4 ms·

> This is a dumb policy. Covid presents essentially no risk to young people. We also now know that the risk of myocarditis to young men from vaccination exceeds

by md_ 5y ago

> This is a dumb policy. Covid presents essentially no risk to young people. We also now know that the risk of myocarditis to young men from vaccination exceeds the risk of same from the virus itself: You're the second person here to cite this study and imply that the risk from covid is lower for young men than the risk of the vaccine. But that's...not what the study says. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.738423/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.7384... suggests the case fatality rate for Covid in 20-39-year-olds is 0.62%. In comparison, the excess risk of myocarditis following a vaccination, per the Nature paper, was 15 per million, or 0.0015%.

timr 5y ago
I implied no such thing. I said exactly what the data says: risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is on par with (or exceedds) the risk of myocarditis from the virus itself. Comparing that to CFR is irrelevant. Also, you don't understand the meaning of CFR -- the rate of death amongst confirmed illnesses. It overstates actual risk by at least a factor of 10, and probably more than that. There have been far more cases than ever confirmed by testing. Best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 by age indicate a mortality risk of approximately 0.004% for those under age 34: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1/tables/3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1...
- md_ 5y ago
  > Also, you don't understand the meaning of CFR Friend, you don't know what I don't understand. :) Maybe in the future try something like, "In case you aren't aware..." or "You may already know this, but..." > It overstates actual risk by at least a factor of 10. As it happens, the CFR from covid is still more than 10x the excess myocarditis risk from the vaccines, so...I don't know. I guess I don't understand something. > I implied no such thing. Perhaps not, but then I don't understand how, on its own, this paper is relevant to the decision in question. It's like observing that the risk of a plane crash is higher if you fly on an airplane, so you're going to take a car.
- md_ 5y ago
  > Best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 by age indicate a risk of approximately 0.004% for those under age 34 Yet broken down more narrowly, the same paper suggests 0.01% for 25 year olds, which would seem to still strongly support vaccinations for university students. As I've noted elsewhere, the comparison is, of course, more complicated: policymakers should also consider the effect of vaccinations on community spread, since other age strata are substantially more vulnerable, as well as the non-mortality cost of infection (as economists like to frame it, in QALYs, or in terms of lost working days). But even excluding all of that, your implication that vaccination makes one less safe is just not born out by the data you linked to. As an aside, and to your parent comment: I do think it makes a lot more sense for these booster vaccines to be distributed to people in countries who have not had access to the initial vaccination. But, taken out of context, your comments seem to suggest that vaccination is a net negative to the health of young adults, which is not at all supported by the data shown.
  - timr 5y ago
    > But even excluding all of that, your implication that vaccination makes one less safe is just not born out by the data you linked to. That was not my implication. I am not talking about "vaccination" -- I am talking about booster mandates, for which we have no affirmative clinical data, and known harms. We have no evidence that boosters do anything at all to mitigate serious illness in young, healthy people. And for this, we are exposing them to known, non-zero risks.

by md_ 5y ago

timr 5y ago

I implied no such thing. I said exactly what the data says: risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is on par with (or exceedds) the risk of myocarditis from the virus itself. Comparing that to CFR is irrelevant. Also, you don't understand the meaning of CFR -- the rate of death amongst confirmed illnesses. It overstates actual risk by at least a factor of 10, and probably more than that. There have been far more cases than ever confirmed by testing. Best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 by age indicate a mortality risk of approximately 0.004% for those under age 34: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1/tables/3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1...

md_ 5y ago
> Also, you don't understand the meaning of CFR Friend, you don't know what I don't understand. :) Maybe in the future try something like, "In case you aren't aware..." or "You may already know this, but..." > It overstates actual risk by at least a factor of 10. As it happens, the CFR from covid is still more than 10x the excess myocarditis risk from the vaccines, so...I don't know. I guess I don't understand something. > I implied no such thing. Perhaps not, but then I don't understand how, on its own, this paper is relevant to the decision in question. It's like observing that the risk of a plane crash is higher if you fly on an airplane, so you're going to take a car.
md_ 5y ago
> Best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 by age indicate a risk of approximately 0.004% for those under age 34 Yet broken down more narrowly, the same paper suggests 0.01% for 25 year olds, which would seem to still strongly support vaccinations for university students. As I've noted elsewhere, the comparison is, of course, more complicated: policymakers should also consider the effect of vaccinations on community spread, since other age strata are substantially more vulnerable, as well as the non-mortality cost of infection (as economists like to frame it, in QALYs, or in terms of lost working days). But even excluding all of that, your implication that vaccination makes one less safe is just not born out by the data you linked to. As an aside, and to your parent comment: I do think it makes a lot more sense for these booster vaccines to be distributed to people in countries who have not had access to the initial vaccination. But, taken out of context, your comments seem to suggest that vaccination is a net negative to the health of young adults, which is not at all supported by the data shown.
- timr 5y ago
  > But even excluding all of that, your implication that vaccination makes one less safe is just not born out by the data you linked to. That was not my implication. I am not talking about "vaccination" -- I am talking about booster mandates, for which we have no affirmative clinical data, and known harms. We have no evidence that boosters do anything at all to mitigate serious illness in young, healthy people. And for this, we are exposing them to known, non-zero risks.