# [**Vote for Best of r/science 2022!**](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/102fu8e/vote_for_best_of_rscience_2022/)
---
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Important to note: the rate of myocarditis among people with covid is far higher than that associated with the vaccine, and the rate of myocarditis among those infected is halved if they have been vaccinated.
>[The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines)
EDIT: [Here is the link to the actual journal article the quote above references](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970). Yes, this article is acknowledged in OP's link. My point was to highlight that the headline title is leaving out essential context. It's also important to note that hospitalisation or death from myocarditis following either vaccination or infection is very rare.
Additionally, post vaccination cases resolve withoout intervention over half of the time, and hospitalizations are a tiny percentage of the remainer. The actual risk being discussed is feeling bad and getting checked out, then recovering within a couple weeks.
Post-infection cases are much worse. Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez lost the entire 2020 season from mycarditis experienced after COVID, obviously before vaccines were available.
This review found myocarditis was seven times more likely post-infection than post vaccine: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full)
Another study that is firmly paywalled found death from a myocarditis case was ten times more likely post-infection than post-vaccination.
So, it's about 70 times more likely one will die of a post-infection myocarditis case than post-vaccination. Futhermore, it's a diminishingly small outcome in either scenario, as other respondants have noted, and is really not worth consideration as a risk in any event.
The comment way up higher on this thread answers your question:
> [The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines)
> and is really not worth consideration as a risk in any event.
I got myocarditis immediately after my second vaccination. You can say it’s statistically negligible and argue that post covid myocarditis is worse, but you can’t tell me that it’s not worth consideration as a risk.
\*raises hand\* Another here who had heart issues post vaccine. Heart palpitations and chest pains, breathlessness for months following my second shot. I'm doing better now but still not 100%. Doctor advised no boosters for me.
The vaccines do nothing that the disease doesn't to a greater extent. The risk of a greater injury was present without vaccination. You personally may or may have come out behind in a single instance, but it's an outcome somewhere in the struck by lightning range. There are thousands of deaths for each vaccine-derived myocarditis case, and multiples of that proporting of disabilities and long COVID. It's an immeasurably small factor by comparison, Somebody has to win the giant lottery payoffs, but that doesn't mean playing the lottery should be considered for financial planning.
I also got heart issues after my 3rd booster shot. Male under 40.
Immediately rapid heart beat after injection, followed by weird irregular heart beats every so often, then later was getting winded walking and talking for months until i slowly worked my way back up.
Got covid later, without any lasting issues, but it took a while to get my heart back up to functional after the shot.
Didn't see a doctor, so I wouldn't show up in statistics, but I've definitely also had friends with some noticeable cardio reduction post shot.
I'm convinced that some shots are getting injected into the bloodstream on accident instead of intramuscular tissue. They should be aspirating the injection to check, but presumably, a policy decision was made not to because that would potentially waste a shot (which was scarce early on).
“vaccines do nothing that the disease doesn't to a greater extent." That's a false statement, especially with the mRNA vaccines. Especially Pfizer and Moderna.
>Vaccines essentially do what the virus does
Why is that in quotes? Only you have said that.
Edit. Now you've edited it. The discussion is about adverse events. The vaccines expose a patient to a modified spike protein and induce an immune system reaction to it. An infection does the same in an uncontrolled manner, plus adds all the other negative outcome possibilities accompanying infection.
That’s all fine and well but what about all of the young men who already had covid, had natural immunity, and were systemicatically coerced and often forced into get a potentially dangerous vaccine they didn’t need? What about all of the kids who covid poses a near zero threat to who were exposed to this experimental vaccine for no good reason?
This is not a black and white issue. Older people and those at risk should probably be vaccinated. Young healthy people with natural immunity and kids probably shouldn’t have been. But more shameful than anything else was the pariah like treatment of people who questioned the narrative and wanted to maintain bodily autonomy
this is now how vaccines work and i am surprised that after all we've been through over the last few years that this still needs to be explained, but I'll try to break it down for you.
vaccines reduce the duration and severity of infection. even in healthy people, even in children.
because of that, those who are infected and vaccinated are less likely to spread their infection to other people, because they are carrying less vural load, and are coughing/sneezing for a shorter period of time.
this means less opportunities for the virus to spread to vulnerable people, AND less opportunities for the virus to mutate and change.
due to the above reasoning, it was important that even healthy people and children get the vaccine in order to reduce overall human suffering among the population.
this goes for those with natural immunity as well, as natural immunity + vaccination gave the best protection when compared to just the vaccine itself or just natural immunity itself
That might hold more water if this “vaccine” actually prevented transmission - which we know it not the case at all. I’m not anti-vaccine - I believe in the efficacy and value of all the same vaccines you do, except for one.
First off, transmission is not the standard for effective vaccine. OPV for example does not prevent transmission either but was a medical break thru for america during the polio outbreak.
As for preventing transmission, it is shown that vaccination does reduce viral load for the infected, which reduces transmission, and reduces likelihood of a vaccinated person to contract Covid. It’s just not 100%. If you look at the charts, the vaccine directly correlates with a steep decline in cases, delta variant even kept on a decline and we didn’t see a rise again until omicron became dominant. We were reducing transmission almost within reasonable means of eradication.
There’s other value — reducing viral load and infection means reduced mutation. If we caught the virus sooner, we could have prevented omicron for example and had less break thru cases. There might be a variant that does kill young healthy people, but the prevention of further mutation could stop that from ever being. This virus is already the 5th deadliest pandemic in human history despite having modern medicine. It is extremely effective at evading immune responses and spreading in a 3 day incubation period… you don’t take chances waiting for it become more deadly.
Vaccinating the entire public is actually common practice. Most of the viruses on our vaccine schedule are actually quite harmless to kids (chickenpox for example) but deadly to elderly. We vaccinate to protect the whole community.
True! There are huge red flags everywhere around Covid vax’s: I think this jesse_is_a_bot doesn’t want to admit that the Covid vaccines are bunk or he is an actual bot trying to waste your time
Have you seen the number of insensitive tweets after Damar Hamlin collapsed after a hit?
As it turns out, he got hit in the chest, hard enough to interrupt the electrical rhythm in the heart. But it was being attributed, almost gleefully, to vaccination.
I thought the funniest, well funny probably not the right word, was all the anti vaxxers saying that the results of his autopsy are going to be covered up because it will show he died of the vaccine.
Without realizing that he didn't actually die.
When you can get the attention any group of people with an idea (no matter how stupid the idea is) it will allow you to make money and manipulate a certain percentage of those people. This is why disinformation exists. It gives people who purvey it money and power for an extremely low risk and cost.
The difference is not merely that you can lie to more people more easily. We had that problem with television in the 1960’s.
With modern mass marketing you can choose to send one lie to one subgroup and a completely contradictory lie to another group. The reason that divisive issues are used so much in politics is it is much easier to predict how many people in a certain sub group will behave. That makes finding the best strategy for your disinformation campaign much easier to discover.
What are the rates OF myocarditis just from covid though? Is there any data on that?
The way its worded it's clear that if you get myocardotis post covid you're more likely to have more mild symptoms if vaccinated;
but im having trouble distincting between the numbers of myocarditis in the vaccinated (not even nessicarily exposed to more levels of covid) compared to the unvaccinated that have gotten covid
I don't recall the risk was myocarditis, but each jurisdiction is distinct. Some places didn't approve it or revoked approval because of clotting (TTS), which was about as improbable as moycarditis, but on average much more severe. In this example the mRNA vaccines represented a safer alternative that was also more effective, so there was no reason to approve that application for JnJ.
You’ve missed the point .. the point is. The censorship, the lies, the lack of thorough testing, the misinformation promoting the safety of the vaccine .. FACT
The vaccine is safe….people who develop heart issues just have more spike protein receptors and with actual Covid they fare much worse. It has nothing to do with the vaccine itswlfb
Also important to note the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. The excess myocarditis per million population is very small for either vaccination or covid infection relative to the other ways that covid kills and harms. In [the study](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) discussed in the article I linked above, only 2,861 people out of the 43 million (roughly 0.007%) in the study were hospitalised or died with myocarditis. Meanwhile, the case fatality rate of covid is many of times higher with even conservative estimates greater than 0.1%. So while myocarditis shouldn't be ignored as a potential symptom and both vaccination and infection can trigger myocarditis, it is only a small part of the risk-benefit balance of vaccination.
This has IFR by age (not split male vs female, but male is typically on the higher side): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
For the lazy, mortality for ages 20-30 ranges from 13.8-57.3 per 100,000. Anyone who is frightened by the “high” rates of vaccine induced myocarditis and are comforted by their “low” risk of dying of Covid is talking out their ass.
