4 ms·

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"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed"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
  While there are several problems with that paper, it should be noted, as an epidemiologist, that the publication timelines for COVID-19 papers have gone well and truly pear shaped.
  - csee 5y ago
    Are there any problems with that paper that would invalidate their conclusion that myocarditis is more likely in young men who get Moderna than young men who get Covid?
    - Fomite 5y ago
      My biggest concern is the studies that have been comparing myocarditis induced by the vaccine vs. those with MIS-C from COVID-19 that show that they're not necessarily directly comparable - the vaccine-induced version is also milder. It is elevated, but the implications of that depend wildly on things like case rates, as events/vaccine doses is static, and events/cases is dynamic. A conclusion reached in Sept., 2021 misses a huge upswing in cases in young men from Omicron, which while milder on a per-case bases has also caused a lot more cases (to use a gaming analogy, making better saving throws, but making a lot of them).
      - csee 5y ago
        Do you have a source on the vaccine-induced myocarditis being milder? If that's true then it is indeed a crucial thing to keep in mind when interpreting these results.
        Fomite 5y ago
        https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v...
- rsfern 5y ago
  It was posted less than two months ago, that’s a pretty normal time frame for a paper to stay in review depending on the field and journal. Often there are two rounds of review even if the reviews only call for minor revisions
permalac 5y ago
I've not read the article, but others are using it to present the opposite opinion. Could you elaborate? I'm actually interested more in your opinion than on the mainstream one.

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
While there are several problems with that paper, it should be noted, as an epidemiologist, that the publication timelines for COVID-19 papers have gone well and truly pear shaped.
- csee 5y ago
  Are there any problems with that paper that would invalidate their conclusion that myocarditis is more likely in young men who get Moderna than young men who get Covid?
  - Fomite 5y ago
    My biggest concern is the studies that have been comparing myocarditis induced by the vaccine vs. those with MIS-C from COVID-19 that show that they're not necessarily directly comparable - the vaccine-induced version is also milder. It is elevated, but the implications of that depend wildly on things like case rates, as events/vaccine doses is static, and events/cases is dynamic. A conclusion reached in Sept., 2021 misses a huge upswing in cases in young men from Omicron, which while milder on a per-case bases has also caused a lot more cases (to use a gaming analogy, making better saving throws, but making a lot of them).
    - csee 5y ago
      Do you have a source on the vaccine-induced myocarditis being milder? If that's true then it is indeed a crucial thing to keep in mind when interpreting these results.
      - Fomite 5y ago
        https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v...
rsfern 5y ago
It was posted less than two months ago, that’s a pretty normal time frame for a paper to stay in review depending on the field and journal. Often there are two rounds of review even if the reviews only call for minor revisions

permalac 5y ago

I've not read the article, but others are using it to present the opposite opinion. Could you elaborate? I'm actually interested more in your opinion than on the mainstream one.