3 ms·

This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine So th

This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine So the statement that COVID has a higher risk of myocarditis is still true. The media and those people got their information from existing data. This data was correct for the original question. However it wasn't delineated by age and by vaccine, and it's only after that you can make another argument. So yes, the media was right, not the antivaxxers. There is no shenanigans. Unless you have a source that predates this paper saying that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis specifically for men under 40 that happens to be antivaxx for completely unrelated reasons as myocarditis risk from the vaccine is much lesser than the overall risk from COVID for any demographic.

robhunter 5y ago
Ontario was reporting age/sex-delineated data to this effect as early as the summer - all while the media and public health officials were advising Ontarians (including < 40 yr old males) to "take the first vaccine you're offered."
darkerside 5y ago
So, he just wasn't right yet? ...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Did he qualify the statement or make it in general? If he didn't qualify it, he is simply incorrect. Additionally, if he suggested that for any demographic the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID, even if he mentioned that it was only for one demographic and only for one vaccine, he was wrong and remains wrong.
ODILON_SATER 5y ago
I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated with the vaccines would not be fully revealed in time. I believe the right move would've been to let people decide, especially after became clear that vaccination did not protect against infection in the medium run with Israel data being abundantly clear already in late spring of this year. I still believe vaccination rates amongst the old would have been extremely high, protecting those who are at-risk the most. I saw this happening in countries like Brazil, old people rushed to take the jab despite no clear mandates in the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign --although a lot of people got the Sinovac which are not as effective as Pfizer or Moderna. > This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg. Also, the bit about Males only. Pretty sure if you stratified the population even further, you'd find that young females are also at a significantly higher risk of myocarditis for vax vs post covid. As some mentioned here, it would be nice if the age intervals were a bit more stratified.
- javagram 5y ago
  > I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination Unlikely because the most of the same people chose not to get vaccinated themselves well before any mandates or requirements came into force, and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post. This indicates that they weren't just opposed to forced vaccination, but opposed to this vaccination in particular. It was quite rare to see someone post something along the lines of <<Everyone should get vaccinated, and you are in more danger from COVID-19 if you don't get vaccinated than from side effects if you do. However, I am opposed only to forcing the vaccine on you. Please get vaccinated yourself instead!>>
  - ODILON_SATER 5y ago
    I have seen many people arguing for the vaccines as an effective treatment whilst defending people's choice to refuse the vaccine. Though I got vaccinated, I was surely forced to do so else I would've lost my job, but I delayed as much as I could. However, I was very clear to advise my parents (in their late 60s) to be the first in lie to take the vaccine because I knew the risks associated with COVID far outweighed any risk associated with the vaccine. And I know of many people with similar views, though they apply to a different age group, like many parents not wanting to vaccinate their children because they understand how rare of a event is death from covid for a healthy kid.
  - coolso 5y ago
    > and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post. As did many news media organizations - only up until the election, that is. [0] Then everyone was a conspiracy theorist immediately after. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  People were labelled anti-vaxxers because they were opposed to forced vaccination? I can't say that this is a sentiment that's new to me. The Israel data clearly showed that the vaccine was protective against infection in the medium term. Just not as much as originally. >A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg. We actually don't know that. We see from this data that you can have myocarditis without the usual symptoms of a strong immune reaction. For all we know, there could have been a hundred thousand cases of myocarditis from COVID that didn't come with associated COVID symptoms and resolved themselves, going without any diagnosis. Actually, we generally don't even know the real rate of myocarditis in the general population. It's relatively common that someone is admitted to the hospital for another symptom and myocarditis is diagnosed, without the patient even noticing. As for females, for any age, there is zero statistically significant result for myocarditis included to the vaccine, at all. So for all we know, the vaccine may cause zero myocarditis in females. It's almost certain that further stratification would help. The reason why there was not anymore stratification is because myocarditis due to the vaccine is so rare that if you do stratify it, you cannot come to any conclusion. It's possible that there is a misestimation of the background risk. However, given that most cases of myocarditis are mild, the vast majority of myocarditis cases without a positive COVID test almost certainly went undiagnosed, so this is a fair comparison. Cases that have been diagnosed can also be misatributed to background risk, if there are no other covid symptoms and thus no covid test is administered.
3maj 5y ago
Government of Ontario (Province in Canada) published data months ago showing that young men were at higher risk from heart issues. Nobody cared and the all the local and federal news outlets refused to report on the numbers.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Link? I saw that data back then, and the number were lower than this preprint and lower than COVID, IIRC.
  - robhunter 5y ago
    Here's a thread from September summarizing some of the available data at the time: https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels/status/1443335179012038656 https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels/status/1443335179012038656 It includes a screenshot from this report, which is now updated through to December: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ep...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Right, so the rate is 200 cases per million vaccinations. The COVID rates are 450 cases per million vaccination. So I did remember correctly, and it was indeed lower than infection, presumably because it wasn't delineated by vaccine, also IIRC Moderna is contra-indicated for young men in Ontario.
coolso 5y ago
> So the statement that COVID has a higher risk of myocarditis is still true. Yes but it's misleading, and whether or not you want to argue it's deliberately so, is another debate. Are men under 40 who are considering Moderna (or don't even know what vax they're going to get since both are considered fairly equal) not worthy of being informed that their risk of myocarditis is actually potentially higher than if they got COVID? That doesn't make much sense to me, if it does to you then at what threshold would they be worthy of being informed that the blanket statement that's been being thrown around, doesn't actually apply to them? I seem to recall most people arguing that "COVID isn't actually that bad" not having an acceptable argument because while it's true for many people, for other groups of people, COVID actually is bad...

