4 ms·

> he has some cardiac problem but who knows He doesn't. He want's to avoid them. For males under 40 the risk for getting myocarditis is higher than for getting

by ls15 5y ago

> he has some cardiac problem but who knows He doesn't. He want's to avoid them. For males under 40 the risk for getting myocarditis is higher than for getting it from covid. That has been discussed on HN.

Gibbon1 5y ago
If that bothers him perhaps he should stay out of Australia.
- ls15 5y ago
  That would be ok, if there were an option for him to defend his title somewhere else or at a different time. This way it is like: "Take this vaccine against a strain that is not spreading anymore, that you also already had, while we cannot really prove efficacy against the current dominant strain and where you have a higher risk of side effects than others, or just give up your title. Your choice." They are blackmailing him.
alkonaut 5y ago
In the past when your risk of getting the disease was perhaps smaller maybe you could start doing this math. Now that it's clear that everyone will get the disease (multiple times) it's not so easy. Not least because even if you are a "make under 40", you eventually won't be. Besides there are numerous other side effects from the virus than myocarditis. Focusinig on this particular one and ignoring all the others is pretty strange. Relevant passage from the article I believe you are refering to shows that the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups, and second it's not very different in the younger group. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... In males aged less than 40 years, we estimated an additional 3 (95%CI 1, 5) and 12 (95%CI 1, 13) myocarditis events per million in the 1-28 days following a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; an additional 14 (95%CI 8, 17), 12 (95%CI 1, 7) and 101 (95%CI 95, 104) myocarditis events following a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 13 (95%CI 7, 15) myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. This compares with 7 (95%CI 2, 11) additional myocarditis events in the 1-28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In older males, we estimated 3 (95% CI 2, 4) and 73 (95% 71, 75) additional myocarditis events per million following a third dose of BNT162b2 and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively.
- ls15 5y ago
  > the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups Not by official WHO definitions. 101 in a million is equivalent to 1.01/10,000. With 1/10,000 it falls into the bracket for the definition of "rare", not "very rare" or "extremely rare". I wish the media would use these official definitions. https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_ef...
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Fair enough, I didn't know there was a formal definition of "extremely rare" vs. "rare". But it's "about equally rare" between vax and infection for the healthiest group, and rare for all groups. This is why I think it's so weird to avoid the vaccine due to that risk. It's not like people taking the vax are spinning a roulette wheel with 1/10000 risk of complication, and if they reject the vaccine they don't need to spin it. If that was the case, then I'd understand it.
    - ls15 5y ago
      The roulette wheel is being spun with every injection. I think this aspect is underrepresented too. Having three jabs means having a 1/n chance three times, with varying n each time. We are not only talking about vaccine mandates, but also booster mandates. The basis for these is even thinner, because especially since Omicron, the benefit/risk ratio is even worse. The risk has not changed, while the benefits just visibly decreased. "The risk is about the same" is not even a good ratio to begin with, and it also does not match with what has been communicated to the public over and over - that the risks would be astronomically small, compared to the benefits. With the ratio that is currently known, the vaccines would have had a harder time to get approved. I don't think that mass vaccination mandates can be upheld as soon as the public becomes aware of the actual ratios.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        > The roulette wheel is being spun with every injection. Yes - as with any medication. But my point is, it's some times seen as being a roulette wheel with the vaccine but no one mentions the elephant in the room which is that the side effects are at worst much more common, and at best about equal, with infection. Basically if you don't get vaccinated, you are spinning a worse roulette wheel. > The basis for these is even thinner, because especially since Omicron, the benefit/risk ratio is even worse. The risk has not changed, while the benefits just visibly decreased. There are three levels of risk here. Individual risk, group risk (protecting people in a more vulnerable group, for example), and societal risk (preventing spread, or limiting the damage to publically funded healthcare by limiting your own risk). Now with omicron, the individual risk for a healthy 30 year old is obviously way down. The societal risk from the disease is very high due to infectivity (staff shortages etc), and the group risk is also rather high as the disease is still pretty bad for the oldest age group, especially without boosters. But even so: vaccines aren't only about individual risk. And vaccine mandates aren't only acceptable when it's a net positive to the individual! On the contrary, when it's a net positive, they may not even be needed - people have incentive enough to get vaccinated anyway! Mandating vaccines despite unclear individual benefit (and to be clear its STILL very much a solid benefit even for healthy recovered young people, but for the sake of argument) is no easy ethical problem. The answer to that has been different in different countries, or even within countries (e.g. some countries have had varying degrees of mandates for adult vaccine but not even approved it for healthy young chilren because the individual risk is too low).

