3 ms·

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion. My link goes to paper that is a bit old, I did not do a new literature search, so I am not sure how the risk calcu

by uecker 1y ago

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion. My link goes to paper that is a bit old, I did not do a new literature search, so I am not sure how the risk calculation may have changed since then. But at that point (2021) the benefit of vaccine was very clear also for 12-17 year old males. You seem to massively overestimate the risks of mild myocarditis compared to the risks of a covid infection in unvaccinated people.

somenameforme 1y ago
The study only considered people who end up being diagnosed with myocarditis after seeking medical treatment at a hospital following vaccination with 7 days, and it "predominantly" resulted in subsequent hospitalization for multiple days; on top of this myocarditis can cause longterm irreparable damage. The paper classified that as mild, and perhaps that is the clinically correct term, but it's certainly not the colloquially correct one. In any case rates of all myocarditis and various cardiovascular issues are obviously going to much higher than 1 in 15,000. As for the risk:benefit analysis, the paper created a typical false dichotomy. It compared getting the shot vs an aggregate case of getting COVID. The reality is that if you got the shot you still ended up getting COVID, often multiple times. And the aggregate comparisons were disingenuous because COVID had dramatically different typical outcomes dependent upon health status at the time of infection. Those with significant preexisting conditions made up the overwhelming majority of negative outcomes. But even with this false dichotomy they found that they'd only prevent 1 death from COVID per million cases, which I assume was rather liberally rounded up. So that is known as 1 micromort. [1] That's a fun page because it gives some context to mortality risk. 1 micromort is a bit less than everybody experiences every day in the US of dying from a non-natural cause, excluding suicide. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
- uecker 1y ago
  This is not a study but a review article, so it seems you are bit confused. The point is very simply and confirmed by many studies: The increased risk from COVID when unvaccinated is much higher than the risk from myocarditis caused by the vaccine in rare cases. And no, I do not see how the paper made the mistake you claim. It compared the increased risk for getting myocardities after the shot to the reduced risk from COVID (and these risks also include myocarditis caused by COVID which is also know to be more severe).
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    The benefits cited in the paper (and most others) were based on the ultimately false claims from vaccine manufacturers. You can see the CDC slides they based their numbers on here. [1] The CDC removed it from their website, for reasons, which is why I'm linking to an archive. The CDC is opaque about exactly what numbers they ended up using, but their slides included claims of vaccines being ~95% effective at preventing infection and ~100% effective against hospitalization/death. Obviously those claims were false, and so it completely ruins the risk:benefit analysis, because the benefits were grossly overstated. Amusingly, you can actually see an immediate error in the study you linked to. Their figure 2 was simply ripped directly from the CDC slides, but they failed to copy/paste the data for 12-17 year old males correctly. You can see it's identical to females. You'd think that have triggered some 'ermmm?' in reviewers, to say nothing of the researchers. Alas, such is the state of science now a days. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220730093118/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220730093118/https://www.cdc.g... (slide/page 32)
    - uecker 1y ago
      Please specify which numbers you exactly you are referring to. Slides are also irrelevant, all these studies are published. You also need to understand that there are many independent studies confirming this (many I looked at as well as colleagues I know and trust). One also need to understand the effectiveness changes over time, so numbers which are correct in some initial setting may not apply in another setting. This does not imply that somebody "lied". You seem a little bit of a conspiracy theorist interpreting everything which seems suspicious to you as proof for that you are being lied to? Like climate change deniers you assume that all researchers of the world somehow conspired to hide the big lie? Edit: So one of the original studies cited in slides which you seem to claim was a "lie" is this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 This was a large collaboration of scientists (made doctors that that swore the hippocratic oath). You think the misreported the results of this study?
      - 1y ago

by uecker 1y ago

somenameforme 1y ago

The study only considered people who end up being diagnosed with myocarditis after seeking medical treatment at a hospital following vaccination with 7 days, and it "predominantly" resulted in subsequent hospitalization for multiple days; on top of this myocarditis can cause longterm irreparable damage. The paper classified that as mild, and perhaps that is the clinically correct term, but it's certainly not the colloquially correct one. In any case rates of all myocarditis and various cardiovascular issues are obviously going to much higher than 1 in 15,000. As for the risk:benefit analysis, the paper created a typical false dichotomy. It compared getting the shot vs an aggregate case of getting COVID. The reality is that if you got the shot you still ended up getting COVID, often multiple times. And the aggregate comparisons were disingenuous because COVID had dramatically different typical outcomes dependent upon health status at the time of infection. Those with significant preexisting conditions made up the overwhelming majority of negative outcomes. But even with this false dichotomy they found that they'd only prevent 1 death from COVID per million cases, which I assume was rather liberally rounded up. So that is known as 1 micromort. [1] That's a fun page because it gives some context to mortality risk. 1 micromort is a bit less than everybody experiences every day in the US of dying from a non-natural cause, excluding suicide. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

uecker 1y ago
This is not a study but a review article, so it seems you are bit confused. The point is very simply and confirmed by many studies: The increased risk from COVID when unvaccinated is much higher than the risk from myocarditis caused by the vaccine in rare cases. And no, I do not see how the paper made the mistake you claim. It compared the increased risk for getting myocardities after the shot to the reduced risk from COVID (and these risks also include myocarditis caused by COVID which is also know to be more severe).
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The benefits cited in the paper (and most others) were based on the ultimately false claims from vaccine manufacturers. You can see the CDC slides they based their numbers on here. [1] The CDC removed it from their website, for reasons, which is why I'm linking to an archive. The CDC is opaque about exactly what numbers they ended up using, but their slides included claims of vaccines being ~95% effective at preventing infection and ~100% effective against hospitalization/death. Obviously those claims were false, and so it completely ruins the risk:benefit analysis, because the benefits were grossly overstated. Amusingly, you can actually see an immediate error in the study you linked to. Their figure 2 was simply ripped directly from the CDC slides, but they failed to copy/paste the data for 12-17 year old males correctly. You can see it's identical to females. You'd think that have triggered some 'ermmm?' in reviewers, to say nothing of the researchers. Alas, such is the state of science now a days. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220730093118/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220730093118/https://www.cdc.g... (slide/page 32)
  - uecker 1y ago
    Please specify which numbers you exactly you are referring to. Slides are also irrelevant, all these studies are published. You also need to understand that there are many independent studies confirming this (many I looked at as well as colleagues I know and trust). One also need to understand the effectiveness changes over time, so numbers which are correct in some initial setting may not apply in another setting. This does not imply that somebody "lied". You seem a little bit of a conspiracy theorist interpreting everything which seems suspicious to you as proof for that you are being lied to? Like climate change deniers you assume that all researchers of the world somehow conspired to hide the big lie? Edit: So one of the original studies cited in slides which you seem to claim was a "lie" is this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 This was a large collaboration of scientists (made doctors that that swore the hippocratic oath). You think the misreported the results of this study?
    - 1y ago