10 ms·

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccination

65 points by drocer88 5y ago

assbuttbuttass 5y ago
It's important to mention that catching COVID also causes myocarditis https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm Edit: this article says out of 192 405 448 people, 1626 had myocarditis, or about 0.0008%. In contrast, the CDC estimates COVID has a 0.146% chance to give you myocarditis.
- dazilcher 5y ago
  I am fully vaccinated and, as I'm typing this, recovering from COVID. Do tell me more about this vaccine/disease exclusivity. I must be doing something wrong.
- mgamache 5y ago
  It's also true that VAERS may be underreporting cases.
  - zenplant 5y ago
    It's probably true that cases are under reported in both groups. Many people with myocarditis might just go along with their day because the symptoms aren't especially worrisome to them. You can imagine the cohort of people with political affiliations that say COVID isn't worth worrying about might not see a doctor even if the symptoms are worrisome.
  - alfor 5y ago
    I hear that a factor of a 100X is common. The system is made so that the least amount of effect are reported. Personally I know someone who had a heart attack 3 day after second dose (60yo female) The doctor dismissed the possibility of a causation by the vaccine, this case is not reported even if the person almost died. Is covid still worse than the vaccine with Omicron, I don’t know, probable. But I know that most side effect are not reported. A crazy thing is that the Myocardis rate can be reduce 3X by a 2 second procedure at vaccination (verifying that the injection is not in a vein)
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      Yeah. My partner got a moderately severe skin rash after her Moderna vaccine. She tried to report it but was ignored by everyone. Now it finally comes out that Moderna can cause severe skin rashes...
  - pfisherman 5y ago
    VAERS is only one data source and not a particularly good one. We have vaccination records linked to medical histories in electronic health record systems and insurance claims databases.
    - mgamache 5y ago
      Right, it sucks, but EMR systems are private and not accessible for research by public entities.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    RAW VAERS data is a POS source of data. Plenty of Anti-Vaxxers submit false data to it and even non Anti-Vaxxers submit symptoms that correspond to anything within a month of taking the shot.
  - cameldrv 5y ago
    Vaccine Safety Datalink is a much better source.
- marcinostefano 5y ago
  It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine somehow protects against it.
  - alanfranz 5y ago
    > easily I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      > vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different: Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement: > It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        That statement is still true if you split by those who have had Covid and those who haven't. In both groups, those who have been vaccinated are less likely to get symptomatic covid.
        peteradio 5y ago
        According to which study? During Delta it did not appear to be significant difference.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... "rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York." Asking for a "significant" difference is just using weasel words to note that each individual post-Delta study is not powered to detect a difference with those very small slices and no metanalysis having been completed yet. Every single study has shown a point estimate difference that is consistent with vaccination conferring additional protection on those who have previously recovered.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  That is not true for every age group.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wusher 5y ago
  I don't have the numbers to answer this but which groups are getting myocarditis also matters. If covid causes myocarditis in 1 out of 100 people in an age group prone to myocarditis, but mRNA causes myocarditis in 15 out of 1000 people in an age group that doesn't get myocarditis, then then we should be very concerned about the mRNA myocarditis and adjust our policies accordingly. Again, I made up those numbers and I'm not saying mRNA is worse. My point is that we should take a more nuanced and honest view than "they both cause it" or even "X has a great rate; therefore Y is better"
  - drocer88 5y ago
    "Conclusions Men are significantly more susceptible to myocarditis than women. Young men are especially at risk for acquiring myocarditis, while women are affected most commonly at the postmenopausal age. The proportion of hospital admissions caused by myocarditis has an inverse, logarithmic association with age." from : https://heart.bmj.com/content/99/22/1681 https://heart.bmj.com/content/99/22/1681
  - assbuttbuttass 5y ago
    I don't disagree with that nuance, I was just trying to get ahead of the inevitable anti-vaccine propagandists that will use this study out of context for their own narrative.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    They're very likely to be causing myocarditis through the same mechanism involving the spike protein, which means your scenario is unlikely. Myocarditis prevalence among college athletes who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection (even asymptomatic) is so high that some conferences require comprehensive cardiac testing before they can return to play. https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/general-cardiology/heart-inflammation-after-covid-19-infection-in-athletes/ https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/general-cardiology/hear... Exercising while infected is known to increase risk. If you get the vaccine, you will be told not to exert yourself for some time after. If you get infected, you might have no idea that you should stop exercising unless and until you're symptomatic. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-...
