4 ms·
It is important to note that given the timeline in the study (March 2020 to Jan 2021) most of the COVID-19 group was likely unvaccinated. It remains to be seen
by nodamage 5y ago
It is important to note that given the timeline in the study (March 2020 to Jan 2021) most of the COVID-19 group was likely unvaccinated. It remains to be seen whether vaccination protects against these same risks.
Edit: This is confirmed in the supplementary data. Only 347 (0.23%) of the 162,690 people in the COVID-19 group were vaccinated prior to infection. That being said, a reasonably large percentage (61.93%) were vaccinated by the end of the follow up period, which would seemingly indicate that vaccination post-infection doesn't help all that much against these risks.
- arisAlexis 5y agoIt's crazy that they do not say anything in their study about the biggest confound ever, the vaccine.
- walterbell 5y agoPaper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 That's the pool of 60+ year-old veterans who were selected after testing positive and then subsequently monitored for one year. It is likely that many were vaccinated during the 1-year period from Jan 2021 - Jan 2022. e.g. as of July 2021, the VA % vaccinated was about 50%, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-mandates-employee-vaccines-covid-infections-double/8084671002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-man... We know that mRNA vaccines have resulted in negative cardiac consequences in some patients, although that has mostly been in younger men.
- nodamage 5y agoI'm not sure how that contradicts what I said? Most of the people in the COVID-19 group tested positive before the vaccines were approved in December 2020. Yes, they might have been vaccinated afterwards, but my point is they did not have vaccine-induced antibodies at the time of their infections.