5 ms·

Roughly correct, but a bit high as far as I can see. The papers says risk ratio of 5.31 for Pfizer and 13.83 for Moderna. Not sure where you got 9 and 28. It

Roughly correct, but a bit high as far as I can see. The papers says risk ratio of 5.31 for Pfizer and 13.83 for Moderna. Not sure where you got 9 and 28. It does seem that a young male already immune due to having had Covid would be best advised not to get an mRNA vaccine.

labster 4y ago
> young male already immune due to having had Covid Citation needed on the “already immune” bit. So far studies have shown that immunity to the corona wears off, and most people can be reinfected months to a year later.
- radford-neal 4y ago
  Yeah, they can be infected agains, but that's also true if they've been vaccinated, or both vaccinated and had Covid. The incremental benefit of a healthy young person getting vaccinated after already having had Covid may be quite small. Plus the incidence of myocarditis in this group (vaccinated after having had Covid) could well be higher than it is in people getting vaccinated who haven't had Covid. (This is plausible, since as seen in this study, the risk is higher for the second shot, when the immune system has already been stimulated before.)
  - kadoban 4y ago
    It's also very possible that the risks for covid in each possible circumstance are higher than that for the vaccine. Quite likely even.
- renaudg 4y ago
  The shortest documented timeframe between infections is actually 20 days !
arinlen 4y ago
> It does seem that a young male already immune due to having had Covid (...) There is no such thing as "already immune due to having had COVID". Unvaccinated individuals were observed to have far higher reinfection rates than vaccinated individuals (over 5-fold higher chances). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe... > (...) would be best advised not to get an mRNA vaccine. This assertion is not only entirely baseless but also completely ignores the fact that a) unvaccinated individuals are a couple orders of magnitude more likely to die from COVID, b) the myocarditis issue pinned to vaccines is benign and transitory, and estimated to be at most less than 5 cases per 100 000 vaccinnees. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
- peteradio 4y ago
  Pretty misleading citation source there, you must be implying the Kentucky study which is infected+vaccinated compared to infected only (not infected to vaccinated as most would read your sentence). You apparently ignore the New York/California study in the same link. All this completely ignores the age factor as well which reduces the absolute risk for youths to essentially negligible.
  - radford-neal 4y ago
    Yes. Even taking the Kentucky study at face value, the estimate odds ratio (probably similar to relative risk, given reinfection is fairly unlikely) is 2.34 (confidence interval 1.58 to 3.47), not "over 5-fold higher chances". However, as they say, "...persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated."
michaelmrose 4y ago
Why would we take advice from YOU that is contrary to what every nations medical experts are advising?
- radford-neal 4y ago
  Well, you shouldn't just take advice from a random person on the internet. But neither should you just take advice from medical experts and official government sources. There is no substitute for thinking. One thing to think about is that "every nations medical experts" are heavily committed to a narrative that vaccines are good, and hence may be disinclined to admit there are exceptions to this (such as healthy young males who have already had covid). They may think that the vaccine is good for most people, and that they should therefore pretend that it's good for everyone to avoid "confusion"...

labster 4y ago

> young male already immune due to having had Covid Citation needed on the “already immune” bit. So far studies have shown that immunity to the corona wears off, and most people can be reinfected months to a year later.

radford-neal 4y ago
Yeah, they can be infected agains, but that's also true if they've been vaccinated, or both vaccinated and had Covid. The incremental benefit of a healthy young person getting vaccinated after already having had Covid may be quite small. Plus the incidence of myocarditis in this group (vaccinated after having had Covid) could well be higher than it is in people getting vaccinated who haven't had Covid. (This is plausible, since as seen in this study, the risk is higher for the second shot, when the immune system has already been stimulated before.)
- kadoban 4y ago
  It's also very possible that the risks for covid in each possible circumstance are higher than that for the vaccine. Quite likely even.
renaudg 4y ago
The shortest documented timeframe between infections is actually 20 days !

arinlen 4y ago

> It does seem that a young male already immune due to having had Covid (...) There is no such thing as "already immune due to having had COVID". Unvaccinated individuals were observed to have far higher reinfection rates than vaccinated individuals (over 5-fold higher chances). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe... > (...) would be best advised not to get an mRNA vaccine. This assertion is not only entirely baseless but also completely ignores the fact that a) unvaccinated individuals are a couple orders of magnitude more likely to die from COVID, b) the myocarditis issue pinned to vaccines is benign and transitory, and estimated to be at most less than 5 cases per 100 000 vaccinnees. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

peteradio 4y ago
Pretty misleading citation source there, you must be implying the Kentucky study which is infected+vaccinated compared to infected only (not infected to vaccinated as most would read your sentence). You apparently ignore the New York/California study in the same link. All this completely ignores the age factor as well which reduces the absolute risk for youths to essentially negligible.
- radford-neal 4y ago
  Yes. Even taking the Kentucky study at face value, the estimate odds ratio (probably similar to relative risk, given reinfection is fairly unlikely) is 2.34 (confidence interval 1.58 to 3.47), not "over 5-fold higher chances". However, as they say, "...persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated."

michaelmrose 4y ago

Why would we take advice from YOU that is contrary to what every nations medical experts are advising?

radford-neal 4y ago
Well, you shouldn't just take advice from a random person on the internet. But neither should you just take advice from medical experts and official government sources. There is no substitute for thinking. One thing to think about is that "every nations medical experts" are heavily committed to a narrative that vaccines are good, and hence may be disinclined to admit there are exceptions to this (such as healthy young males who have already had covid). They may think that the vaccine is good for most people, and that they should therefore pretend that it's good for everyone to avoid "confusion"...