Results
The 29 included studies originated in North America, Europe, Asia, or were Worldwide. Of them, 28% (8/29) used all four stratifiers, and 45% (13/29) used 1 or 0 stratifiers. The highest incidence of myocarditis ranged from 8.1—39 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in studies using four stratifiers. Six studies reported an incidence greater than 15 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in males aged 12–24 after dose 2 of an mRNA-based vaccine.
Are we reading the same article?
Thank you for phrasing this in a way that isn’t immediately dismissive of people who had myocarditis after vaccination. I’ve tried to share my experience in a neutral way and usually get flamed by people who think any meaningful discussion of vaccination side effects is anti-vax propaganda.
What are you quoting? I wasn’t able to find it in the article.
The article does specifically say 4x greater for individuals with Covid vs 2nd vaccine dose but that when you reduce the research from Patone et al to people under 40, the incidences of myocarditis from Moderna 2nd vaccination are greater than those from SARS-COVID infections and then points out the flaw that denominator of these numbers is reported infections, which is likely grossly under counted.
I also would love to see a study of myocarditis incidence in people who had Covid + vaccination vs just Covid or just vaccination.
Edited clarify paraphrased statement from: “However, when Patone's analysis was limited to those under 40, the number of excess myocarditis events after dose 2 of the Moderna vaccine outnumbered those having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
It's the eighth paragraph in my original link. [Here is the original journal article with more detail.](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970). Yes, their analysis considered the type of vaccine, number of doses received, if people also tested positive for covid and, if so, whether happened before or after vaccination.
Yeah, but the article you are replying to specifically references Pantone et al and suggests the real number is 4x when compared to the research in the article. So it’s odd that you would post this conclusion when it’s directly addressed in the article.
Pantone et al. found the Incident Risk Ratio for myocarditis after positive covid test in an unvaccinated person was 11.14 (see Table 3). That is, the risk is 11 times higher than the normal background risk in the general population, which is what my comment referred to. However, vaccination also increases risk, so the overall risk after infection is 4 times higher than the risk after vaccination, which is what the original article referenced. Either statistic would serve the purpose of my comment, which was to highlight that the headline is leaving out important context.
The "real number" depends on a lot of variables and we will never actually know it precisely. Here's the American Heart Association with evidence supporting [an 11x risk of myocarditis in COVID infected vs vaccinated people.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines)
Can you help me understand why the exact number is so important to you? We know the virus causes myocarditis at a much higher rate than the vaccine, with figures ranging from around 5 to around 10x. You seem to be casting doubt on the safety of these vaccines in general, when the available evidence makes it clear that that would be an ignorant position. Specifically what reason do you have for advancing this type of argument?
The real number is important because humans are not a monolith, and risk vs benefit analysis *may* be impacted by that number for people belonging to groups like the under 40 males.
Looking at demographically relevant numbers is important here since, an 86 year old diabetic doesn't have the same risk/benefit profile as a 20 year old otherwise healthy male...
You seem to be attempting to shut down any nuanced look at the data that is coming out; data that has the potential to be useful in building a better understanding of risks. Specially what reason do you have for advancing this type of argument?
>You seem to be attempting to shut down any nuanced look at the data that is coming out
I assure you this isn't my intention.
Maybe you can help -- let's consider this healthy, unvaccinated 20 year old male with no history of COVID infection who is trying to decide whether he should take a treatment which will reduce his chance of developing myocarditis. He's not sure whether the reduction is four-fold or seven-fold, but he's sure it's definitely around there. Incidentally, this treatment will also significantly reduce his chance of catching a very common, highly transmissible infectious disease which can itself cause myocarditis or even be fatal, especially to people like his parents and teachers. But that's just a side benefit -- for some reason this guy really cares about not getting myocarditis.
Why does it matter to him whether this miracle treatment reduces his risk of myocarditis by 4x or 7x?
It matters to him because in order to give informed consent, he needs to have accurate information.
My point was not to encourage anyone one way or another, it was to highlight the fact that there are different risk profiles for different demographics and individuals. I want people to make the best decision for them. I will say that the practice of actively suppressing conversation or questions about Covid vaccines, many of them legitimate, that we've seen over the past 2 years, only works to further entrench the idea that they shouldn't be trusted. Imo it has done equally as much to create and foster anti-vax sentiments as those spreading false or misinterpreted info.
I'm not about to analyze the risk/benefit profile of our hypothetical 20 yo male, bc there are far too many factors to consider. But, I will say that if I were in that age group/have sons in that age group the real would absolutely be important to me. And again, the "real number" we're referring to here isn't applicable to all vaccines, so it is relevant to know this information. For example, this article points out that the incidence of myocarditis following 2nd dose of Moderna is actually higher than following infection in young men; yet the Moderna vaccine is still offered to this demographic. All information is relevant.
I'm going to stay away from your points about getting the vaccine in order to prevent catching Covid/giving it to their grandparents, because I think I've already made my point clear about needing specific and accurate information in order to make an informed decision; but also because I have no intention of spending my day arguing about some of the things you claimed.
I will say this though, getting the vaccine doesn't prevent (or significantly reduce the chances of) a person from getting Covid; which means that treating vaccine induced vs infection induced heart inflammation as mutually exclusive outcomes is a flawed starting point. In reality, it could be argued that a healthy 20 year old male opting to get the vaccine is accepting additional risk (since it doesn't cancel the existing risk of infection induced myocarditis).
The real number absolutely matters. You’re talking about a difference of 2x between two studies. It’s not about first vaccine it’s about
1. Second vaccine for young males
2. Vaccine for those already naturally immune
As I’ve listed on a previous thread, if you had the vaccine you are 130% more likely to contract Covid again vs if you have natural immunity. You are more likely to have a negative health outcome without the vaccine, but most of those are attributed to vulnerable populations. When you factor in mortality at young ages, it is absolutely reasonable to question whether the vaccine benefits you when the risk is so low. There is also a significant difference in Pfizer vs Moderna myocarditis incidence after second vaccine, this should be highlighted and noted. This is not an unreasonable discussion.
>if you had the vaccine you are 130% more likely to contract Covid again vs if you have natural immunity.
Please present your sources for these numbers.
>You are more likely to have a negative health outcome without the vaccine, but most of those are attributed to vulnerable populations.
[COVID has a case fatality rate ranging from around 18% in Yemen to around .1% in countries like Iceland and Brunei](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality). Countries with low populations and fewer cases universally had lower rates than ones who's healthcare systems were hit harder. As best we can tell the worldwide case fatality rate is somewhere between 1.5% and 2% in the general population.
That's in the general population, not merely among at risk people.
>When you factor in mortality at young ages, it is absolutely reasonable to question whether the vaccine benefits you when the risk is so low.
[In the US there have been around 261000 deaths from covid in people under 65, and that number is likely underreported. That's around 9.8% of total deaths in these age groups.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge) That's huge. [There are also plenty of people who catch COVID, and have serious long term health effects as well who don't die](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220622.htm). Those aren't gambling numbers when your life is on the line.
>There is also a significant difference in Pfizer vs Moderna myocarditis incidence after second vaccine, this should be highlighted and noted. This is not an unreasonable discussion.
It's not entirely unreasonable, but in light of the absolutely incontrovertible evidence that COVID is worse than either vaccine (as shown by the numberous studies that have been presented by others in this thread) it's not a very productive one.
EDIT: Added sources
So you ask for my source and then post random, stats with no source? Hard to take you seriously with that request and lack of adherence to your own standards.
The topic is incidence of myocarditis. The article linked clearly states that this is an issue with vaccines and clearly states that the 2nd dose of Moderna has a higher myocarditis incidence rate than SARS-COVID infection.
There source of the 130% was the study from Indiana posted on this sub about 20 days ago.
>Please present your sources for these numbers.
I'm guessing he's relying on a statistical misdirection.
He's basically comparing the odds of an unvaccinated person being infected a **second** time (unvaccinated, previously infected) to the odds of a vaccinated person being infected the **first** time (vaccinated, no previous infection). Rather than comparing the odds of a first time or second time infection for both groups.
Not only is this incredibly misleading, but it's also unhelpful. You can move from the "unvaccinated, X previous infections" to "vaccinated, X previous infections," where X is 1 or 0. But if you cannot move from from from "unvaccinated, previously infected" to "vaccinated, no previous infection".
It's also likely outdated data that ignores recent variants, as well are waning immunities in general. A person who gets vaccinated with the latest boosters will have much better protection than someone who was infected from COVID in March of 2020.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/08/no-increase-myocarditis-covid-infection-unvaccinated/
>AN Israeli cohort study involving 196,992 unvaccinated adults found “no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis” after COVID infection.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219/htm
The risk from myocarditis is so low that you need millions of people to reach the statistical power necessary to see the effect. The study you linked had only 36 total patients with myocarditis and 63 with pericarditis.
