3 ms·

Can you square this for me: > [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 tes

Can you square this for me: > [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively) > The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]). Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. They also very importantly mention that vaccination has a higher risk of myocarditis for men under 40. In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk. > Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). Presumably repeated infections carry less risk over time, I see no mention of this scenario.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] > In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) understand statistics better than you do.
- bovinyl 4y ago
  > No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way. > It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era. > understand statistics better than you do I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant. > I have a degree that required high level math Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14. No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] > In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) understand statistics better than you do.

bovinyl 4y ago
> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap. Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way. > It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era. > understand statistics better than you do I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant. > I have a degree that required high level math Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.