8 ms·

The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease

The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.

tux1968 5y ago
That's only true if the vaccine reduces the chance of myocarditis in patients that go on to get Covid.
- abc_lisper 5y ago
  One has to be incredibly lucky to not get Covid at some point, now that it has become endemic.
  - tux1968 5y ago
    That's the point. You're still going to get Covid, so the question is, does having the vaccine reduce the prevalence of myocarditis in Covid patients? If it's the same as in the unvaccinated population, then (ignoring other actual benefits for a moment) taking the vaccine may actually increase your risk of myocarditis, since there is the risk with the vaccine itself, plus the risk once you get Covid.
    - abc_lisper 5y ago
      Yeah, taking the vaccination reduces the chance of myocarditis. https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-covid-19-is-a-much-bigger-risk-to-the-heart-than-vaccination-174580 https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-covid-19-is-a-much-b...
      - tux1968 5y ago
        I don't see anywhere in that article where it states that myocarditis is less prevalent in patients who subsequently get Covid. Would you mind quoting the relevant bit?
        abc_lisper 5y ago
        > Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population Because the vaccinated are not immune to the virus, some of them must have gotten covid. The overall risk of this sample still falls with-in the normal range for myocarditis.
    - jonathanstrange 5y ago
      It makes no sense to only look at the risk of myocarditis. What you really want to know is how likely people in your age group and with similar predispositions are going to have serious health problems or die (i) if they are vaccinated and boostered and are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and (ii) if they are not vaccinated and are exposed to SARRS-CoV-2. The tricky part is the "exposed to" - if you interpret this as a symptomatic breakthrough infection, then you'll bias the study a little bit against vaccination because it seems likely that fully vaccinated people who get breakthrough cases of Covid have previously undiscovered health deficiencies in contrast to those who are vaccinated, exposed to the virus and do not show any symptoms. (I'm talking about a statistical tendency, of course, not all of those people.) So in the end the most interesting data is still how many vaccinated get serious health problems or die versus how many unvaccinated get serious health problems or die in a time and place where both groups are likely to be exposed to the virus. If the group is large enough and randomly selected, then this should be fairly indicative. Of course, the meaning of "serious" needs to be defined and quantified. AFAIK, myocarditis can be treated very well when its diagnosed, that alone makes the focus on it strange. Maybe the lesson to draw from the debate is that patients should be informed better so they can identify symptoms of myocarditis and seek medical help early. Just an idea...
  - devin 5y ago
    COVID is not endemic.
    - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
      I see endemic used to mean different things. I think most people just mean that it is now established and won't go away. That it will be a constant presence in our lives. I believe epidemiologists also require that infection rates remain roughly constant and don't exhibit wild swings in infection numbers. I guess we're still in an epidemic.
      - Fomite 5y ago
        Epidemiologically, endemic is that the rates of disease are within expectation - for example, there's a statistical threshold for flu every year. There can still be swings - seasonal diseases for example. There is no sane universe where COVID-19 is endemic from an epidemiological standpoint. It also doesn't imply that we should stop doing things.
        MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I'd add that endemic also doesn't mean mild.
- hedora 5y ago
  The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid. Essentially everyone that survives the next couple of years will catch covid.
  - tux1968 5y ago
    Honest question: is myocarditis and "heart disease" exactly equivalent for purposes of that assertion? In any case, you would have to subtract the percentage of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine itself, before deciding on the net benefit.
  - theteapot 5y ago
    > The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid. It does?? Where does it say this?
    - petesergeant 5y ago
      > Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.
      - tux1968 5y ago
        We're trying to isolate just one single claim. A claim about myocarditis alone. An article saying that the vaccine reduces complications overall, and is therefore a good choice, does not address the question of myocarditis in particular, and if it is reduced in the vaccinated population.
        coryrc 5y ago
        I don't believe anyone is claiming the vaccine reduces myocarditis on its own, other than by reducing the severity of a future covid infection.
      - 5y ago
csee 5y ago
> The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men. > So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid. This is a separate claim about the conditional probability, which I haven't seen data on. The unconditional probability does not inform the conditional probability.
- pstrateman 5y ago
  Do you have a link to that study?
  - dataflow 5y ago
    Probably https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... but I haven't looked at it. Also while I'm here, here's another article discussing the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-covid-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-co...
  - gypsyharlot 5y ago
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
    - consp 5y ago
      You keep quoting this research like it is something special. The EMA has know this for quite some time to be in the 1-10 in 100000 and more prevailant in males aging 12-35. It either goes away by itself or with medication though you are advised to seek medical attention if you feel anything strange. At least where I live no cases are known of death due this in stark contrast to the actual desease.
0x640x6D 5y ago
For asymptomatic and mild cases as well?
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
  Yes, can you pretend to at least read the fucking article.
yehosef 5y ago
Sources? - I've heard the opposite for young males.
tempestn 5y ago
Everyone will eventually be exposed to covid (probably repeatedly). It's possible with vaccinations that not everyone will be infected with covid however, as even against omicron it appears 3 doses of vaccine (especially a mix of pfizer and moderna) provide efficacy of 60%+ for at least 15 weeks. Omicron-specific versions of the mRNA vaccines are also already in testing, so I would hope those will be available for future boosters. (Of course there will be future variants as well, but it seems likely those would branch off of Omicron, so an updated vaccine would likely still prove more effective than the current ones would.) I suppose for some version of "eventually" then everyone would likely expect to get a breakthrough case eventually, but even so the vaccines should drastically reduce the number of times one expects to be infected, so still risk would be reduced, even if it wasn't for breakthrough cases (although it appears that vaccines reduce the risk there as well).
- jfoster 5y ago
  Related to your "exposed to" vs "infected" point, I've been wanting to check my understanding on something, and hopefully someone here can provide a more informed opinion. Immunity can be boosted through exposure, right? For instance, if someone was vaccinated, but then exposed and was lucky enough not to develop an infection from their exposure, are they immunologically better off as a result of that exposure? I think they probably are, because my understanding is that's how the earliest vaccines worked (exposure on a small enough innoculum to avoid infection) but I'm not an expert, so would love to hear more about this & whether there's a name for such an immune effect when it happens in the wild.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Yes, but probably not much. It also depends on how many particles it takes to get you sick. Norovirus is only 7, which is insane and also why it spreads so easily. Hard to have just an exposure to that!
    - Fomite 5y ago
      Norovirus is just bonkers.
gypsyharlot 5y ago
This is competely wrong. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
- yaris 5y ago
  As I read the text of the study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...) it directly says: "First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population." Is it another study you have where the risk [] is higher after Moderna/Pfizer than after COVID?
  - ummonk 5y ago
    "in the overall population" does a lot of heavy lifting there. Young males are both more vulnerable to vaccine-induced myocarditis and far less vulnerable to severe covid than the general population.
- lox 5y ago
  "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
- legulere 5y ago
  Why is that article still a preprint?
  - Fomite 5y ago
tessierashpool 5y ago
yup. the post you're replying to is wild, dangerous bullshit.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
This conclusion comes from this oft-cited study: https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-times-higher-for-unvaccinated-patients-ages-12-30-who-get-covid-19-than-covid-vaccinated-patients https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-ti... Unfortunately this study's message is quite obfuscating, probably intentionally. They mean exactly what they say though: covid-induced myocarditis rate is higher than vaccine-induced myocarditis rate, but it says nothing about covid-induced myocarditis rate in relation to vaccination status.
ummonk 5y ago
The change in conditional probability though likely flips when considering the third dose - the third dose is most likely to cause myocarditis, and least likely to protect against severe covid causing myocarditis (because the first two doses are already providing a high level of protection).

