10 ms·

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

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?

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?