7 ms·

What COVID vaccine side effects? The only one I know apart from just mild reactions in the week that follows is the minuscule increase in myocarditis in young m

by didibus 11mo ago

What COVID vaccine side effects? The only one I know apart from just mild reactions in the week that follows is the minuscule increase in myocarditis in young males, and the increase in myocarditis is even higher from normal COVID exposure, so it's arguable vaccine actually lower your overall chances.

someperson 11mo ago
[flagged]
- gadders 11mo ago
  The other thing that made mandates controversial was the fact that the vaccine didn't stop transmission. If the vaccine only helps the person that takes it, then it should be personal choice.
  - dosethree 11mo ago
    it can assist with preventing transmission https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103 https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103
    - gadders 11mo ago
      This study says it likely doesn't: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/ We can swap one off studies all day, but the fact remains that there wasn't compelling enough evidence to justify making the vaccine mandated.
      - op00to 11mo ago
        Given demonstrated cuts in transmission and severe disease, proven mandate effects on uptake and outcomes, and established legal grounding, the claim that evidence was insufficient to justify mandates is not supported.
        gadders 11mo ago
        That's not what the study says.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        op00to 11mo ago
        That Kampf piece isn’t what you're trying to sell it as. It’s a opinion-based book chapter in a Springer volume, not a peer-reviewed research paper. That means it wasn’t reviewed by independent subject-matter experts or subjected to methodological scrutiny. It’s basically an editorial essay compiled from selectively cited studies which measure viral load (Ct values) instead of actual transmission. The author even admits “the epidemiological relevance remains uncertain,” which is academic code for “this doesn't matter.” The argument also ignores that PCR viral load is a weak proxy for contagiousness. Ct values vary by swab technique, timing, and test type, and don’t necessarily correlate with live virus or infectious period. Real transmission studies look at secondary attack rates (how often close contacts get infected) which is the gold standard for measuring infectiousness. Kampf doesn’t do that. He just stacks correlational lab data and calls it proof that vaccines don’t reduce transmission. That’s not how epidemiology works. If you actually read the peer-reviewed literature, the evidence directly contradicts his claim. Madewell et al. (JAMA Netw Open 2022, 5(4): e229317) analyzed dozens of household studies and found vaccination reduced both susceptibility and infectiousness, though less for later variants. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791601 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Jung et al. (JAMA Netw Open 2022, 5(5): e2213606) demonstrated that vaccinated people cleared live virus faster and transmitted less frequently. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792598 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Maeda et al. (Int J Infect Dis 2023) confirmed vaccinated index cases were significantly less likely to infect household members. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971223006422 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122... And a Spanish cohort study (PMC10975059, 2023) found vaccinated index cases had an adjusted odds ratio of 0.21 for transmitting compared to unvaccinated. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975059/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975059/ So when someone waves around a non-peer-reviewed book chapter that literally says “the relevance remains uncertain” as if it’s the definitive takedown of global vaccine data, they’re not being honest... or they don’t understand what they’re citing. The serious literature is consistent: vaccines shorten infectious periods, lower secondary attack rates, and reduce transmission risk. Kampf’s chapter is opinion dressed up as research, and anyone presenting it as “proof” just revealed they didn’t read past the abstract. Get out of here with what you think the study says. You didn’t read it, you skimmed a line and built a conspiracy out of it. You’re advertising that you don’t understand the difference between a book chapter and peer-reviewed research.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