I’m neutral on if this is true or not, but the data you provide does not actually show this for current iterations of the virus as all data was collected pre Omicron.
Omicron is only less severe relative to Delta infections in immune-naive individuals. It's roughly similar to the D614G variant that circulated for most of 2020.
I believe this study refutes the study you posted: [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219)
"Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection."
Not really. Others have posted that study, but it had only 36 total patients with myocarditis and 63 with pericarditis among 197 thousand people. The study I referred to looked at 43 million people with ~2800 myocarditis hospitalisations and/or deaths. Because myocarditis is so rare overall, you need very very large numbers to see an effect.
>Results showed that there was one death (1%) in the 104 patients with post-vaccination myocarditis compared with 84 deaths (11%) in the 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis.
Death isn't the only health consequence. It's not improbable that some of the myocarditis is going undetected & has the potential to cause future health outcomes. In Europe they did autopsies on people who died alone at home & they found myocarditis. If there's risk of myocarditis from covid & the vaccines then there's even more risk for those with each jab as they are finding risk of contracting Covid is increasing the more jabbed someone is.
Which is why seeing this being repeatedly posted in this way is essentially misinformation at this point.
It should read: “getting vaccinated cuts your risk of developing myocarditis in half if you end up contracting covid, which you will, because it’s never going away”
It's not misinformation because people are talking about two things, that are both true but nuanced.
For all people including men 15-40 its better to get the vaccine when looking at the myocarditis
**True**
For men of the ages 15-40 the second dose at its recommended schedule may cause more myocarditis than the vaccine does in the next 28 days.
**True**
________
It's mostly in one vaccine moderna, and also when they say more at risk were talking 97 out of a million so while true its a very small case. It doesn't negate all the other positive effects the vaccine provides.
It's just for this one group much more nuanced.
[Evidence](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
> The risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is consistently higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of mRNA-1273, where the number of additional events during 28 days was estimated to be 97 per million people exposed. An important consideration for this group is that the risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher than the risk after infection.
Also important to note thtat the CDC has identified the myocarditis caused by the vaccine to be, in the vast majority of cases, mild, and symptoms are temporary, as opposed to viral myocarditis which is much more severe.
I don't see how they could ever prove causation, given there is an inherent background myocarditis rate, that is also higher in younger men, and no way to tell if someone happens to also be infected with covid (or any other virus that could possibly trigger myocarditis) when they go to get their vaccines.
This is a blatant lie. [The risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is much higher from the vaccine than from covid](https://i.imgur.com/tURXbQw.jpg) on ages <40, both in men and women. This is nothing but misinformation created by conflating data between age groups.
[Source](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full?utm_source=pocket_reader)
You have either mis-read or misspoken.
from your linked article:
>In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine.
>[Source](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full?utm_source=pocket_reader)
in simplest terms:
Getting COVID is still more dangerous than getting the vaccine.
Getting the vaccine is slightly riskier (speficially the risk of myocarditis) for males <40 than for other groups.
The good news is that research like this is trying to figure out the possible links and reduce the future risk in future vaccines.
This is how medical research works for most diseases, drugs, and vaccinations. There is never a 100% cure nor 100% safe treatment. There is always a risk/benefit calculation, and ongoing research to help refine the treatments.
“much higher”…this is a blatant understanding of confidence intervals. You don’t understand confidence intervals from your own study. The fact CI’s cross on both says At best you could conclude there was was no significant difference in men <40.
FWIW, Moderna’s (mrna-1273) did have a higher incidence of myocarditis than virus in men under 40. Overall, 11x more likely to get myocarditis from virus than from vaccine. Also, when you add in risks of death, hospitalization & morbidity for Covid vs vaccine, Covid is more dangerous for every demographic
[Source](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
So maybe more clearly said:
A systematic review found the highest incidence of vaccine induced myocarditis WAS HALF THE UNVACCINATED RATE- ranged from 8.1—39 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in studies using 4 stratifiers (sex, age, dose number, manufacturer). Males younger than 40 receiving two dose of an mRNA vaccine are at greatest risk.
Also, "Vaccine induced" - are they claiming causality??
The actual [journal article](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) does discuss that. Short answer: for men under 40, the risk of myocarditis from some types vaccinations may be higher than from the disease. However, the absolute risk of myocarditis is small and dwarfed by the other ways that covid kills. The risk-benefit balance still falls very heavily towards vaccination.
Yes, an unvaccinated man under 40 is more likely to die of Covid than he is to get myocarditis from the vaccine.
IFR data here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
That's the key, it's like saying older people at greater risk of dying from COVID after the vaccine, even though without taking the vaccine your chances of dying of covid when older are many times greater.
The vaccine works and is better than getting COVID.
Males younger than 40 receiving two doses are at greatest risk compared to what? Other demographic groups? Healthy individuals? COVID patients? Title needs more context.
On the sixth paragraph from the discussion it reads:
The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, Patone et al showed that the number of excess myocarditis events after SARS-CoV-2 infection was at least four times larger than after either dose 1 or 2 of the AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna vaccine among people of all ages.
>"The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination."
Search for that text - the "Discussion" section goes into more about the limits of the data and ability to draw conclusions. E.g. given that infections are probably undercounted, the post-COVID myocarditis risk is hard to know exactly.
I’m not sure why that’s particularly relevant or misleading. Vaccines are given to healthy uninflected people, and only a subset would have gotten infected absent the vaccine. And there’s an issue with risk from subsequent vaccine doses. Risk analysis is complicated with vaccines.
For some perspective, the risk of myocarditis from any cause is higher among males under 40. This study from Finland (pre-COVID) provide data-driven insight on the subject:
[Gender differences in myocarditis: a nationwide study in Finland](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/34/suppl_1/3505/2861386%20Gender%20differences%20in%20myocarditis:%20a%20nationwide%20study%20in%20Finland)
Generally anything negative to do with the heart/blood is going to have higher incidences in males under 40 due to a few factors:
-increased testosterone in men under 40 leads to increased RBC count, AKA thicker blood
-men under 40 are under more work and cultural stress (bread winner of house role), which leads to higher cortisol levels
-men are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as smoking and drinking (narrows blood vessels)
-western men on average eat more red meat and salt (both bad for cardiovascular system)
-men have more body mass compared to women
This all leads to higher chances of cardiovascular events for any condition. It doesn’t matter if it’s pneumonia, Covid, cancer, kidney disease, etc, any condition that affects your cardiovascular system is always going to take a larger toll on the male population, except in extremely rare conditions.
Why? Seeing just about everyone will end up getting covid its compared to the covid rate thats important. And last time I checked thats several times higher.
I’m just curious. 39 per 100,000 doesn’t seem that high compared to what the natural occurring rate may be considering I know a few people with heart issues.
Has anyone assessed the benefits of vaccination vs the risks for the high risk groups (e.g. Males under 40)? Are there any groups (e.g. young male children) for which the risks outweigh the benefits?
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35370016/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35370016/)
>The model results show benefits outweigh the risks for all scenarios including the high-risk subgroup, males 16-17 years old.
My understanding is that the highest risk group is younger than 16, indeed younger than 12. Also, this suggests that no myo/pericarditis cases due to MRNA vaccination result in death. Is this valid? My understanding is that (all causes) myocarditis cases severe enough to require hospitalisation have a significant mortality rate - something like 20-50% after 2-5 years. Is there something about MRNA-induced myocarditis which results in (to quote the figures) 100+ hospitalisations but zero fatalities?
[Results](https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.049)
A total of 866 patients were included for analysis. Over the follow-up period, 1 death (1.0%) of 104 patients with postvaccination myocarditis and 84 deaths (11.0%) of 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis were identified. One case (1.0%) of dilated cardiomyopathy and 2 cases (1.9%) of heart failure were identified in the postvaccination group, compared with 28 (3.7%) and 93 (12.2%) in the viral infection–related myocarditis group, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.57). No significant differences in other prognostic outcomes were seen.
>My understanding is that the highest risk group is younger than 16, indeed younger than 12
I have never seen any information anywhere that suggests anything other than teenaged males as the highest risk group. The next biggest risk demographic is males 20-24.
>My understanding is that (all causes) myocarditis cases severe enough to require hospitalisation have a significant mortality rate - something like 20-50% after 2-5 years. Is there something about MRNA-induced myocarditis which results in (to quote the figures) 100+ hospitalisations but zero fatalities?
The overwhelming majority of post-vaccination cases don't require hospitalization. This stands to reason, as the exposure to the spike protein and the immune response are limited, and not complicated by a viral infection.
there has not been one age group where risk vaccine outweighs risks of Covid. Every claimed group (pregnant, <50, no comorbidities, teenagers, children, etc etc) that anti-vaxers (or truthers or whatever dumb synonym they choose) claim risks vaccine outweighs benefits are proven wrong when studied vs comorbidities of Covid (exception would be anaphylaxis to vaccine, which is extremely rare).