robhunter 5y ago

Ontario was reporting age/sex-delineated data to this effect as early as the summer - all while the media and public health officials were advising Ontarians (including < 40 yr old males) to "take the first vaccine you're offered."

darkerside 5y ago

So, he just wasn't right yet? ...

sudosysgen 5y ago
Did he qualify the statement or make it in general? If he didn't qualify it, he is simply incorrect. Additionally, if he suggested that for any demographic the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID, even if he mentioned that it was only for one demographic and only for one vaccine, he was wrong and remains wrong.

ODILON_SATER 5y ago

I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination --not the efficacy of the vaccine itself, based on the argument that risk of death from covid was relatively very low for healthy adults and children. And given the time constrains for the vaccine production and trials, it would have been prudent to assume that the side effects associated with the vaccines would not be fully revealed in time. I believe the right move would've been to let people decide, especially after became clear that vaccination did not protect against infection in the medium run with Israel data being abundantly clear already in late spring of this year. I still believe vaccination rates amongst the old would have been extremely high, protecting those who are at-risk the most. I saw this happening in countries like Brazil, old people rushed to take the jab despite no clear mandates in the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign --although a lot of people got the Sinovac which are not as effective as Pfizer or Moderna. > This preprint agrees that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher, except if you are a. A male b. Under 40 years old c. Took the Moderna vaccine A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg. Also, the bit about Males only. Pretty sure if you stratified the population even further, you'd find that young females are also at a significantly higher risk of myocarditis for vax vs post covid. As some mentioned here, it would be nice if the age intervals were a bit more stratified.