The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.

tux1968 5y ago

That's only true if the vaccine reduces the chance of myocarditis in patients that go on to get Covid.

abc_lisper 5y ago
One has to be incredibly lucky to not get Covid at some point, now that it has become endemic.
- tux1968 5y ago
  That's the point. You're still going to get Covid, so the question is, does having the vaccine reduce the prevalence of myocarditis in Covid patients? If it's the same as in the unvaccinated population, then (ignoring other actual benefits for a moment) taking the vaccine may actually increase your risk of myocarditis, since there is the risk with the vaccine itself, plus the risk once you get Covid.
  - abc_lisper 5y ago
    Yeah, taking the vaccination reduces the chance of myocarditis. https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-covid-19-is-a-much-bigger-risk-to-the-heart-than-vaccination-174580 https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-covid-19-is-a-much-b...
    - tux1968 5y ago
      I don't see anywhere in that article where it states that myocarditis is less prevalent in patients who subsequently get Covid. Would you mind quoting the relevant bit?
      - abc_lisper 5y ago
        > Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population Because the vaccinated are not immune to the virus, some of them must have gotten covid. The overall risk of this sample still falls with-in the normal range for myocarditis.
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    It makes no sense to only look at the risk of myocarditis. What you really want to know is how likely people in your age group and with similar predispositions are going to have serious health problems or die (i) if they are vaccinated and boostered and are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and (ii) if they are not vaccinated and are exposed to SARRS-CoV-2. The tricky part is the "exposed to" - if you interpret this as a symptomatic breakthrough infection, then you'll bias the study a little bit against vaccination because it seems likely that fully vaccinated people who get breakthrough cases of Covid have previously undiscovered health deficiencies in contrast to those who are vaccinated, exposed to the virus and do not show any symptoms. (I'm talking about a statistical tendency, of course, not all of those people.) So in the end the most interesting data is still how many vaccinated get serious health problems or die versus how many unvaccinated get serious health problems or die in a time and place where both groups are likely to be exposed to the virus. If the group is large enough and randomly selected, then this should be fairly indicative. Of course, the meaning of "serious" needs to be defined and quantified. AFAIK, myocarditis can be treated very well when its diagnosed, that alone makes the focus on it strange. Maybe the lesson to draw from the debate is that patients should be informed better so they can identify symptoms of myocarditis and seek medical help early. Just an idea...
- devin 5y ago
  COVID is not endemic.
  - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
    I see endemic used to mean different things. I think most people just mean that it is now established and won't go away. That it will be a constant presence in our lives. I believe epidemiologists also require that infection rates remain roughly constant and don't exhibit wild swings in infection numbers. I guess we're still in an epidemic.
    - Fomite 5y ago
      Epidemiologically, endemic is that the rates of disease are within expectation - for example, there's a statistical threshold for flu every year. There can still be swings - seasonal diseases for example. There is no sane universe where COVID-19 is endemic from an epidemiological standpoint. It also doesn't imply that we should stop doing things.
      - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I'd add that endemic also doesn't mean mild.
hedora 5y ago
The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid. Essentially everyone that survives the next couple of years will catch covid.
- tux1968 5y ago
  Honest question: is myocarditis and "heart disease" exactly equivalent for purposes of that assertion? In any case, you would have to subtract the percentage of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine itself, before deciding on the net benefit.
- theteapot 5y ago
  > The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid. It does?? Where does it say this?
  - petesergeant 5y ago
    > Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.
    - tux1968 5y ago
      We're trying to isolate just one single claim. A claim about myocarditis alone. An article saying that the vaccine reduces complications overall, and is therefore a good choice, does not address the question of myocarditis in particular, and if it is reduced in the vaccinated population.
      - coryrc 5y ago
        I don't believe anyone is claiming the vaccine reduces myocarditis on its own, other than by reducing the severity of a future covid infection.
    - 5y ago

