was never hospitalized, was told that it couldn't possibly be due the vaccine, but ended up with several visits to a cardiologist and now had to deal with the long term effects. So no- there was no hospitalization. Technically. And they will never show up in any data set either. Because we aren't even tracking this stuff correctly in the USA.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Yes, your friend had no hospitalization. We don't count people who see a doctor a few times and have long term side-effects as hospitalized from COVID, so in an apples-to-apples comparison the example of your friend should not go into that column. Here is the source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737: > A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock (Out of 100 cases)
coolso 5y ago
> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (which I ended up not experiencing, by the way, that I know of - and I got two shots of Moderna which I specifically chose because it has more antibodies) a slew of people would show up to admonish, bring up the typical "anti-vaxxer!" arguments, and state that the risk of getting it from COVID was far far greater. I recall every media article on the subject stating the same thing. So where were these people and the media getting their information from, or were they just making it up? And if the latter is the case, it's when people and the media do things like this that people either begin to distrust science more, or use it as another example of why science shouldn't be treated like religion and how the media and people picks and chooses which scientific information to share with the public to fit the narrative they're pushing. It's just sad all around.
- roenxi 5y ago
  They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small. But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't especially motivated by evidence. Actual scientists will usually be circumspect until the evidence is overwhelming.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    > They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small. There was a study of Canadian data (Ontario) recently as well which interestingly showed large differences depending on the combo (Pfizer/Pfizer, Pfizer/Moderna, Moderna/Moderna, Moderna/Pfizer) of 1st and 2nd shot: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...
nojokes 5y ago
This preprint is actually a companion paper to their already published paper in Nature where they do not stratify by age and sex together. In principle this is bad because we know already very well that it affects more young men. I think they made the situation even worse by stratifying only for myocarditis and not for pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias that according to their paper are much more likely with COVID-19 because it did not register at all for vaccines. This means that people are now getting a very wrong/incomplete picture of the risk benefit relationship. Naturally cardiac issues are not the only possible problems because COVID-19 is systemic disease that can affect many organs and can cause a lot of trouble even without hospitalization.
scotty79 5y ago
I've seen similar research about the risk of miocarditis. They compared people after vaccination to themselves before vaccination and calculated the increase. My concern is that after vaccination people changed their behavior exposing themselves more to humans and all the viruses and bacteria capable of infecting humans most of which were never researched for their effect on rusk of miocarditis. This additional risk in this particular age group and gender might be because they (possibly) changed their social behavior the most after they got vaccinated.

busymom0 5y ago

That graph in that tweet is included in the study's PDF. It's the very last page of the PDF and has more graphs too. I wish the study's age group was more specific (the authors admit they don't have enough data for the 13-17 age group to make it more specific). Aka, I would like to see 10 year age group intervals. From other studies, the risks is highest in 16-24 if I remember right? There's a study out of Public Health Ontario, ON, Canada which compares the risks depending upon the intervals between first and second dose. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...

jMyles 5y ago

> This guy made a graph of their data, which makes it a little more clear: As another commenter as has pointed out, the graph in question in included in the PDF version of this preprint (which you can see here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full.pdf+html https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...). I want to add: "this guy" is Vinay Prasad, a professor of oncology at UCSF and an incredibly prescient thinker through the COVID-19 pandemic, and someone with whome I've had the joy to correspond and repeatedly be impressed by his straightforward, evidence-based, dry-witty way of thinking, writing, and speaking. He's a significant up-and-come in medical science, without a doubt, and someone to follow if you are interested in science-based policy. We had the pleasure of hosting an AMA with him on /r/lockdownskepticism which you may find enjoyable and educational: https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/m0ll33/hi_im_vinay_prasad_from_the_university_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/m0ll33/...

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? And do you think covid is worse than or same as the flu?
- yonaguska 5y ago
  There is a definite overlap in people skeptical of lockdowns and the vaccines, but the sub tries to steer clear of vaccine skepticism due to it being technically off topic, and something that would get the sub nuked. Not that you asked me- I would classify it as "different" than the flu, that it affects different individuals differently, and that the original variant was definitely something more scary than the flu. Especially due to the novelty of the spike protein. Now- I view omicron as about as dangerous as the flu for a much smaller subset of people than the flu is dangerous for. Especially when you account for age and comorbidities. The flu kills children, while covid generally does not.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      > given the rate of deaths are 10-20x worse than the worst flu years. I have a hard time accepting this premise. Mostly because the flu was somehow eradicated at the outset of mass covid testing, many of the covid tests did not distinguish between the flu and covid. Furthermore, I believe that we actually responded to covid in a way that caused excess covid deaths by over counting deaths and actively suppressing unpatentable treatments for covid. I think we hospitalized people that didn't need to be hospitalized, and we told people not to do anything until they needed to be hospitalized. We then started putting too many people on vents, giving them Remdesiver(toxic with highly questionable efficacy), and putting covid patients in nursing homes with the most vulnerable population. Not to mention lockdowns that pushed a huge portion of the world into poverty, nutritional deficiency, and much more susceptible to adverse effects from disease as a result. But those are just my thoughts- I don't think we have good enough data, nor will we ever- to actually make strong conclusions either way.