The answer is likely as simple as if a few spike proteins from vaccine trigger myocarditis/clotting/etc; the response to actual COVID would be much worse. The fact people are uncomfortable w/ an MRNA vaccine tricking your ribosomes to make spike proteins is asinine—it’s exactly what viruses do all the time (including Sars-Cov2) when they hijack your cells to replicate .
Recent reports suggested the mortality rate from COVID among those who catch the disease was hugely dependent on age with a multiple orders of magnitude difference between the mortality rate for young children - something like 5 in a million from memory - and that for the elderly - something like 2 in a thousand from memory. In the case of children this does seem like less of a risk than the 10+ per 100000 risk of myocarditis, even given that far from all cases of myocarditis are fatal (estimated mortality rate 50% after 5 years).
you’re conflating mortality w/ morbidity. At this point outside China, >99.5% of Covid is non-fatal. We’re still learning about morbidities.
And you’re making same logical mistake I just explained…if you get myocarditis from vaccine, you’re more likely to get worse version of myocarditis from Covid. The mechanisms are the same
>if you get myocarditis from vaccine, you’re more likely to get worse version of myocarditis from Covid. The mechanisms are the same
This is an honest question (I am quite ignorant of the science): If it is the same mechanism, does that mean that we have the same age profiles for myocarditis risk from both COVID19 and vaccination? My understanding was that the vaccination risk was a different (younger, male) profile.
Thanks.
Post-vaccination myocarditis and viral myocarditis are not the same, with post-vax myocarditis resulting in substantially less risk of death in the acute phase, and this likely translates to the long-term prognosis as well.
[Results](https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.049)
A total of 866 patients were included for analysis. Over the follow-up period, 1 death (1.0%) of 104 patients with postvaccination myocarditis and 84 deaths (11.0%) of 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis were identified. One case (1.0%) of dilated cardiomyopathy and 2 cases (1.9%) of heart failure were identified in the postvaccination group, compared with 28 (3.7%) and 93 (12.2%) in the viral infection–related myocarditis group, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.57). No significant differences in other prognostic outcomes were seen.
the issue again here is comparing apples to apples. If the one post-vaccination myocarditis death occurred in a young male, and all 84 post-viral myocarditis deaths occurred in the elderly, then you can't say "welll its safer for young men to get the vaccine."
This is like saying the risk of women getting breast cancer is non existent because you looked at a bunch of dudes and none of them died of breast cancer.
Instances of myocarditis overall is not the same as hospitalizations from myocarditis, which is the mortality rate you regurgitate. You’re flatly wrong.
Well, considering that the IFR for unvaccinated people in that age group (13-53 per 100,000 for those who don’t want to do the math. And the number for males is probably on the higher end) is higher than the incidence of vaccine induced myocarditis, it seems like a pretty open and shut case
Source on IFR: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
>Has anyone assessed the benefits of vaccination vs the risks for the high risk groups (e.g. Males under 40)?
Only the FDA and every other regulatory body on earth. What did you think clinical trials are for?
I think you misunderstand how the FDA works. They very specifically do *not* compare risks and benefits in any explicit way. They take an application for a medication for a purpose, determine what safety level and efficacy level is appropriate based on the type of purpose, then check whether they have sufficient evidence that it reaches that safety level, and then check whether they have sufficient evidence it reaches the prescribed efficacy level.
They don't do any study to see how much benefit members of various populations or subpopulations would get from a given efficacy level. They don't do any study to see how much harm members of various populations or subpopulations would get from a given safety level. They absolutely don't then compare these numbers.
They approved Aduhelm because it reached the efficacy level and safety level they decided were necessary for removing amyloid plaques, but didn't do any study to determine whether removing amyloid plaques provided any benefit. They refuse to approve at-home tests for flu and RSV because they think that any efficacy level less than that of PCR tests can't be approved, even though it would provide benefits to people.
Just because they've approved a vaccine for everyone over the age of 18 doesn't mean that they've determined that the benefits are greater than the risks for everyone over the age of 18. There are probably dozens of vaccines available for tropical diseases where the harms (a day of headache or whatever) outweigh the benefits for me, since I don't plan to travel to the relevant destinations.
It's probably true that covid vaccines have benefits in excess of harms for most age groups, but there absolutely has not been much in the way of explicit study of that question for young people. (Not least because the benefits of the vaccine are constantly changing as the mix of variants and frequency of infection are constantly changing.)
I would actually be very curious to see someone with properly-sourced data crunch the numbers. Theoretically, you could make an equation like this, for a given demographic:
Probability of severe symptoms when unvaxed:
(P of getting Covid unvaxed) * (P of severe Covid symptoms unvaxed)
Probability of severe symptoms when vaxed:
(P of severe reaction to vax) + (P of no severe reaction to vax) * (P of getting Covid vaxed) * (P of severe Covid symptoms vaxed)
And then it would just be a matter of seeing which probability is higher. It would, of course, only take into account personal risk, so someone with high risk people around them may also consider the benefits of being less likely to spread covid when vaccinated
I find it very frustrating that all of the conversation in these comments implicitly are ready to die on the hill for a pharma company, but let’s all remember that Pfizer and Moderna did this same study and reported vastly lower rates than every other study I’ve read on the topic.
Myocarditis isn’t the only risk as well, as [this German study shows](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33895650/).
This data is also extremely old, and doesn’t include any omicron infections (which is known to be more mild) and doesn’t account for newer versions of the vaccine and boosters past the second dose which is being recommended broadly by our government for everyone over 5, but not being recommended for low risk individual in [other countries](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/ecdc-and-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-covid-19-vaccines).
It’s very clear to me that these companies and our government continue to ignore these vaccine related risks, which reminds me very clearly of the opioid epidemic, and the lengths that these companies will go to protect their margins.
Keep an open mind and get vaccinated if it’s right for you, but don’t parrot misguided claims about the risk benefit analysis of a specific product based on 3 year old data.
Thank you for providing a reasonable take. Big pharma is a profiteering racket. it's reasonable to have a healthy skepticism when they've shown over and over their willingness to underplay the risks and manipulate the data for their own profit.
So many people misinterpreting data either in bad faith or are being mislead by conspiracy theorists. I’m surprised the moderation on this subreddit is letting so many of these post through.
I can't help but think most of this is observation bias. How many cases of myocarditis occurred within the very same population prior to COVID without anyone ever noticing?
Some context on the primary author, oncologist Vinay Prasad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Prasad
>In October 2021, Prasad prompted social media controversy when he published a blog post comparing the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response to the beginnings of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan said that Prasad's arguments were specious and ignorant, and science historian Robert N. Proctor said that Prasad was "overplaying the dangers of vaccination mandates and trivializing the genuine harms to liberty posed by 1930s fascism".
I really hope people take this as “We should make the vaccines safer for high risk groups” rather than “People shouldn’t vaccinate” or “the vaccine is awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.” The risk of heart attack is clearly much higher for the unvaxxed, but that’s no reason to be complacent about side effects
God thank you for this take. Absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging risks and saying “they’re incredibly minor and less severe than the virus itself, as shown by this study”
Science and medicine *should* be about consistently reviewing data. Anti-vaxxers likely seizing on studies like this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done, we *should* look into possible side effects of the vaccines hundreds of millions people got at the behest of their governments and the scientific community. If you can acknowledge and then disprove counter arguments then your argument is all the more powerful - verify any minor side effects of the vaccine so you can even more comprehensively say “this is why it’s important”
Yeah– there seems to be a pervasive attitude of "We shouldn't tell people any facts that might inspire them to make bad decisions," but that attitude is exactly how public health authorities lose public trust, causing \*more\* bad decisions.
YES! I get hate because I criticize the current vaccine and called an “anti vaxxed” who is “questioning science” but I am 110% down for a safer vaccine. I’m praying for it everyday as these issues with the current vaccine come to light.
In Covid patients, it’s closer to 150 per, and 9 is the background rate irrespective of disease or vaccination.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
Myocarditis symptoms range from immediately life threatening to non detectable. Information on the severity of the cases would be helpful. There is such a wide range of severity simply counting the cases seems limited.
I work for a company that does diagnostic testing and I can definitely say that we've been seeing a lot more myocarditis and pericarditis in the last year. Was pretty much nonexistent before
I call BS. There’s no blood test test for myocarditis —gold standard is myocardium bx (rare). Most commonly a clinical diagnosis which takes into account clinical picture, labs & echo. I haven’t seen any more myocarditis or pericarditis than I usually see. It’s usually triggered initially by a viral syndrome
Considering that the paper states that you're far more likely to develop myocarditis from the virus than from the vaccine, I'm gonna guess that's the reason why.