csee 5y ago

> The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men. > So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid. This is a separate claim about the conditional probability, which I haven't seen data on. The unconditional probability does not inform the conditional probability.

pstrateman 5y ago
Do you have a link to that study?
- dataflow 5y ago
  Probably https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... but I haven't looked at it. Also while I'm here, here's another article discussing the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-covid-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-co...
- gypsyharlot 5y ago
  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
  - consp 5y ago
    You keep quoting this research like it is something special. The EMA has know this for quite some time to be in the 1-10 in 100000 and more prevailant in males aging 12-35. It either goes away by itself or with medication though you are advised to seek medical attention if you feel anything strange. At least where I live no cases are known of death due this in stark contrast to the actual desease.

0x640x6D 5y ago

For asymptomatic and mild cases as well?

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
Yes, can you pretend to at least read the fucking article.

yehosef 5y ago

Sources? - I've heard the opposite for young males.

tempestn 5y ago

Everyone will eventually be exposed to covid (probably repeatedly). It's possible with vaccinations that not everyone will be infected with covid however, as even against omicron it appears 3 doses of vaccine (especially a mix of pfizer and moderna) provide efficacy of 60%+ for at least 15 weeks. Omicron-specific versions of the mRNA vaccines are also already in testing, so I would hope those will be available for future boosters. (Of course there will be future variants as well, but it seems likely those would branch off of Omicron, so an updated vaccine would likely still prove more effective than the current ones would.) I suppose for some version of "eventually" then everyone would likely expect to get a breakthrough case eventually, but even so the vaccines should drastically reduce the number of times one expects to be infected, so still risk would be reduced, even if it wasn't for breakthrough cases (although it appears that vaccines reduce the risk there as well).

jfoster 5y ago
Related to your "exposed to" vs "infected" point, I've been wanting to check my understanding on something, and hopefully someone here can provide a more informed opinion. Immunity can be boosted through exposure, right? For instance, if someone was vaccinated, but then exposed and was lucky enough not to develop an infection from their exposure, are they immunologically better off as a result of that exposure? I think they probably are, because my understanding is that's how the earliest vaccines worked (exposure on a small enough innoculum to avoid infection) but I'm not an expert, so would love to hear more about this & whether there's a name for such an immune effect when it happens in the wild.
- coryrc 5y ago
  Yes, but probably not much. It also depends on how many particles it takes to get you sick. Norovirus is only 7, which is insane and also why it spreads so easily. Hard to have just an exposure to that!
  - Fomite 5y ago
    Norovirus is just bonkers.

gypsyharlot 5y ago

This is competely wrong. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...

yaris 5y ago
As I read the text of the study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...) it directly says: "First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population." Is it another study you have where the risk [] is higher after Moderna/Pfizer than after COVID?
- ummonk 5y ago
  "in the overall population" does a lot of heavy lifting there. Young males are both more vulnerable to vaccine-induced myocarditis and far less vulnerable to severe covid than the general population.
lox 5y ago
"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
legulere 5y ago
Why is that article still a preprint?
- Fomite 5y ago

tessierashpool 5y ago

yup. the post you're replying to is wild, dangerous bullshit.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

This conclusion comes from this oft-cited study: https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-times-higher-for-unvaccinated-patients-ages-12-30-who-get-covid-19-than-covid-vaccinated-patients https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/myocarditis-risk-17-ti... Unfortunately this study's message is quite obfuscating, probably intentionally. They mean exactly what they say though: covid-induced myocarditis rate is higher than vaccine-induced myocarditis rate, but it says nothing about covid-induced myocarditis rate in relation to vaccination status.

ummonk 5y ago

The change in conditional probability though likely flips when considering the third dose - the third dose is most likely to cause myocarditis, and least likely to protect against severe covid causing myocarditis (because the first two doses are already providing a high level of protection).