javagram 5y ago
> I don't know. I feel that many people got unfairly labelled as "anti-vaxxer" because they simply opposed to forced vaccination Unlikely because the most of the same people chose not to get vaccinated themselves well before any mandates or requirements came into force, and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post. This indicates that they weren't just opposed to forced vaccination, but opposed to this vaccination in particular. It was quite rare to see someone post something along the lines of <<Everyone should get vaccinated, and you are in more danger from COVID-19 if you don't get vaccinated than from side effects if you do. However, I am opposed only to forcing the vaccine on you. Please get vaccinated yourself instead!>>
- ODILON_SATER 5y ago
  I have seen many people arguing for the vaccines as an effective treatment whilst defending people's choice to refuse the vaccine. Though I got vaccinated, I was surely forced to do so else I would've lost my job, but I delayed as much as I could. However, I was very clear to advise my parents (in their late 60s) to be the first in lie to take the vaccine because I knew the risks associated with COVID far outweighed any risk associated with the vaccine. And I know of many people with similar views, though they apply to a different age group, like many parents not wanting to vaccinate their children because they understand how rare of a event is death from covid for a healthy kid.
- coolso 5y ago
  > and were posting arguments online warning people not to get the vaccine or that it hadn't been sufficiently tested - as you yourself do in this post. As did many news media organizations - only up until the election, that is. [0] Then everyone was a conspiracy theorist immediately after. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...
sudosysgen 5y ago
People were labelled anti-vaxxers because they were opposed to forced vaccination? I can't say that this is a sentiment that's new to me. The Israel data clearly showed that the vaccine was protective against infection in the medium term. Just not as much as originally. >A few things to consider, the paper's calculated myocarditis risk post covid is overestimated as it is impossible to know how many people actually caught the virus. It is reasonable to assume that the actual delta (risk myocarditis post vax vs risk myocarditis post covid) is actually larger, I believe this is just the tip of the icerberg. We actually don't know that. We see from this data that you can have myocarditis without the usual symptoms of a strong immune reaction. For all we know, there could have been a hundred thousand cases of myocarditis from COVID that didn't come with associated COVID symptoms and resolved themselves, going without any diagnosis. Actually, we generally don't even know the real rate of myocarditis in the general population. It's relatively common that someone is admitted to the hospital for another symptom and myocarditis is diagnosed, without the patient even noticing. As for females, for any age, there is zero statistically significant result for myocarditis included to the vaccine, at all. So for all we know, the vaccine may cause zero myocarditis in females. It's almost certain that further stratification would help. The reason why there was not anymore stratification is because myocarditis due to the vaccine is so rare that if you do stratify it, you cannot come to any conclusion. It's possible that there is a misestimation of the background risk. However, given that most cases of myocarditis are mild, the vast majority of myocarditis cases without a positive COVID test almost certainly went undiagnosed, so this is a fair comparison. Cases that have been diagnosed can also be misatributed to background risk, if there are no other covid symptoms and thus no covid test is administered.

3maj 5y ago

Government of Ontario (Province in Canada) published data months ago showing that young men were at higher risk from heart issues. Nobody cared and the all the local and federal news outlets refused to report on the numbers.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Link? I saw that data back then, and the number were lower than this preprint and lower than COVID, IIRC.
- robhunter 5y ago
  Here's a thread from September summarizing some of the available data at the time: https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels/status/1443335179012038656 https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels/status/1443335179012038656 It includes a screenshot from this report, which is now updated through to December: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ep...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Right, so the rate is 200 cases per million vaccinations. The COVID rates are 450 cases per million vaccination. So I did remember correctly, and it was indeed lower than infection, presumably because it wasn't delineated by vaccine, also IIRC Moderna is contra-indicated for young men in Ontario.

coolso 5y ago

> So the statement that COVID has a higher risk of myocarditis is still true. Yes but it's misleading, and whether or not you want to argue it's deliberately so, is another debate. Are men under 40 who are considering Moderna (or don't even know what vax they're going to get since both are considered fairly equal) not worthy of being informed that their risk of myocarditis is actually potentially higher than if they got COVID? That doesn't make much sense to me, if it does to you then at what threshold would they be worthy of being informed that the blanket statement that's been being thrown around, doesn't actually apply to them? I seem to recall most people arguing that "COVID isn't actually that bad" not having an acceptable argument because while it's true for many people, for other groups of people, COVID actually is bad...