- eminence32 5y ago
  If I'm reading both summaries correctly: Rates of myocarditis after 2nd shot for males 16 to 17 years of age: 105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine Rates of myocarditis from COVID-19: 1500 per million cases I rewrote both stats to be in the form of "x per 1 million" but I don't think that's a fair thing to do. Not everyone is going to get both a vaccine and get covid. What's a better comparison? Rates of myocarditis for a unvaccinated person (roughly rate of getting covid multiplied by rate of myocarditis if getting covid) versus rates of myocarditis if vaccinated? stats are hard, explaining stats are even harder. I'm already screwing this up.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    The numbers are so different that it doesn't matter very much how you compare. It would be different if only 5% of unvaccinated people contract the disease, or if the vaccine reduced the likelihood of infection by only 5%.
- cuspy 5y ago
  These numbers are not even remotely comparable. The CDC number includes ages groups that are much more likely to have severe infections. The CDC number you cited is also based on hospitalized cases, which select for severity
- Bancakes 5y ago
  You will get the jab but for being symptomatic with covid, that's already a small chance. 5% * 0.146% ~~ 0.007
- josephcsible 5y ago
  You can't just compare the overall myocarditis rate from the vaccine with the one from COVID like that. Doing so makes the incorrect assumptions that you definitely will get COVID if you're unvaccinated, and that you definitely won't if you are. Let w=the chance the vaccine gives you myocarditis, x=the chance COVID gives you myocarditis, y=the chance you get COVID if you're unvaccinated, and z=the chance you get COVID if you're vaccinated. The proper comparison is then between w and x*(y-z), not just between w and x. Also, are you only counting the number of reported and confirmed vaccine-caused cases, but then comparing that to an estimate of the total number of COVID-caused cases?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tchalla 5y ago
> To be clear: whoever gets heart inflammation from Moderna would’ve almost certainly got it worse from Covid. The issue arises from the spike protein itself. That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca. https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213480823017472?s=21 https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213480823017472?s=2... Edit : Consider readied the entire Twitter thread. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/afternoons/myocarditis/13719262 https://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/afternoons/myoc... > It's hard to sift through the mass of information and misinformation that exists about COVID-19. Recently there’s been increased focus on myocarditis and whether COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of this condition and, if so, is that risk greater or less than the risk if you contract COVID. > To clarify exactly what the situation is Josh Szeps spoke to an expert, Associate Professor Raj Puranik who’s a consultant cardiologist with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown and board member and clinical practice advisor with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand.
- mattzito 5y ago
  I'm confused by this - the AZ vaccine also expresses the spike protein, just in a different delivery mechanism, right? That was my understanding when I got the AZ vaccine in a trial.
- cuspy 5y ago
  To be clear: this is an overconfident assumption, not an evidence-based claim. It's not even plausible on the surface. Why would we assume these proteins would be distributed similarly in the infection case and the vaccination case? We know that very different physiological processes will be taking place, so why assume the inflammatory responses must be the same?
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca. Does the AstraZeneca vaccine not include the spike protein? I thought it included the whole virus including the spike protein.
  - 5y ago
draw_down 5y ago
> This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Whoa now, easy on the antivaxxer rhetoric!
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  That's not an antivax thing to say, or rhetoric at all. They're saying "sure, seat belts occasionally break ribs, but consider that in the context of all the windshields you didn't get thrown through"
  - castrodd 5y ago
    I think he was using a rhetorical device called sarcasm.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      Sarcasm is not a rhetorical device, and I don't believe anyone was trying to hurt feelings. If you feel the need to make a joke like that, which is unfunny and makes you look like you don't understand things, you should expect some inbound explanations.
      - draw_down 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - draw_down 5y ago
gkfasdfasdf 5y ago
Great twitter thread on this subject [0]: "Data out of Israel ... suggests that vaccine-induced myocarditis is caused by the spike protein. In that case, Covid would cause the same condition in the same person -- but more severely, attached to a fully-fledged living virus. To be clear: whoever gets heart inflammation from Moderna would’ve almost certainly got it worse from Covid. The issue arises from the spike protein itself. That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca." [0]: https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213462816866304?t=PGzdK5_58sPcUHm0GTMtmw&s=08 https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213462816866304?t=P...