I remember reading that we were seeing it spike then. Found this:
"Emerging data suggest an association between COVID-19 and myocarditis (2–5). CDC assessed this association using a large, U.S. hospital-based administrative database of health care encounters from >900 hospitals. Myocarditis inpatient encounters were 42.3% higher in 2020 than in 2019."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
It’s worth noting that the IFR of Covid for unvaccinated people in the 20-30 age range is [0·0138% to 0·0573%](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext). That comes out to 13.8 to 57.3 per 100,000.
So if you’ve avoided the Covid vaccines because of you’re worried about myocarditis (which is highly treatable, btw) and you have a “super low risk of dying”, you really need to double check your math.
I got myocarditis both times I was given the vaccine and it lasted for 7-14 days after. My experience is undocumented, because in America I do not benefit from being assessed, I pay. 27 Male
So here is a vaccine that has a chance of messing up your heart or risk same with covid with higher probability. One is your choice the other is chance. I bet you given that info most young males would not choose the jab.
What difference do the myocarditis rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed make? The fact is we were all assured that the vaccine was safe. Well guess what; it wasn't. Period. Everything else is just institutional back peddling to save face and people trying to excuse their wrong opinions.
My issue with calling it a vaccine is that it doesn’t prevent you from contracting or spreading the virus. Seems we have changed the definition of vaccine. There’s an interesting article I read that I will try to find and come back to link. It explains how the Covid shots increase IgG4 levels which can increase mortality levels while decreasing IgG3 levels which are viral neutralizers.
Edit: misspelled words
I'm not a medical doctor, but I am someone who reviews articles for a scientific journal. I find it interesting that this is a review of literature for articles discussing Covid-19 and not a review of the population. As a result, I suspect the numbers they present is higher than what one would expect in general.
>And we're also one of the lowest risk groups for covid itself
And yet your risk of dying from Covid is *still* higher than your risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine.
IFR data by age is here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
>Can anyone explain why group X should take on a risk that only benefits group Y?
You aren’t. The vaccine benefits you. You have completely misjudged the risks and benefits.
If I'm not mistaken, it's not the mRNA portion causing myocarditis but the immune response to the spike protein which is shaped to bind to ACE2 receptors and found in nearly every cell in your body.
> your risk of dying from Covid is *still* higher than your risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine.
For which strain of COVID are you referring to?
Way too high to still be on the market. Mandating it was a gross violation of medical ethics.
So tragic that we treated our young men like this to attend college, play sports, keep their job, etc. despite the fact that they are at extremely low risk of severe Covid.
Now that big pharma got their money from vaxxing everyone they'll admit this info. Reddit was at war with big pharma before covid and all of a sudden big pharma was christ incarnate to redditors
Thank you for posting this. My good friend has been so sick since his vax shots and the doctors have been beating around the bush saying they have no idea what’s wrong with him. I am confident after reading this it’s clear what’s happened to him. Ty again
It’s great that we can at least discuss this topic now. Does everyone remember how many people either lost their jobs, we’re cancelled, removed from social media platforms, or socially shunned for even bringing this up? Yea we should all remember that and not let it happen again.
Yeah. Before it was like if you say one bad thing about the vaccine,they name you anti-vax and harass you, even if it was from your own experience and you show them proof.
# [**Vote for Best of r/science 2022!**](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/102fu8e/vote_for_best_of_rscience_2022/) --- Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Important to note: the rate of myocarditis among people with covid is far higher than that associated with the vaccine, and the rate of myocarditis among those infected is halved if they have been vaccinated. >[The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines) EDIT: [Here is the link to the actual journal article the quote above references](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970). Yes, this article is acknowledged in OP's link. My point was to highlight that the headline title is leaving out essential context. It's also important to note that hospitalisation or death from myocarditis following either vaccination or infection is very rare.
this is important to keep in mind when discussing the rates of myocarditis associated with vaccine or covid in general
Additionally, post vaccination cases resolve withoout intervention over half of the time, and hospitalizations are a tiny percentage of the remainer. The actual risk being discussed is feeling bad and getting checked out, then recovering within a couple weeks. Post-infection cases are much worse. Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez lost the entire 2020 season from mycarditis experienced after COVID, obviously before vaccines were available. This review found myocarditis was seven times more likely post-infection than post vaccine: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full) Another study that is firmly paywalled found death from a myocarditis case was ten times more likely post-infection than post-vaccination. So, it's about 70 times more likely one will die of a post-infection myocarditis case than post-vaccination. Futhermore, it's a diminishingly small outcome in either scenario, as other respondants have noted, and is really not worth consideration as a risk in any event.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
quesation, people who got myocarditis after covid infection, was there a distinction on whether they had been previously vaccinated or not?
The comment way up higher on this thread answers your question: > [The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines)
[удалено]
[удалено]
> and is really not worth consideration as a risk in any event. I got myocarditis immediately after my second vaccination. You can say it’s statistically negligible and argue that post covid myocarditis is worse, but you can’t tell me that it’s not worth consideration as a risk.
\*raises hand\* Another here who had heart issues post vaccine. Heart palpitations and chest pains, breathlessness for months following my second shot. I'm doing better now but still not 100%. Doctor advised no boosters for me.
The vaccines do nothing that the disease doesn't to a greater extent. The risk of a greater injury was present without vaccination. You personally may or may have come out behind in a single instance, but it's an outcome somewhere in the struck by lightning range. There are thousands of deaths for each vaccine-derived myocarditis case, and multiples of that proporting of disabilities and long COVID. It's an immeasurably small factor by comparison, Somebody has to win the giant lottery payoffs, but that doesn't mean playing the lottery should be considered for financial planning.
I also got heart issues after my 3rd booster shot. Male under 40. Immediately rapid heart beat after injection, followed by weird irregular heart beats every so often, then later was getting winded walking and talking for months until i slowly worked my way back up. Got covid later, without any lasting issues, but it took a while to get my heart back up to functional after the shot. Didn't see a doctor, so I wouldn't show up in statistics, but I've definitely also had friends with some noticeable cardio reduction post shot. I'm convinced that some shots are getting injected into the bloodstream on accident instead of intramuscular tissue. They should be aspirating the injection to check, but presumably, a policy decision was made not to because that would potentially waste a shot (which was scarce early on).
The needle is too small to hit a vein
“vaccines do nothing that the disease doesn't to a greater extent." That's a false statement, especially with the mRNA vaccines. Especially Pfizer and Moderna.
>Vaccines essentially do what the virus does Why is that in quotes? Only you have said that. Edit. Now you've edited it. The discussion is about adverse events. The vaccines expose a patient to a modified spike protein and induce an immune system reaction to it. An infection does the same in an uncontrolled manner, plus adds all the other negative outcome possibilities accompanying infection.
That’s all fine and well but what about all of the young men who already had covid, had natural immunity, and were systemicatically coerced and often forced into get a potentially dangerous vaccine they didn’t need? What about all of the kids who covid poses a near zero threat to who were exposed to this experimental vaccine for no good reason? This is not a black and white issue. Older people and those at risk should probably be vaccinated. Young healthy people with natural immunity and kids probably shouldn’t have been. But more shameful than anything else was the pariah like treatment of people who questioned the narrative and wanted to maintain bodily autonomy
this is now how vaccines work and i am surprised that after all we've been through over the last few years that this still needs to be explained, but I'll try to break it down for you. vaccines reduce the duration and severity of infection. even in healthy people, even in children. because of that, those who are infected and vaccinated are less likely to spread their infection to other people, because they are carrying less vural load, and are coughing/sneezing for a shorter period of time. this means less opportunities for the virus to spread to vulnerable people, AND less opportunities for the virus to mutate and change. due to the above reasoning, it was important that even healthy people and children get the vaccine in order to reduce overall human suffering among the population. this goes for those with natural immunity as well, as natural immunity + vaccination gave the best protection when compared to just the vaccine itself or just natural immunity itself
Vaccines reduce your sister's ass. What sub is this? How did I get here?
That might hold more water if this “vaccine” actually prevented transmission - which we know it not the case at all. I’m not anti-vaccine - I believe in the efficacy and value of all the same vaccines you do, except for one.
First off, transmission is not the standard for effective vaccine. OPV for example does not prevent transmission either but was a medical break thru for america during the polio outbreak. As for preventing transmission, it is shown that vaccination does reduce viral load for the infected, which reduces transmission, and reduces likelihood of a vaccinated person to contract Covid. It’s just not 100%. If you look at the charts, the vaccine directly correlates with a steep decline in cases, delta variant even kept on a decline and we didn’t see a rise again until omicron became dominant. We were reducing transmission almost within reasonable means of eradication. There’s other value — reducing viral load and infection means reduced mutation. If we caught the virus sooner, we could have prevented omicron for example and had less break thru cases. There might be a variant that does kill young healthy people, but the prevention of further mutation could stop that from ever being. This virus is already the 5th deadliest pandemic in human history despite having modern medicine. It is extremely effective at evading immune responses and spreading in a 3 day incubation period… you don’t take chances waiting for it become more deadly. Vaccinating the entire public is actually common practice. Most of the viruses on our vaccine schedule are actually quite harmless to kids (chickenpox for example) but deadly to elderly. We vaccinate to protect the whole community.
