3 ms·

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ 200,000 unvaccinated people showed no measurable increase in myo- and peric

• majormajor 4y ago
  The link from '2muchcoffeeman shows a dramatic increase in March 2020–January 2021 rates after Covid among a 36,005,294 cohort group with 1.45M Covid cases. Which is fun, since 200,000 is a LOT of people and would normally (assuming independence and randomness) be seen as more than enough, but there's probably not a lot of true randomness/independence in cohorts of people who got Covid in that period. Probably a lot of shared characteristics. In any case, the sample that's 7 times longer is probably the one to go with. So the express article talks about risk increases of 75% and 557% (Pfizer/Moderna). The COVID cohort in the March 2020-January 2021 US study is a 16x increase. So quite likely several multiples worse to get "original" Covid unvaccinated, also a lot of unknowns around new variants and immune response, of course, but... It's all pretty straightforward, no? Vaccine causes similar effects to a real infection intentionally, to stimulate the immune system. Sometimes this has side effect. The actual virus - which is much more, ahem, viral - hits the body even harder, the immune system produces much larger effects, including more frequent instances of the same side effects. And these numbers all around are still infrequent, and viral infection has caused myocarditits for a long time pre-Covid too, so the hysteria seems like confirmation bias (either of "Covid is the source of all my problems" or "vaccines are bad" reactionary silliness.) How frequently you do or don't get boosters should depend on disease prevalence, patient history, risk factors, etc, but.... the idea that people are commonly dropping dead from these vaccines or this disease super frequently, and worringly more than the whole world full of previous diseases? I'm unconvinced. And that it's "mRNA specific" vs "immune system stimulation" related? Seems to be zero reason to jump to that conclusion.
  • somenameforme 4y ago
    I don't think what you're suggesting is especially good science. A study of hundreds of thousands with something that another study shows an incidence rate of 0.15% of is far more than enough to detect a signal. And so what really matters is methodology and limitations. The CDC mentions a substantial number of limitations in their methodology. One very big one is that they did not consider underlying conditions. In the limited data that they provided [1] you'll notice black individuals and those on medicare are both substantially overrepresented in the myocarditis group. Neither of those factors cause myocarditis, but both are correlated strongly with obesity - which does. And black individuals, especially early on in the pandemic, were substantially overrepresented in infection rates. In other words a sample of the population that is disproportionately obese, which can cause myocarditis, were also disproportionately diagnosed with COVID. And those sort of biases, among many others, were not considered. Notably all unconsidered biases share the common characteristic of likely inflating the estimated COVID:myocarditis relationship. By contrast in the Israeli study these factors (and many more) were carefully controlled for, alongside a consideration of how their results may differ, and why, relative to other major studies. [1] - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/109261 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/109261
  • 6nf 4y ago
    Unvaccinated countries like PNG are not seeing increased deaths in under 45s.