ozdave 5y ago

Thanks for the explanation. > argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID The way I read this is the risk of myocarditis is greater with vaccination, but this does not tell me about the overall risk of serious illness/death from Covid for vaxed VS unvaxed. So - risk of myocarditis goes up - but is it still overall safer to be vaccinated for the under 40 males, or not? Not pushing any angle or side here - just looking for clarity (as much as possible).

mrhands556 5y ago
IFR for males under 40 is 500/1000000 or .05% if they’re infected. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That's a horribly misleading comparison. Compare the risk of illness with severity similar to heart complications, or compare death rates. Don't compare one to the other. The majority of myocarditis cases due to the vaccine don't even require hospitalization.
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Source? One friend with this exact issue was never hospitalized, was told that it couldn't possibly be due the vaccine, but ended up with several visits to a cardiologist and now had to deal with the long term effects. So no- there was no hospitalization. Technically. And they will never show up in any data set either. Because we aren't even tracking this stuff correctly in the USA.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Yes, your friend had no hospitalization. We don't count people who see a doctor a few times and have long term side-effects as hospitalized from COVID, so in an apples-to-apples comparison the example of your friend should not go into that column. Here is the source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737: > A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock (Out of 100 cases)

coolso 5y ago

> This paper essentially argues that the risk of myocarditis in under-40 males getting 2 shots is greater (perhaps much greater) than the risk of getting it from COVID. There have been similar studies before, but none (that I saw) broken down by age and sex like this. This is especially fascinating to me because for months I noticed that whenever I or anyone else would bring up the fear of myocarditis from the vax (which I ended up not experiencing, by the way, that I know of - and I got two shots of Moderna which I specifically chose because it has more antibodies) a slew of people would show up to admonish, bring up the typical "anti-vaxxer!" arguments, and state that the risk of getting it from COVID was far far greater. I recall every media article on the subject stating the same thing. So where were these people and the media getting their information from, or were they just making it up? And if the latter is the case, it's when people and the media do things like this that people either begin to distrust science more, or use it as another example of why science shouldn't be treated like religion and how the media and people picks and chooses which scientific information to share with the public to fit the narrative they're pushing. It's just sad all around.

roenxi 5y ago
They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small. But if they are wrong, the most likely explanation is they misunderstood something and were just wrong. Ironically, as is well known but bears repeating, the vocal "follow the science" types tend more to be believers in authority figures than people who care what science says. They aren't especially motivated by evidence. Actual scientists will usually be circumspect until the evidence is overwhelming.
- spurgu 5y ago
  > They might still be right; this is only a pre-print, only focused on one specific aspect of COVID and the effect size is small. There was a study of Canadian data (Ontario) recently as well which interestingly showed large differences depending on the combo (Pfizer/Pfizer, Pfizer/Moderna, Moderna/Moderna, Moderna/Pfizer) of 1st and 2nd shot: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v...

nojokes 5y ago

This preprint is actually a companion paper to their already published paper in Nature where they do not stratify by age and sex together. In principle this is bad because we know already very well that it affects more young men. I think they made the situation even worse by stratifying only for myocarditis and not for pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias that according to their paper are much more likely with COVID-19 because it did not register at all for vaccines. This means that people are now getting a very wrong/incomplete picture of the risk benefit relationship. Naturally cardiac issues are not the only possible problems because COVID-19 is systemic disease that can affect many organs and can cause a lot of trouble even without hospitalization.

scotty79 5y ago

I've seen similar research about the risk of miocarditis. They compared people after vaccination to themselves before vaccination and calculated the increase. My concern is that after vaccination people changed their behavior exposing themselves more to humans and all the viruses and bacteria capable of infecting humans most of which were never researched for their effect on rusk of miocarditis. This additional risk in this particular age group and gender might be because they (possibly) changed their social behavior the most after they got vaccinated.