- marcinostefano 5y ago
  Yes, but how about breakthrough infections as You can easily get symptomatic Covid nowadays especially with Omicron, do You have any data on this?
  - gkfasdfasdf 5y ago
    Breakthrough infections are much milder. There is mountains of data on this. Look at hospitalization and death rates of vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- peteradio 5y ago
  How much of the spike proteins from virus are free floating after being injected near capillaries? Spike is supposed to be attached to the virus and break off on entry into cell. It doesn't seem like they are apples to apples in how you'd expect to see them in the body. It doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument at least.
scotty79 5y ago
Number of registered cases of myocarditits after vaccination is not very different from baseline, while covid infection increses risk of miocarditis 16 times. I wouldn't be surprised if incresed risk of miocarditis after second dose is completely explained by changes in behavior of people who finally got vaccinated after many monthes of lockdowns. They probably started going out more and exposing themselves to coronavirus which vaccine provides partial protection against. Researchers don't even exclude from this research people who got full blown covid before their miocarditis.
disambiguation 5y ago
> Results Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. So.. we're using VAERS now?
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  You aren't using anything. The scientists are, in a controlled way. That doesn't mean that it's a regular source. Yes, it's appropriate to use a no-validation report system to search for signal. Vaers is crap, but crap is actually what you want when you're saying "look how ridiculously wide I cast my net looking for examples."
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    Sure, I don't mind leaving it to the scientists. I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons: 1. "experts" have been relentlessly debunking vaers the past 2 years. This is even discussed in the limitations: "Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely." 2. This isn't the first analysis of this kind, yet prior reports have emphasized an important distinction not found in the OP: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 > the increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher in persons aged under 40 years. We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      > I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons: because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't? because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive? because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning? because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore? . > prior reports have emphasized an important distinction I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized. THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN. This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it." In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places. "Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars" In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus. Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods. You want to know why this doesn't matter? Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them. We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country. Why? Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there. The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts. The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea. And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see. And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it. Please stop doing this soon. You're killing stupid people.
alfor 5y ago
Sun exposure to reduce severity of covid (not vitamin D, infrared radiation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zzo4SJopcY&t=1003s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zzo4SJopcY&t=1003s
newbamboo 5y ago
Now we need to see if it’s lower in one of the many nations that train their nurses, correctly, to aspirate the injection.
0x500x79 5y ago
I know this might be a bad analogy, but it was one of the things that went through my mind during all of this as a software engineer: "We have this bug in production which is a Sev-1. We have a possible fix that won't make things worse we can rollout that should make things better." Yes, we have all been here where someone did this and it made things worse, but we also have thousands of people looking at this change and been in situations where this was required. I guess what I'm saying is: The spike protein is in the vaccine and the virus - injecting ourselves with a spike protein to build immunity is likely less impactful than getting the entire virus. If it is truly the spike protein that causes myocarditis, then it causing issues in vaccination is a non-issue. There is a (in my mind high, but we need controlled studies on it) chance that the same people would have gotten myocarditis from Covid. If we can limit the number of other side-effects that people have during the myocarditis then it seems like a win. I am by no means a virologist or an expert in vaccines, just my thought process.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Good I'm glad they were able to share the risk was minimal and line with previous discussions on the matter. I'm sure that Fox News will turn this into a complete fail for medical science and NOT report the comparitive death rate of people who are completely unvaxxed.