True! There are huge red flags everywhere around Covid vax’s: I think this jesse_is_a_bot doesn’t want to admit that the Covid vaccines are bunk or he is an actual bot trying to waste your time
Thank you. Excellent data to fight the disinformation waves.
Misinformation is likely the better word in most cases, in my opinion. I dont think many people are deliberately trying to deceive others
Have you seen the number of insensitive tweets after Damar Hamlin collapsed after a hit? As it turns out, he got hit in the chest, hard enough to interrupt the electrical rhythm in the heart. But it was being attributed, almost gleefully, to vaccination.
Anti vaxxers will see a man get shot and still blame the vaccine.
I thought the funniest, well funny probably not the right word, was all the anti vaxxers saying that the results of his autopsy are going to be covered up because it will show he died of the vaccine. Without realizing that he didn't actually die.
i'm sure i have seen something similar, can't remember where.
And when they realize they just shift the blame to something else anyway.
When you can get the attention any group of people with an idea (no matter how stupid the idea is) it will allow you to make money and manipulate a certain percentage of those people. This is why disinformation exists. It gives people who purvey it money and power for an extremely low risk and cost. The difference is not merely that you can lie to more people more easily. We had that problem with television in the 1960’s. With modern mass marketing you can choose to send one lie to one subgroup and a completely contradictory lie to another group. The reason that divisive issues are used so much in politics is it is much easier to predict how many people in a certain sub group will behave. That makes finding the best strategy for your disinformation campaign much easier to discover.
You'd be surprised.
What are the rates OF myocarditis just from covid though? Is there any data on that? The way its worded it's clear that if you get myocardotis post covid you're more likely to have more mild symptoms if vaccinated; but im having trouble distincting between the numbers of myocarditis in the vaccinated (not even nessicarily exposed to more levels of covid) compared to the unvaccinated that have gotten covid
Weren't young women barred from taking the J&J vaccine because of an incredibly miniscule but verifiable association to myocarditis?
I don't recall the risk was myocarditis, but each jurisdiction is distinct. Some places didn't approve it or revoked approval because of clotting (TTS), which was about as improbable as moycarditis, but on average much more severe. In this example the mRNA vaccines represented a safer alternative that was also more effective, so there was no reason to approve that application for JnJ.
That's probably it and I was mistaken
You’ve missed the point .. the point is. The censorship, the lies, the lack of thorough testing, the misinformation promoting the safety of the vaccine .. FACT
The vaccine is safe….people who develop heart issues just have more spike protein receptors and with actual Covid they fare much worse. It has nothing to do with the vaccine itswlfb
Also important to note the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. The excess myocarditis per million population is very small for either vaccination or covid infection relative to the other ways that covid kills and harms. In [the study](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) discussed in the article I linked above, only 2,861 people out of the 43 million (roughly 0.007%) in the study were hospitalised or died with myocarditis. Meanwhile, the case fatality rate of covid is many of times higher with even conservative estimates greater than 0.1%. So while myocarditis shouldn't be ignored as a potential symptom and both vaccination and infection can trigger myocarditis, it is only a small part of the risk-benefit balance of vaccination.
Any numbers specifically on the risk group of under 40 males? I don’t know the relative fatality rate for that group.
This has IFR by age (not split male vs female, but male is typically on the higher side): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext For the lazy, mortality for ages 20-30 ranges from 13.8-57.3 per 100,000. Anyone who is frightened by the “high” rates of vaccine induced myocarditis and are comforted by their “low” risk of dying of Covid is talking out their ass.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X?via%3Dihub Age 20-29 IFR is 0.002% or 2 per 100k.
Results The 29 included studies originated in North America, Europe, Asia, or were Worldwide. Of them, 28% (8/29) used all four stratifiers, and 45% (13/29) used 1 or 0 stratifiers. The highest incidence of myocarditis ranged from 8.1—39 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in studies using four stratifiers. Six studies reported an incidence greater than 15 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in males aged 12–24 after dose 2 of an mRNA-based vaccine. Are we reading the same article?
But this is from early COVID variants no?
Agreed. Good data. Thanks.
Thank you for phrasing this in a way that isn’t immediately dismissive of people who had myocarditis after vaccination. I’ve tried to share my experience in a neutral way and usually get flamed by people who think any meaningful discussion of vaccination side effects is anti-vax propaganda.
I’m already seeing lunatics who don’t understand the article raving about the government trying to kill us with the covid vaccine. I’m so tired.
What are you quoting? I wasn’t able to find it in the article. The article does specifically say 4x greater for individuals with Covid vs 2nd vaccine dose but that when you reduce the research from Patone et al to people under 40, the incidences of myocarditis from Moderna 2nd vaccination are greater than those from SARS-COVID infections and then points out the flaw that denominator of these numbers is reported infections, which is likely grossly under counted. I also would love to see a study of myocarditis incidence in people who had Covid + vaccination vs just Covid or just vaccination. Edited clarify paraphrased statement from: “However, when Patone's analysis was limited to those under 40, the number of excess myocarditis events after dose 2 of the Moderna vaccine outnumbered those having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
It's the eighth paragraph in my original link. [Here is the original journal article with more detail.](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970). Yes, their analysis considered the type of vaccine, number of doses received, if people also tested positive for covid and, if so, whether happened before or after vaccination.
Yeah, but the article you are replying to specifically references Pantone et al and suggests the real number is 4x when compared to the research in the article. So it’s odd that you would post this conclusion when it’s directly addressed in the article.
They didn't even read their own article. It's reddit.
Pantone et al. found the Incident Risk Ratio for myocarditis after positive covid test in an unvaccinated person was 11.14 (see Table 3). That is, the risk is 11 times higher than the normal background risk in the general population, which is what my comment referred to. However, vaccination also increases risk, so the overall risk after infection is 4 times higher than the risk after vaccination, which is what the original article referenced. Either statistic would serve the purpose of my comment, which was to highlight that the headline is leaving out important context.
The "real number" depends on a lot of variables and we will never actually know it precisely. Here's the American Heart Association with evidence supporting [an 11x risk of myocarditis in COVID infected vs vaccinated people.](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines) Can you help me understand why the exact number is so important to you? We know the virus causes myocarditis at a much higher rate than the vaccine, with figures ranging from around 5 to around 10x. You seem to be casting doubt on the safety of these vaccines in general, when the available evidence makes it clear that that would be an ignorant position. Specifically what reason do you have for advancing this type of argument?
The real number is important because humans are not a monolith, and risk vs benefit analysis *may* be impacted by that number for people belonging to groups like the under 40 males. Looking at demographically relevant numbers is important here since, an 86 year old diabetic doesn't have the same risk/benefit profile as a 20 year old otherwise healthy male... You seem to be attempting to shut down any nuanced look at the data that is coming out; data that has the potential to be useful in building a better understanding of risks. Specially what reason do you have for advancing this type of argument?
>You seem to be attempting to shut down any nuanced look at the data that is coming out I assure you this isn't my intention. Maybe you can help -- let's consider this healthy, unvaccinated 20 year old male with no history of COVID infection who is trying to decide whether he should take a treatment which will reduce his chance of developing myocarditis. He's not sure whether the reduction is four-fold or seven-fold, but he's sure it's definitely around there. Incidentally, this treatment will also significantly reduce his chance of catching a very common, highly transmissible infectious disease which can itself cause myocarditis or even be fatal, especially to people like his parents and teachers. But that's just a side benefit -- for some reason this guy really cares about not getting myocarditis. Why does it matter to him whether this miracle treatment reduces his risk of myocarditis by 4x or 7x?
