3 ms·
right, i was going to make a similar kind of critique (but probably less lucidly). the effect sizes are tiny and the confidence intervals overwhelm the supposed
by clairity 4y ago
right, i was going to make a similar kind of critique (but probably less lucidly). the effect sizes are tiny and the confidence intervals overwhelm the supposed conclusions. seems to be motivated reasoning rather than impartial science.
covid may cause a rise in heart disease in unvaxed individuals relative to vaxed, but this study does nothing to support, and especially doesn't prove, that contention. one thing it does reveal is that the overall incidence rates for myo-/pericarditis are pretty small, vaxed or otherwise.
what would be more interesting is a comparative study of incidence relative to similar cardiopulmonary infections like the flu. that would tell us whether heart disease from covid is something to worry more about than our ambient worry over heart disease in general (which seems relatively mild compared to covid).
- chiefalchemist 4y ago> Covid may cause a rise in heart disease in unvaxed individuals relative to vaxed, but this study does nothing to support, and especially doesn't prove, that contention. The issue that comes to mind for me is there no explanation given on why the unvaccinated were unvaccinated. From what I remember, the jab was not recommended for those with compromised immune system or other similar less-than-healthy conditions. Without such transparency, it feels like possible apple to orangers comparisons. Or maybe I'm misreading?
- clairity 4y agothat could be a confounding factor, but it's hard to know for sure without really digging into their data and methods. they may have tried to correct for that. in any case, this study actually seems to suggest that while vaccination probably has a marginal benefit, the effect size is too small to really matter.
- random314 4y agoA double dose is recommended for the immunocompromised