  - rangerelf 11mo ago
    Not disagreeing, just a question: if you were to catch it, would you stay inside until you're healthy again and not a danger to others?
    - op00to 11mo ago
      Yes, that or wear a well-fitted n95 mask and limit exposure as much as possible. Wouldn’t you?
    - gadders 11mo ago
      Yes, but that's unrelated to the vaccine question.
  - triceratops 11mo ago
    > If the vaccine only helps the person that takes it, then it should be personal choice. If unvaccinated people seek treatment for Covid, should they get put lower down the priority list than vaccinated people? Otherwise that person's "personal choice" is negatively affecting someone else, right?
- matwood 11mo ago
  > those impacted by myocarditis would not have had it without the shot Doesn't this assume they were/are never exposed to COVID? It seems unlikely to be the case at this point.
- fabian2k 11mo ago
  I haven't followed all the details, but the parts I've seen all pretty much said that the risk of myocarditis from a COVID infection is still larger than from the vaccines. This is all very low incidence, so it's hard to get robust data. But as you can assume that COVID is widespread enough that almost everyone will get it at some point, the risk from the vaccine is not larger than that from the infection, likely it is much lower (especially if we include more than myocarditis).
- op00to 11mo ago
  > those impacted by myocarditis would not have had it without the shot How do you know? One could easily say that since the risk of myocarditis is much higher after COVID infection than vaccination, that vaccines prevented far more cases of myocarditis than they caused.
francisofascii 11mo ago
[flagged]
- jeffbee 11mo ago
  People who did not receive the vaccine are > 5x more likely to develop those symptoms.
kochb 11mo ago
The J&J vaccine (which I received) was ultimately pulled due in part to blood clots which resulted in one documented death [1]. The AstraZeneca vaccine suffered the same fate. It has been affirmed that the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the virus. Still, we shouldn’t shout “the vaccines are safe” so loudly that we can’t document and discuss real side effects and relative risks between competing solutions. We’ve ultimately reached the correct outcome here, removing an inferior product from the market. [1]: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...
- darth_avocado 11mo ago
  > we shouldn’t shout “the vaccines are safe” so loudly that we can’t document and discuss real side effects and relative risks between competing solutions When people say “vaccines are safe” they usually mean “vaccines are generally safe” but when people say “vaccines are not safe” they usually mean “all vaccines are not safe at all times”. Those two are very different opinions and you’re demanding accountability from the side that already willing to display it.
orochimaaru 11mo ago
I think “minuscule” is an understatement. I knew of 2 teenagers who were hospitalized for myocarditis - both healthy and played sports at high school. Compared to that I know of no one who has had issues with the polio, norovirus, hib, hepatitis, etc. Even the often “dreaded” mmr is ok. I’ve known of kids having sustained reactions to mmrv. I think general aches and chills were not an issue. But myocarditis and blood clots should be looked at and not brushed under “minuscule”
- Snowfield9571 11mo ago
  I am sure it is scary to see young people have reactions to vaccines but if you compare the rates of the side effects in comparison with the rate in those who do get COVID you'll see that, in that context, they are indeed minor https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significantly-higher-after-covid-19-infection-vs-after-a-covid-19-vaccine https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...