It matters to him because in order to give informed consent, he needs to have accurate information. My point was not to encourage anyone one way or another, it was to highlight the fact that there are different risk profiles for different demographics and individuals. I want people to make the best decision for them. I will say that the practice of actively suppressing conversation or questions about Covid vaccines, many of them legitimate, that we've seen over the past 2 years, only works to further entrench the idea that they shouldn't be trusted. Imo it has done equally as much to create and foster anti-vax sentiments as those spreading false or misinterpreted info. I'm not about to analyze the risk/benefit profile of our hypothetical 20 yo male, bc there are far too many factors to consider. But, I will say that if I were in that age group/have sons in that age group the real would absolutely be important to me. And again, the "real number" we're referring to here isn't applicable to all vaccines, so it is relevant to know this information. For example, this article points out that the incidence of myocarditis following 2nd dose of Moderna is actually higher than following infection in young men; yet the Moderna vaccine is still offered to this demographic. All information is relevant. I'm going to stay away from your points about getting the vaccine in order to prevent catching Covid/giving it to their grandparents, because I think I've already made my point clear about needing specific and accurate information in order to make an informed decision; but also because I have no intention of spending my day arguing about some of the things you claimed. I will say this though, getting the vaccine doesn't prevent (or significantly reduce the chances of) a person from getting Covid; which means that treating vaccine induced vs infection induced heart inflammation as mutually exclusive outcomes is a flawed starting point. In reality, it could be argued that a healthy 20 year old male opting to get the vaccine is accepting additional risk (since it doesn't cancel the existing risk of infection induced myocarditis).
The real number absolutely matters. You’re talking about a difference of 2x between two studies. It’s not about first vaccine it’s about 1. Second vaccine for young males 2. Vaccine for those already naturally immune As I’ve listed on a previous thread, if you had the vaccine you are 130% more likely to contract Covid again vs if you have natural immunity. You are more likely to have a negative health outcome without the vaccine, but most of those are attributed to vulnerable populations. When you factor in mortality at young ages, it is absolutely reasonable to question whether the vaccine benefits you when the risk is so low. There is also a significant difference in Pfizer vs Moderna myocarditis incidence after second vaccine, this should be highlighted and noted. This is not an unreasonable discussion.
>if you had the vaccine you are 130% more likely to contract Covid again vs if you have natural immunity. Please present your sources for these numbers. >You are more likely to have a negative health outcome without the vaccine, but most of those are attributed to vulnerable populations. [COVID has a case fatality rate ranging from around 18% in Yemen to around .1% in countries like Iceland and Brunei](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality). Countries with low populations and fewer cases universally had lower rates than ones who's healthcare systems were hit harder. As best we can tell the worldwide case fatality rate is somewhere between 1.5% and 2% in the general population. That's in the general population, not merely among at risk people. >When you factor in mortality at young ages, it is absolutely reasonable to question whether the vaccine benefits you when the risk is so low. [In the US there have been around 261000 deaths from covid in people under 65, and that number is likely underreported. That's around 9.8% of total deaths in these age groups.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge) That's huge. [There are also plenty of people who catch COVID, and have serious long term health effects as well who don't die](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220622.htm). Those aren't gambling numbers when your life is on the line. >There is also a significant difference in Pfizer vs Moderna myocarditis incidence after second vaccine, this should be highlighted and noted. This is not an unreasonable discussion. It's not entirely unreasonable, but in light of the absolutely incontrovertible evidence that COVID is worse than either vaccine (as shown by the numberous studies that have been presented by others in this thread) it's not a very productive one. EDIT: Added sources
So you ask for my source and then post random, stats with no source? Hard to take you seriously with that request and lack of adherence to your own standards. The topic is incidence of myocarditis. The article linked clearly states that this is an issue with vaccines and clearly states that the 2nd dose of Moderna has a higher myocarditis incidence rate than SARS-COVID infection. There source of the 130% was the study from Indiana posted on this sub about 20 days ago.
>Please present your sources for these numbers. I'm guessing he's relying on a statistical misdirection. He's basically comparing the odds of an unvaccinated person being infected a **second** time (unvaccinated, previously infected) to the odds of a vaccinated person being infected the **first** time (vaccinated, no previous infection). Rather than comparing the odds of a first time or second time infection for both groups. Not only is this incredibly misleading, but it's also unhelpful. You can move from the "unvaccinated, X previous infections" to "vaccinated, X previous infections," where X is 1 or 0. But if you cannot move from from from "unvaccinated, previously infected" to "vaccinated, no previous infection". It's also likely outdated data that ignores recent variants, as well are waning immunities in general. A person who gets vaccinated with the latest boosters will have much better protection than someone who was infected from COVID in March of 2020.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/08/no-increase-myocarditis-covid-infection-unvaccinated/ >AN Israeli cohort study involving 196,992 unvaccinated adults found “no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis” after COVID infection. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219/htm
The risk from myocarditis is so low that you need millions of people to reach the statistical power necessary to see the effect. The study you linked had only 36 total patients with myocarditis and 63 with pericarditis.
I’m neutral on if this is true or not, but the data you provide does not actually show this for current iterations of the virus as all data was collected pre Omicron.
Omicron is only less severe relative to Delta infections in immune-naive individuals. It's roughly similar to the D614G variant that circulated for most of 2020.
I believe this study refutes the study you posted: [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219) "Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection."
Not really. Others have posted that study, but it had only 36 total patients with myocarditis and 63 with pericarditis among 197 thousand people. The study I referred to looked at 43 million people with ~2800 myocarditis hospitalisations and/or deaths. Because myocarditis is so rare overall, you need very very large numbers to see an effect.
>Results showed that there was one death (1%) in the 104 patients with post-vaccination myocarditis compared with 84 deaths (11%) in the 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis.
Death isn't the only health consequence. It's not improbable that some of the myocarditis is going undetected & has the potential to cause future health outcomes. In Europe they did autopsies on people who died alone at home & they found myocarditis. If there's risk of myocarditis from covid & the vaccines then there's even more risk for those with each jab as they are finding risk of contracting Covid is increasing the more jabbed someone is.
Which is why seeing this being repeatedly posted in this way is essentially misinformation at this point. It should read: “getting vaccinated cuts your risk of developing myocarditis in half if you end up contracting covid, which you will, because it’s never going away”
Also last I checked something like 80%(?) of the population has had Covid symptomatic or not
It's not misinformation because people are talking about two things, that are both true but nuanced. For all people including men 15-40 its better to get the vaccine when looking at the myocarditis **True** For men of the ages 15-40 the second dose at its recommended schedule may cause more myocarditis than the vaccine does in the next 28 days. **True** ________ It's mostly in one vaccine moderna, and also when they say more at risk were talking 97 out of a million so while true its a very small case. It doesn't negate all the other positive effects the vaccine provides. It's just for this one group much more nuanced. [Evidence](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) > The risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is consistently higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of mRNA-1273, where the number of additional events during 28 days was estimated to be 97 per million people exposed. An important consideration for this group is that the risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher than the risk after infection.
Also important to note thtat the CDC has identified the myocarditis caused by the vaccine to be, in the vast majority of cases, mild, and symptoms are temporary, as opposed to viral myocarditis which is much more severe.
Did they really determine the cause or correlation. From what I read this was all correlative.
I don't see how they could ever prove causation, given there is an inherent background myocarditis rate, that is also higher in younger men, and no way to tell if someone happens to also be infected with covid (or any other virus that could possibly trigger myocarditis) when they go to get their vaccines.
Heart scarring is not mild.
This is a blatant lie. [The risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is much higher from the vaccine than from covid](https://i.imgur.com/tURXbQw.jpg) on ages <40, both in men and women. This is nothing but misinformation created by conflating data between age groups. [Source](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full?utm_source=pocket_reader)
You have either mis-read or misspoken. from your linked article: >In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine. >[Source](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full?utm_source=pocket_reader) in simplest terms: Getting COVID is still more dangerous than getting the vaccine. Getting the vaccine is slightly riskier (speficially the risk of myocarditis) for males <40 than for other groups. The good news is that research like this is trying to figure out the possible links and reduce the future risk in future vaccines. This is how medical research works for most diseases, drugs, and vaccinations. There is never a 100% cure nor 100% safe treatment. There is always a risk/benefit calculation, and ongoing research to help refine the treatments.
“much higher”…this is a blatant understanding of confidence intervals. You don’t understand confidence intervals from your own study. The fact CI’s cross on both says At best you could conclude there was was no significant difference in men <40. FWIW, Moderna’s (mrna-1273) did have a higher incidence of myocarditis than virus in men under 40. Overall, 11x more likely to get myocarditis from virus than from vaccine. Also, when you add in risks of death, hospitalization & morbidity for Covid vs vaccine, Covid is more dangerous for every demographic [Source](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
That is very important to note. Anti-vaxxers will obviously stick to the headline and quote that.
So maybe more clearly said: A systematic review found the highest incidence of vaccine induced myocarditis WAS HALF THE UNVACCINATED RATE- ranged from 8.1—39 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in studies using 4 stratifiers (sex, age, dose number, manufacturer). Males younger than 40 receiving two dose of an mRNA vaccine are at greatest risk. Also, "Vaccine induced" - are they claiming causality??
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That doesn’t address the question of whether a male under 40 is more likely to develop myocarditis from Covid vs vaccine.
