3 ms·

That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the ar

That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite: "The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows." The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.

mikem170 4y ago
> That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. The original post you replied to said: > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. > It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August. The fact that this is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit. Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected. > The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine. Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against? Maybe you wanted more specifics?
- chimprich 4y ago
  > They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. They absolutely did! Let's go through that one sentence clause by clause. > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive ...which is utterly ridiculous. The vaccines have clearly saved tens of millions of lives by any reasonable assessment. > especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats ..."especially", so not only the sub-60 cohort, but to a greater degree for them. Looking at "the actual stats", so should be verifiable, but still no evidence for that. And there won't be: the benefits very clearly outweigh the negatives for under-60s. > - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. "At least" in the unspecified "younger pop". But this is only true if you chuck a bunch of qualifiers in there. If you want to argue that the risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccine than from covid in, say, under-35s, then I don't think that is true in general, but it gets a bit less clear (and there are other risks from the virus than just myocarditis). But if you are going to argue that then why talk about the "sub 60 cohort"? > You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation No, I most certainly did not. You can read what I wrote by moving your eyes a couple of paragraphs up. I called bullshit on "especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats".
  - mikem170 4y ago
    Ah, a miscommunication then. I read the original poster as referring to the myocardetis issues that do exist for younger people, issues that I was already familiar with, backed up by numbers from the American Heart Association. Your reading of the original post wasn't very charitable, considering there was some truth to their complete statement - "at least for the younger population", as they mentioned. Or maybe you didn't know this risk existed. If you had said "we now know that's true only for males under 40 years old getting moderna" about this persons concerns, instead of "bullshit, cite sources" I wouldn't have jumped in. You asked specifically about the myocardetis risk from the vaccines in under-60s. That's the relevant data I linked to, the best data that we have at the moment, that I know of. I wanted to provide more accurate information for other people reading this. The risk of myocardetis is certainly something younger men would have been prudent to pay attention to, the study quoted in the linked article showed that this problem really has existed and appears to be specific to the Moderna vaccine, which we weren't sure about before. I find it odd that you doubt the American Heart Association on this. There's also the blood clot problems discovered in younger women for other vaccines, so it hasn't been just younger men that have had concerns. This is all new information we didn't have at the time the vaccines were released, and statistically relevant given the low risk of death from covid for young people. Countries updated their vaccination policies because of this stuff, it makes sense that there were concerned individuals like the original poster paying attention along the way.

mikem170 4y ago

> That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. The original post you replied to said: > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. > It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August. The fact that this is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit. Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected. > The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine. Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against? Maybe you wanted more specifics?

chimprich 4y ago
> They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted. They absolutely did! Let's go through that one sentence clause by clause. > i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive ...which is utterly ridiculous. The vaccines have clearly saved tens of millions of lives by any reasonable assessment. > especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats ..."especially", so not only the sub-60 cohort, but to a greater degree for them. Looking at "the actual stats", so should be verifiable, but still no evidence for that. And there won't be: the benefits very clearly outweigh the negatives for under-60s. > - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop. "At least" in the unspecified "younger pop". But this is only true if you chuck a bunch of qualifiers in there. If you want to argue that the risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccine than from covid in, say, under-35s, then I don't think that is true in general, but it gets a bit less clear (and there are other risks from the virus than just myocarditis). But if you are going to argue that then why talk about the "sub 60 cohort"? > You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation No, I most certainly did not. You can read what I wrote by moving your eyes a couple of paragraphs up. I called bullshit on "especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats".
- mikem170 4y ago
  Ah, a miscommunication then. I read the original poster as referring to the myocardetis issues that do exist for younger people, issues that I was already familiar with, backed up by numbers from the American Heart Association. Your reading of the original post wasn't very charitable, considering there was some truth to their complete statement - "at least for the younger population", as they mentioned. Or maybe you didn't know this risk existed. If you had said "we now know that's true only for males under 40 years old getting moderna" about this persons concerns, instead of "bullshit, cite sources" I wouldn't have jumped in. You asked specifically about the myocardetis risk from the vaccines in under-60s. That's the relevant data I linked to, the best data that we have at the moment, that I know of. I wanted to provide more accurate information for other people reading this. The risk of myocardetis is certainly something younger men would have been prudent to pay attention to, the study quoted in the linked article showed that this problem really has existed and appears to be specific to the Moderna vaccine, which we weren't sure about before. I find it odd that you doubt the American Heart Association on this. There's also the blood clot problems discovered in younger women for other vaccines, so it hasn't been just younger men that have had concerns. This is all new information we didn't have at the time the vaccines were released, and statistically relevant given the low risk of death from covid for young people. Countries updated their vaccination policies because of this stuff, it makes sense that there were concerned individuals like the original poster paying attention along the way.