by didibus 11mo ago

someperson 11mo ago

[flagged]

gadders 11mo ago
The other thing that made mandates controversial was the fact that the vaccine didn't stop transmission. If the vaccine only helps the person that takes it, then it should be personal choice.
- dosethree 11mo ago
  it can assist with preventing transmission https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103 https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103
  - gadders 11mo ago
    This study says it likely doesn't: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/ We can swap one off studies all day, but the fact remains that there wasn't compelling enough evidence to justify making the vaccine mandated.
    - op00to 11mo ago
      Given demonstrated cuts in transmission and severe disease, proven mandate effects on uptake and outcomes, and established legal grounding, the claim that evidence was insufficient to justify mandates is not supported.
      - gadders 11mo ago
        That's not what the study says.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        op00to 11mo ago
        That Kampf piece isn’t what you're trying to sell it as. It’s a opinion-based book chapter in a Springer volume, not a peer-reviewed research paper. That means it wasn’t reviewed by independent subject-matter experts or subjected to methodological scrutiny. It’s basically an editorial essay compiled from selectively cited studies which measure viral load (Ct values) instead of actual transmission. The author even admits “the epidemiological relevance remains uncertain,” which is academic code for “this doesn't matter.” The argument also ignores that PCR viral load is a weak proxy for contagiousness. Ct values vary by swab technique, timing, and test type, and don’t necessarily correlate with live virus or infectious period. Real transmission studies look at secondary attack rates (how often close contacts get infected) which is the gold standard for measuring infectiousness. Kampf doesn’t do that. He just stacks correlational lab data and calls it proof that vaccines don’t reduce transmission. That’s not how epidemiology works. If you actually read the peer-reviewed literature, the evidence directly contradicts his claim. Madewell et al. (JAMA Netw Open 2022, 5(4): e229317) analyzed dozens of household studies and found vaccination reduced both susceptibility and infectiousness, though less for later variants. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791601 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Jung et al. (JAMA Netw Open 2022, 5(5): e2213606) demonstrated that vaccinated people cleared live virus faster and transmitted less frequently. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2792598 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Maeda et al. (Int J Infect Dis 2023) confirmed vaccinated index cases were significantly less likely to infect household members. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971223006422 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122... And a Spanish cohort study (PMC10975059, 2023) found vaccinated index cases had an adjusted odds ratio of 0.21 for transmitting compared to unvaccinated. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975059/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975059/ So when someone waves around a non-peer-reviewed book chapter that literally says “the relevance remains uncertain” as if it’s the definitive takedown of global vaccine data, they’re not being honest... or they don’t understand what they’re citing. The serious literature is consistent: vaccines shorten infectious periods, lower secondary attack rates, and reduce transmission risk. Kampf’s chapter is opinion dressed up as research, and anyone presenting it as “proof” just revealed they didn’t read past the abstract. Get out of here with what you think the study says. You didn’t read it, you skimmed a line and built a conspiracy out of it. You’re advertising that you don’t understand the difference between a book chapter and peer-reviewed research.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
- rangerelf 11mo ago
  Not disagreeing, just a question: if you were to catch it, would you stay inside until you're healthy again and not a danger to others?
  - op00to 11mo ago
    Yes, that or wear a well-fitted n95 mask and limit exposure as much as possible. Wouldn’t you?
  - gadders 11mo ago
    Yes, but that's unrelated to the vaccine question.
- triceratops 11mo ago
  > If the vaccine only helps the person that takes it, then it should be personal choice. If unvaccinated people seek treatment for Covid, should they get put lower down the priority list than vaccinated people? Otherwise that person's "personal choice" is negatively affecting someone else, right?
matwood 11mo ago
> those impacted by myocarditis would not have had it without the shot Doesn't this assume they were/are never exposed to COVID? It seems unlikely to be the case at this point.
fabian2k 11mo ago
I haven't followed all the details, but the parts I've seen all pretty much said that the risk of myocarditis from a COVID infection is still larger than from the vaccines. This is all very low incidence, so it's hard to get robust data. But as you can assume that COVID is widespread enough that almost everyone will get it at some point, the risk from the vaccine is not larger than that from the infection, likely it is much lower (especially if we include more than myocarditis).
op00to 11mo ago
> those impacted by myocarditis would not have had it without the shot How do you know? One could easily say that since the risk of myocarditis is much higher after COVID infection than vaccination, that vaccines prevented far more cases of myocarditis than they caused.

francisofascii 11mo ago

[flagged]

jeffbee 11mo ago
People who did not receive the vaccine are > 5x more likely to develop those symptoms.

kochb 11mo ago

The J&J vaccine (which I received) was ultimately pulled due in part to blood clots which resulted in one documented death [1]. The AstraZeneca vaccine suffered the same fate. It has been affirmed that the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the virus. Still, we shouldn’t shout “the vaccines are safe” so loudly that we can’t document and discuss real side effects and relative risks between competing solutions. We’ve ultimately reached the correct outcome here, removing an inferior product from the market. [1]: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...

darth_avocado 11mo ago
> we shouldn’t shout “the vaccines are safe” so loudly that we can’t document and discuss real side effects and relative risks between competing solutions When people say “vaccines are safe” they usually mean “vaccines are generally safe” but when people say “vaccines are not safe” they usually mean “all vaccines are not safe at all times”. Those two are very different opinions and you’re demanding accountability from the side that already willing to display it.

orochimaaru 11mo ago

I think “minuscule” is an understatement. I knew of 2 teenagers who were hospitalized for myocarditis - both healthy and played sports at high school. Compared to that I know of no one who has had issues with the polio, norovirus, hib, hepatitis, etc. Even the often “dreaded” mmr is ok. I’ve known of kids having sustained reactions to mmrv. I think general aches and chills were not an issue. But myocarditis and blood clots should be looked at and not brushed under “minuscule”

Snowfield9571 11mo ago
I am sure it is scary to see young people have reactions to vaccines but if you compare the rates of the side effects in comparison with the rate in those who do get COVID you'll see that, in that context, they are indeed minor https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significantly-higher-after-covid-19-infection-vs-after-a-covid-19-vaccine https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...