by ls15 5y ago

Gibbon1 5y ago

If that bothers him perhaps he should stay out of Australia.

ls15 5y ago
That would be ok, if there were an option for him to defend his title somewhere else or at a different time. This way it is like: "Take this vaccine against a strain that is not spreading anymore, that you also already had, while we cannot really prove efficacy against the current dominant strain and where you have a higher risk of side effects than others, or just give up your title. Your choice." They are blackmailing him.

alkonaut 5y ago

In the past when your risk of getting the disease was perhaps smaller maybe you could start doing this math. Now that it's clear that everyone will get the disease (multiple times) it's not so easy. Not least because even if you are a "make under 40", you eventually won't be. Besides there are numerous other side effects from the virus than myocarditis. Focusinig on this particular one and ignoring all the others is pretty strange. Relevant passage from the article I believe you are refering to shows that the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups, and second it's not very different in the younger group. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... In males aged less than 40 years, we estimated an additional 3 (95%CI 1, 5) and 12 (95%CI 1, 13) myocarditis events per million in the 1-28 days following a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; an additional 14 (95%CI 8, 17), 12 (95%CI 1, 7) and 101 (95%CI 95, 104) myocarditis events following a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 13 (95%CI 7, 15) myocarditis events following a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. This compares with 7 (95%CI 2, 11) additional myocarditis events in the 1-28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In older males, we estimated 3 (95% CI 2, 4) and 73 (95% 71, 75) additional myocarditis events per million following a third dose of BNT162b2 and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively.

ls15 5y ago
> the disk is first of all extremely low in all groups Not by official WHO definitions. 101 in a million is equivalent to 1.01/10,000. With 1/10,000 it falls into the bracket for the definition of "rare", not "very rare" or "extremely rare". I wish the media would use these official definitions. https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_ef...
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Fair enough, I didn't know there was a formal definition of "extremely rare" vs. "rare". But it's "about equally rare" between vax and infection for the healthiest group, and rare for all groups. This is why I think it's so weird to avoid the vaccine due to that risk. It's not like people taking the vax are spinning a roulette wheel with 1/10000 risk of complication, and if they reject the vaccine they don't need to spin it. If that was the case, then I'd understand it.
  - ls15 5y ago
    The roulette wheel is being spun with every injection. I think this aspect is underrepresented too. Having three jabs means having a 1/n chance three times, with varying n each time. We are not only talking about vaccine mandates, but also booster mandates. The basis for these is even thinner, because especially since Omicron, the benefit/risk ratio is even worse. The risk has not changed, while the benefits just visibly decreased. "The risk is about the same" is not even a good ratio to begin with, and it also does not match with what has been communicated to the public over and over - that the risks would be astronomically small, compared to the benefits. With the ratio that is currently known, the vaccines would have had a harder time to get approved. I don't think that mass vaccination mandates can be upheld as soon as the public becomes aware of the actual ratios.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      > The roulette wheel is being spun with every injection. Yes - as with any medication. But my point is, it's some times seen as being a roulette wheel with the vaccine but no one mentions the elephant in the room which is that the side effects are at worst much more common, and at best about equal, with infection. Basically if you don't get vaccinated, you are spinning a worse roulette wheel. > The basis for these is even thinner, because especially since Omicron, the benefit/risk ratio is even worse. The risk has not changed, while the benefits just visibly decreased. There are three levels of risk here. Individual risk, group risk (protecting people in a more vulnerable group, for example), and societal risk (preventing spread, or limiting the damage to publically funded healthcare by limiting your own risk). Now with omicron, the individual risk for a healthy 30 year old is obviously way down. The societal risk from the disease is very high due to infectivity (staff shortages etc), and the group risk is also rather high as the disease is still pretty bad for the oldest age group, especially without boosters. But even so: vaccines aren't only about individual risk. And vaccine mandates aren't only acceptable when it's a net positive to the individual! On the contrary, when it's a net positive, they may not even be needed - people have incentive enough to get vaccinated anyway! Mandating vaccines despite unclear individual benefit (and to be clear its STILL very much a solid benefit even for healthy recovered young people, but for the sake of argument) is no easy ethical problem. The answer to that has been different in different countries, or even within countries (e.g. some countries have had varying degrees of mandates for adult vaccine but not even approved it for healthy young chilren because the individual risk is too low).