65 points by drocer88 5y ago

It's important to mention that catching COVID also causes myocarditis https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm Edit: this article says out of 192 405 448 people, 1626 had myocarditis, or about 0.0008%. In contrast, the CDC estimates COVID has a 0.146% chance to give you myocarditis.

dazilcher 5y ago
I am fully vaccinated and, as I'm typing this, recovering from COVID. Do tell me more about this vaccine/disease exclusivity. I must be doing something wrong.
mgamache 5y ago
It's also true that VAERS may be underreporting cases.
- zenplant 5y ago
  It's probably true that cases are under reported in both groups. Many people with myocarditis might just go along with their day because the symptoms aren't especially worrisome to them. You can imagine the cohort of people with political affiliations that say COVID isn't worth worrying about might not see a doctor even if the symptoms are worrisome.
- alfor 5y ago
  I hear that a factor of a 100X is common. The system is made so that the least amount of effect are reported. Personally I know someone who had a heart attack 3 day after second dose (60yo female) The doctor dismissed the possibility of a causation by the vaccine, this case is not reported even if the person almost died. Is covid still worse than the vaccine with Omicron, I don’t know, probable. But I know that most side effect are not reported. A crazy thing is that the Myocardis rate can be reduce 3X by a 2 second procedure at vaccination (verifying that the injection is not in a vein)
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Yeah. My partner got a moderately severe skin rash after her Moderna vaccine. She tried to report it but was ignored by everyone. Now it finally comes out that Moderna can cause severe skin rashes...
- pfisherman 5y ago
  VAERS is only one data source and not a particularly good one. We have vaccination records linked to medical histories in electronic health record systems and insurance claims databases.
  - mgamache 5y ago
    Right, it sucks, but EMR systems are private and not accessible for research by public entities.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  RAW VAERS data is a POS source of data. Plenty of Anti-Vaxxers submit false data to it and even non Anti-Vaxxers submit symptoms that correspond to anything within a month of taking the shot.
- cameldrv 5y ago
  Vaccine Safety Datalink is a much better source.
marcinostefano 5y ago
It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine somehow protects against it.
- alanfranz 5y ago
  > easily I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    > vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different: Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement: > It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      That statement is still true if you split by those who have had Covid and those who haven't. In both groups, those who have been vaccinated are less likely to get symptomatic covid.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        According to which study? During Delta it did not appear to be significant difference.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... "rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York." Asking for a "significant" difference is just using weasel words to note that each individual post-Delta study is not powered to detect a difference with those very small slices and no metanalysis having been completed yet. Every single study has shown a point estimate difference that is consistent with vaccination conferring additional protection on those who have previously recovered.
ed25519FUUU 5y ago
That is not true for every age group.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wusher 5y ago
I don't have the numbers to answer this but which groups are getting myocarditis also matters. If covid causes myocarditis in 1 out of 100 people in an age group prone to myocarditis, but mRNA causes myocarditis in 15 out of 1000 people in an age group that doesn't get myocarditis, then then we should be very concerned about the mRNA myocarditis and adjust our policies accordingly. Again, I made up those numbers and I'm not saying mRNA is worse. My point is that we should take a more nuanced and honest view than "they both cause it" or even "X has a great rate; therefore Y is better"
- drocer88 5y ago
  "Conclusions Men are significantly more susceptible to myocarditis than women. Young men are especially at risk for acquiring myocarditis, while women are affected most commonly at the postmenopausal age. The proportion of hospital admissions caused by myocarditis has an inverse, logarithmic association with age." from : https://heart.bmj.com/content/99/22/1681 https://heart.bmj.com/content/99/22/1681
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  I don't disagree with that nuance, I was just trying to get ahead of the inevitable anti-vaccine propagandists that will use this study out of context for their own narrative.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  They're very likely to be causing myocarditis through the same mechanism involving the spike protein, which means your scenario is unlikely. Myocarditis prevalence among college athletes who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection (even asymptomatic) is so high that some conferences require comprehensive cardiac testing before they can return to play. https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/general-cardiology/heart-inflammation-after-covid-19-infection-in-athletes/ https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/general-cardiology/hear... Exercising while infected is known to increase risk. If you get the vaccine, you will be told not to exert yourself for some time after. If you get infected, you might have no idea that you should stop exercising unless and until you're symptomatic. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-...
eminence32 5y ago
If I'm reading both summaries correctly: Rates of myocarditis after 2nd shot for males 16 to 17 years of age: 105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine Rates of myocarditis from COVID-19: 1500 per million cases I rewrote both stats to be in the form of "x per 1 million" but I don't think that's a fair thing to do. Not everyone is going to get both a vaccine and get covid. What's a better comparison? Rates of myocarditis for a unvaccinated person (roughly rate of getting covid multiplied by rate of myocarditis if getting covid) versus rates of myocarditis if vaccinated? stats are hard, explaining stats are even harder. I'm already screwing this up.
- Arnt 5y ago
  The numbers are so different that it doesn't matter very much how you compare. It would be different if only 5% of unvaccinated people contract the disease, or if the vaccine reduced the likelihood of infection by only 5%.
cuspy 5y ago
These numbers are not even remotely comparable. The CDC number includes ages groups that are much more likely to have severe infections. The CDC number you cited is also based on hospitalized cases, which select for severity
Bancakes 5y ago
You will get the jab but for being symptomatic with covid, that's already a small chance. 5% * 0.146% ~~ 0.007
josephcsible 5y ago
You can't just compare the overall myocarditis rate from the vaccine with the one from COVID like that. Doing so makes the incorrect assumptions that you definitely will get COVID if you're unvaccinated, and that you definitely won't if you are. Let w=the chance the vaccine gives you myocarditis, x=the chance COVID gives you myocarditis, y=the chance you get COVID if you're unvaccinated, and z=the chance you get COVID if you're vaccinated. The proper comparison is then between w and x*(y-z), not just between w and x. Also, are you only counting the number of reported and confirmed vaccine-caused cases, but then comparing that to an estimate of the total number of COVID-caused cases?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tchalla 5y ago

