3 ms·

This blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-covid-are-much-worse-for-t

by tomp 5y ago

This blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-covid-are-much-worse-for-the-vaccinated-nature-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-cov... Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows – But It’s Hidden in the Appendix*

wesleywt 5y ago
doubt source is suspect.
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  The source is the same paper just someone reading a supplementary table. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
f6v 5y ago
> Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows It might as well be that those who are vaccinated and still get sick are just predisposed to heart complications. Saying they get those because they were vaccinated is a fallacy.
- qwertox 5y ago
  Didn't even request his "findings" to be peer reviewed. Or ask the authors to clarify his questions. Just assumes some stuff and hits it out with a catchy headline.
  - hedora 5y ago
    Yeah. The “analysis” hurt my head. There’s lots of extrapolation from a table in someone else’s supplementary results. Maybe there were flaws in the original paper’s statistics (didn’t read it), but that doesn’t imply some implausible and tangentially related theory is correct.
  - f6v 5y ago
    That’s a good point. Not asking the authors to clarify confusing parts is considered a dick move in academia.
- gypsyharlot 5y ago
  No, it's based on a study with a sample size of 42 million. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > > > This blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. (Argues so poorly that it doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll follow this digression) > > It might as well be that those who are vaccinated and still get sick are just predisposed to heart complications. > No, it's based on a study with a sample size of 42 million If someone is in poor health, they may be A) more likely to get COVID, despite being vaccinated, AND B) more likely to have heart problems In turn, it doesn't matter what the sample size of your study is. A & B will be correlated, even though there's no causal relationship between vaccination+covid->heart problems; the causal relationship is between "poor health" and "heart problems".
nodamage 5y ago
I don't think the author of this article has interpreted this study correctly. She appears to be comparing the myocarditis rates in Supplementary Table 21 vs Table 22 to get the numbers of 370 per million vs 500 per million, but those two tables represent two fundamentally different cohorts and cannot be compared straight across like that. Table 21 removes individuals from the cohort once they become vaccinated, whereas Table 22 continues to follow up with those individuals until the 12 month mark. It is entirely possible that many of the individuals that were removed from Table 21's cohort did go on to develop myocarditis, but they aren't included in the measured rate by virtue of being censored from the analysis. In other words, you would naturally expect the numbers in Table 21 to be lower than the numbers in Table 22 simply based on the fact that they are measuring two different things, and this has nothing to do with the actual risk of vaccination because this study wasn't trying to measure that in the first place. Given the above, the napkin math performed by the author pretty much comes across as nonsense. You can't play with the numbers like that because they don't actually mean what you think they mean.

by tomp 5y ago

wesleywt 5y ago

doubt source is suspect.

thedrbrian 5y ago
The source is the same paper just someone reading a supplementary table. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

f6v 5y ago

> Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows It might as well be that those who are vaccinated and still get sick are just predisposed to heart complications. Saying they get those because they were vaccinated is a fallacy.

qwertox 5y ago
Didn't even request his "findings" to be peer reviewed. Or ask the authors to clarify his questions. Just assumes some stuff and hits it out with a catchy headline.
- hedora 5y ago
  Yeah. The “analysis” hurt my head. There’s lots of extrapolation from a table in someone else’s supplementary results. Maybe there were flaws in the original paper’s statistics (didn’t read it), but that doesn’t imply some implausible and tangentially related theory is correct.
- f6v 5y ago
  That’s a good point. Not asking the authors to clarify confusing parts is considered a dick move in academia.
gypsyharlot 5y ago
No, it's based on a study with a sample size of 42 million. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
- mlyle 5y ago
  > > > This blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. (Argues so poorly that it doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll follow this digression) > > It might as well be that those who are vaccinated and still get sick are just predisposed to heart complications. > No, it's based on a study with a sample size of 42 million If someone is in poor health, they may be A) more likely to get COVID, despite being vaccinated, AND B) more likely to have heart problems In turn, it doesn't matter what the sample size of your study is. A & B will be correlated, even though there's no causal relationship between vaccination+covid->heart problems; the causal relationship is between "poor health" and "heart problems".

nodamage 5y ago

I don't think the author of this article has interpreted this study correctly. She appears to be comparing the myocarditis rates in Supplementary Table 21 vs Table 22 to get the numbers of 370 per million vs 500 per million, but those two tables represent two fundamentally different cohorts and cannot be compared straight across like that. Table 21 removes individuals from the cohort once they become vaccinated, whereas Table 22 continues to follow up with those individuals until the 12 month mark. It is entirely possible that many of the individuals that were removed from Table 21's cohort did go on to develop myocarditis, but they aren't included in the measured rate by virtue of being censored from the analysis. In other words, you would naturally expect the numbers in Table 21 to be lower than the numbers in Table 22 simply based on the fact that they are measuring two different things, and this has nothing to do with the actual risk of vaccination because this study wasn't trying to measure that in the first place. Given the above, the napkin math performed by the author pretty much comes across as nonsense. You can't play with the numbers like that because they don't actually mean what you think they mean.