4 ms·

> Because if protection from symptomatic infection increases at a population level, then overall transmission becomes less likely. Protection from Omikron quic

> Because if protection from symptomatic infection increases at a population level, then overall transmission becomes less likely. Protection from Omikron quickly wanes. At what point does that "extra bit of immunity" justify heart injury? We're talking about roughly 1 in 10000 doses administered causing Myocarditis in a young male. We don't know if the risk increases after each dose, but preliminary data suggests that it may: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...

pfg 5y ago
We're talking about ~1:10000 odds for one specific vaccine when vaccinating young males, which is why many countries are no longer using that vaccine for this demographic. Other vaccines are closer to 1:100000, which isn't far from the myocarditis risk of an infection with COVID-19. The study also shows that there was practically no increase in risk for the third shot (though with a fairly wide CI), so it's possible the risk may just depend on whether someone is immunonaive or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- incrudible 5y ago
  > Other vaccines are closer to 1:100000, which isn't far from the myocarditis risk of an infection with COVID-19 The risk is given by the FDA as up to 1:14285 (males aged 12-17) for the second dose: https://www.fda.gov/media/154869/download https://www.fda.gov/media/154869/download However, a study from Hong Kong found an incidence of up to 1:2700 in the second dose (males aged 12-17): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/ What we don't know is whether a vaccination would actually prevent Myocarditis in a breakthrough infection. These risks may well not be mutually exclusive. In any case, the risks are not directly comparable unless you assume 100% PCR-confirmed infection risk over six months, which is of course unrealistic.
  - pfg 5y ago
    1:100000 was in reference to the "males < 40" age bucket in the UK study linked by OP. The myocarditis risk from infection for the 12-17 age group appears to be significantly higher according to this study[1] (1:1141), which gets us quite close to the Hong Kong study incidence if we assume two shots after the first dose. > In any case, the risks are not directly comparable unless you assume 100% PCR-confirmed infection risk over six months, which is of course unrealistic. I do wonder how unrealistic it is with Omicron, but maybe we'll get lucky and Omicron's less likely to cause myocarditis. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...

pfg 5y ago

We're talking about ~1:10000 odds for one specific vaccine when vaccinating young males, which is why many countries are no longer using that vaccine for this demographic. Other vaccines are closer to 1:100000, which isn't far from the myocarditis risk of an infection with COVID-19. The study also shows that there was practically no increase in risk for the third shot (though with a fairly wide CI), so it's possible the risk may just depend on whether someone is immunonaive or not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
incrudible 5y ago
> Other vaccines are closer to 1:100000, which isn't far from the myocarditis risk of an infection with COVID-19 The risk is given by the FDA as up to 1:14285 (males aged 12-17) for the second dose: https://www.fda.gov/media/154869/download https://www.fda.gov/media/154869/download However, a study from Hong Kong found an incidence of up to 1:2700 in the second dose (males aged 12-17): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/ What we don't know is whether a vaccination would actually prevent Myocarditis in a breakthrough infection. These risks may well not be mutually exclusive. In any case, the risks are not directly comparable unless you assume 100% PCR-confirmed infection risk over six months, which is of course unrealistic.
- pfg 5y ago
  1:100000 was in reference to the "males < 40" age bucket in the UK study linked by OP. The myocarditis risk from infection for the 12-17 age group appears to be significantly higher according to this study[1] (1:1141), which gets us quite close to the Hong Kong study incidence if we assume two shots after the first dose. > In any case, the risks are not directly comparable unless you assume 100% PCR-confirmed infection risk over six months, which is of course unrealistic. I do wonder how unrealistic it is with Omicron, but maybe we'll get lucky and Omicron's less likely to cause myocarditis. [1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...