> To be clear: whoever gets heart inflammation from Moderna would’ve almost certainly got it worse from Covid. The issue arises from the spike protein itself. That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca. https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213480823017472?s=21 https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213480823017472?s=2... Edit : Consider readied the entire Twitter thread. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/afternoons/myocarditis/13719262 https://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/programs/afternoons/myoc... > It's hard to sift through the mass of information and misinformation that exists about COVID-19. Recently there’s been increased focus on myocarditis and whether COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of this condition and, if so, is that risk greater or less than the risk if you contract COVID. > To clarify exactly what the situation is Josh Szeps spoke to an expert, Associate Professor Raj Puranik who’s a consultant cardiologist with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown and board member and clinical practice advisor with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand.

mattzito 5y ago
I'm confused by this - the AZ vaccine also expresses the spike protein, just in a different delivery mechanism, right? That was my understanding when I got the AZ vaccine in a trial.
cuspy 5y ago
To be clear: this is an overconfident assumption, not an evidence-based claim. It's not even plausible on the surface. Why would we assume these proteins would be distributed similarly in the infection case and the vaccination case? We know that very different physiological processes will be taking place, so why assume the inflammatory responses must be the same?
nicoburns 5y ago
> That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca. Does the AstraZeneca vaccine not include the spike protein? I thought it included the whole virus including the spike protein.
- 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago

> This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Whoa now, easy on the antivaxxer rhetoric!

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
That's not an antivax thing to say, or rhetoric at all. They're saying "sure, seat belts occasionally break ribs, but consider that in the context of all the windshields you didn't get thrown through"
- castrodd 5y ago
  I think he was using a rhetorical device called sarcasm.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    Sarcasm is not a rhetorical device, and I don't believe anyone was trying to hurt feelings. If you feel the need to make a joke like that, which is unfunny and makes you look like you don't understand things, you should expect some inbound explanations.
    - draw_down 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- draw_down 5y ago

gkfasdfasdf 5y ago

Great twitter thread on this subject [0]: "Data out of Israel ... suggests that vaccine-induced myocarditis is caused by the spike protein. In that case, Covid would cause the same condition in the same person -- but more severely, attached to a fully-fledged living virus. To be clear: whoever gets heart inflammation from Moderna would’ve almost certainly got it worse from Covid. The issue arises from the spike protein itself. That’s why we don’t see myocarditis from non-MRNA vaccines like Astra Zeneca." [0]: https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213462816866304?t=PGzdK5_58sPcUHm0GTMtmw&s=08 https://twitter.com/joshzepps/status/1486213462816866304?t=P...

marcinostefano 5y ago
Yes, but how about breakthrough infections as You can easily get symptomatic Covid nowadays especially with Omicron, do You have any data on this?
- gkfasdfasdf 5y ago
  Breakthrough infections are much milder. There is mountains of data on this. Look at hospitalization and death rates of vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
peteradio 5y ago
How much of the spike proteins from virus are free floating after being injected near capillaries? Spike is supposed to be attached to the virus and break off on entry into cell. It doesn't seem like they are apples to apples in how you'd expect to see them in the body. It doesn't seem like a very rigorous argument at least.

scotty79 5y ago

Number of registered cases of myocarditits after vaccination is not very different from baseline, while covid infection increses risk of miocarditis 16 times. I wouldn't be surprised if incresed risk of miocarditis after second dose is completely explained by changes in behavior of people who finally got vaccinated after many monthes of lockdowns. They probably started going out more and exposing themselves to coronavirus which vaccine provides partial protection against. Researchers don't even exclude from this research people who got full blown covid before their miocarditis.

disambiguation 5y ago

> Results Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. So.. we're using VAERS now?

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
You aren't using anything. The scientists are, in a controlled way. That doesn't mean that it's a regular source. Yes, it's appropriate to use a no-validation report system to search for signal. Vaers is crap, but crap is actually what you want when you're saying "look how ridiculously wide I cast my net looking for examples."
- disambiguation 5y ago
  Sure, I don't mind leaving it to the scientists. I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons: 1. "experts" have been relentlessly debunking vaers the past 2 years. This is even discussed in the limitations: "Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely." 2. This isn't the first analysis of this kind, yet prior reports have emphasized an important distinction not found in the OP: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 > the increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher in persons aged under 40 years. We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    > I'm just wondering "out loud" for 2 reasons: because it feels like you're being a valuable skeptic, even though you aren't? because you think "just asking questions," the way scare political news commentators, delivers something positive? because you think the work of scientists should be judged based on the debunking of a source that has nothing to do with the science you're openly questioning? because you've become so comfortable explaining your behavior to people who are openly telling you to your face that it's not appropriate that you don't even hear them saying "this isn't appropriate" anymore? . > prior reports have emphasized an important distinction I took a look at your new link, and I don't see any important distinction being emphasized. THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN. This is me saying "nothing is being emphasized to the point that someone who, unlike you, has domain specific training can even notice it." In reality, you've hyper-focused on some irrelevant detail, and now you're desperately trying to figure out why that irrelevant detail isn't present other places. "Well yes, don't you see? Sure, this paper is about fuel efficiency, but this one doesn't cover kerosene cars, and the other one emphasized an important distinction about kerosene cars" In reality it's likely to be some detail the paper put in to silence a different walrus. Yes, I see that you quoted a random statistical detail about age groups and likelihoods. You want to know why this doesn't matter? Every vaccine you've ever taken has this risk. All of them. We just don't talk about it for the same reason that we don't talk about a seatbelt's risk of causing a broken rib, which can puncture your lung, and kill you. Happens twice a year in this country. Why? Because twice a year is nothing, and we don't want to spend the rest of our lives talking to people who really want to deeply study that twice a year number, as if there's something valuable there. The real issue is you have no statistical intuition, so you don't recognize that you're wasting everyone's time chasing ghosts. The downside, of course, is that STUPID PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. And they think you're challenging whether the vaccine is a good idea. And no, it really doesn't matter if you say you aren't doing that. Stupid people see scary numbers and they remember what Fox News said, and they end up not taking the vaccine, because with five billion people worldwide having a dose in their arm, their dumb ass is so scared by people like you that they're still going to wait and see. And you, desperate to feel intelligent, will not stop trying to ply these bullshit nonsense numbers, to show everyone else how much you get it. Please stop doing this soon. You're killing stupid people.

alfor 5y ago

Sun exposure to reduce severity of covid (not vitamin D, infrared radiation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zzo4SJopcY&t=1003s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zzo4SJopcY&t=1003s

newbamboo 5y ago

Now we need to see if it’s lower in one of the many nations that train their nurses, correctly, to aspirate the injection.

0x500x79 5y ago

I know this might be a bad analogy, but it was one of the things that went through my mind during all of this as a software engineer: "We have this bug in production which is a Sev-1. We have a possible fix that won't make things worse we can rollout that should make things better." Yes, we have all been here where someone did this and it made things worse, but we also have thousands of people looking at this change and been in situations where this was required. I guess what I'm saying is: The spike protein is in the vaccine and the virus - injecting ourselves with a spike protein to build immunity is likely less impactful than getting the entire virus. If it is truly the spike protein that causes myocarditis, then it causing issues in vaccination is a non-issue. There is a (in my mind high, but we need controlled studies on it) chance that the same people would have gotten myocarditis from Covid. If we can limit the number of other side-effects that people have during the myocarditis then it seems like a win. I am by no means a virologist or an expert in vaccines, just my thought process.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Good I'm glad they were able to share the risk was minimal and line with previous discussions on the matter. I'm sure that Fox News will turn this into a complete fail for medical science and NOT report the comparitive death rate of people who are completely unvaxxed.