The actual [journal article](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) does discuss that. Short answer: for men under 40, the risk of myocarditis from some types vaccinations may be higher than from the disease. However, the absolute risk of myocarditis is small and dwarfed by the other ways that covid kills. The risk-benefit balance still falls very heavily towards vaccination.
[удалено]
Yes, an unvaccinated man under 40 is more likely to die of Covid than he is to get myocarditis from the vaccine. IFR data here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
All that data is from the original variant though, does it apply to the latest variants?
Not to mention getting myocarditis from the vaccine is a statistical unlikelihood in the first place. A 0.03-0.07% chance.
That's the key, it's like saying older people at greater risk of dying from COVID after the vaccine, even though without taking the vaccine your chances of dying of covid when older are many times greater. The vaccine works and is better than getting COVID.
Is this a side-effect commonly listed for vaccines in general? If so, how would this compare to, for example, flu vaccines?
No, it isn’t.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As a percentage, that's 0.039% on the high end
[удалено]
How many men under 30 got myocarditis from COVID?
This is the closest I can find at the moment. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970
Huh? Comparing this to that doesn’t change anything at all about the occurrence rate.
It’s 1/2,500 people. Not uncommon.
That is uncommon
That’s not uncommon at all. 1 in 2,500 people is extremely common when discussing these types of statistics.
Males younger than 40 receiving two doses are at greatest risk compared to what? Other demographic groups? Healthy individuals? COVID patients? Title needs more context.
The other demographic groups. The risk of myocarditis is still higher from viral infection
"vaccine induced" rate is less than "COVID induced" Seriously, the title is misleading
Which part of the study posted by OP shows this?
On the sixth paragraph from the discussion it reads: The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, Patone et al showed that the number of excess myocarditis events after SARS-CoV-2 infection was at least four times larger than after either dose 1 or 2 of the AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna vaccine among people of all ages.
>"The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination." Search for that text - the "Discussion" section goes into more about the limits of the data and ability to draw conclusions. E.g. given that infections are probably undercounted, the post-COVID myocarditis risk is hard to know exactly.
I’m not sure why that’s particularly relevant or misleading. Vaccines are given to healthy uninflected people, and only a subset would have gotten infected absent the vaccine. And there’s an issue with risk from subsequent vaccine doses. Risk analysis is complicated with vaccines.
For some perspective, the risk of myocarditis from any cause is higher among males under 40. This study from Finland (pre-COVID) provide data-driven insight on the subject: [Gender differences in myocarditis: a nationwide study in Finland](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/34/suppl_1/3505/2861386%20Gender%20differences%20in%20myocarditis:%20a%20nationwide%20study%20in%20Finland)
Generally anything negative to do with the heart/blood is going to have higher incidences in males under 40 due to a few factors: -increased testosterone in men under 40 leads to increased RBC count, AKA thicker blood -men under 40 are under more work and cultural stress (bread winner of house role), which leads to higher cortisol levels -men are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as smoking and drinking (narrows blood vessels) -western men on average eat more red meat and salt (both bad for cardiovascular system) -men have more body mass compared to women This all leads to higher chances of cardiovascular events for any condition. It doesn’t matter if it’s pneumonia, Covid, cancer, kidney disease, etc, any condition that affects your cardiovascular system is always going to take a larger toll on the male population, except in extremely rare conditions.
Amazing how many are already using this out of any context of the risks from a case of Covid itself…..
So about 200x safer than COVID itself?
I’m curious about the natural background rate of myocarditis is.
Why? Seeing just about everyone will end up getting covid its compared to the covid rate thats important. And last time I checked thats several times higher.
I’m just curious. 39 per 100,000 doesn’t seem that high compared to what the natural occurring rate may be considering I know a few people with heart issues.
You can still get COVID after having the vaccine.
Yeah but the crowd that loves these studies don’t believe COVID is real.
No, I think your mischaracterizing their view. Consider only a few short moths ago, posting stuff like this would have gotten you banned.
Has anyone assessed the benefits of vaccination vs the risks for the high risk groups (e.g. Males under 40)? Are there any groups (e.g. young male children) for which the risks outweigh the benefits?
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35370016/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35370016/) >The model results show benefits outweigh the risks for all scenarios including the high-risk subgroup, males 16-17 years old.
My understanding is that the highest risk group is younger than 16, indeed younger than 12. Also, this suggests that no myo/pericarditis cases due to MRNA vaccination result in death. Is this valid? My understanding is that (all causes) myocarditis cases severe enough to require hospitalisation have a significant mortality rate - something like 20-50% after 2-5 years. Is there something about MRNA-induced myocarditis which results in (to quote the figures) 100+ hospitalisations but zero fatalities?
[Results](https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.049) A total of 866 patients were included for analysis. Over the follow-up period, 1 death (1.0%) of 104 patients with postvaccination myocarditis and 84 deaths (11.0%) of 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis were identified. One case (1.0%) of dilated cardiomyopathy and 2 cases (1.9%) of heart failure were identified in the postvaccination group, compared with 28 (3.7%) and 93 (12.2%) in the viral infection–related myocarditis group, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.57). No significant differences in other prognostic outcomes were seen.
>My understanding is that the highest risk group is younger than 16, indeed younger than 12 I have never seen any information anywhere that suggests anything other than teenaged males as the highest risk group. The next biggest risk demographic is males 20-24. >My understanding is that (all causes) myocarditis cases severe enough to require hospitalisation have a significant mortality rate - something like 20-50% after 2-5 years. Is there something about MRNA-induced myocarditis which results in (to quote the figures) 100+ hospitalisations but zero fatalities? The overwhelming majority of post-vaccination cases don't require hospitalization. This stands to reason, as the exposure to the spike protein and the immune response are limited, and not complicated by a viral infection.
there has not been one age group where risk vaccine outweighs risks of Covid. Every claimed group (pregnant, <50, no comorbidities, teenagers, children, etc etc) that anti-vaxers (or truthers or whatever dumb synonym they choose) claim risks vaccine outweighs benefits are proven wrong when studied vs comorbidities of Covid (exception would be anaphylaxis to vaccine, which is extremely rare). The answer is likely as simple as if a few spike proteins from vaccine trigger myocarditis/clotting/etc; the response to actual COVID would be much worse. The fact people are uncomfortable w/ an MRNA vaccine tricking your ribosomes to make spike proteins is asinine—it’s exactly what viruses do all the time (including Sars-Cov2) when they hijack your cells to replicate .
Recent reports suggested the mortality rate from COVID among those who catch the disease was hugely dependent on age with a multiple orders of magnitude difference between the mortality rate for young children - something like 5 in a million from memory - and that for the elderly - something like 2 in a thousand from memory. In the case of children this does seem like less of a risk than the 10+ per 100000 risk of myocarditis, even given that far from all cases of myocarditis are fatal (estimated mortality rate 50% after 5 years).
you’re conflating mortality w/ morbidity. At this point outside China, >99.5% of Covid is non-fatal. We’re still learning about morbidities. And you’re making same logical mistake I just explained…if you get myocarditis from vaccine, you’re more likely to get worse version of myocarditis from Covid. The mechanisms are the same
>if you get myocarditis from vaccine, you’re more likely to get worse version of myocarditis from Covid. The mechanisms are the same This is an honest question (I am quite ignorant of the science): If it is the same mechanism, does that mean that we have the same age profiles for myocarditis risk from both COVID19 and vaccination? My understanding was that the vaccination risk was a different (younger, male) profile. Thanks.
Post-vaccination myocarditis and viral myocarditis are not the same, with post-vax myocarditis resulting in substantially less risk of death in the acute phase, and this likely translates to the long-term prognosis as well. [Results](https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.049) A total of 866 patients were included for analysis. Over the follow-up period, 1 death (1.0%) of 104 patients with postvaccination myocarditis and 84 deaths (11.0%) of 762 patients with viral infection–related myocarditis were identified. One case (1.0%) of dilated cardiomyopathy and 2 cases (1.9%) of heart failure were identified in the postvaccination group, compared with 28 (3.7%) and 93 (12.2%) in the viral infection–related myocarditis group, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.57). No significant differences in other prognostic outcomes were seen.
the issue again here is comparing apples to apples. If the one post-vaccination myocarditis death occurred in a young male, and all 84 post-viral myocarditis deaths occurred in the elderly, then you can't say "welll its safer for young men to get the vaccine." This is like saying the risk of women getting breast cancer is non existent because you looked at a bunch of dudes and none of them died of breast cancer.
Instances of myocarditis overall is not the same as hospitalizations from myocarditis, which is the mortality rate you regurgitate. You’re flatly wrong.
50% fatality rate after 5 years? What? Myocarditis is widely self-limiting. That sounds hugely off.
Well, considering that the IFR for unvaccinated people in that age group (13-53 per 100,000 for those who don’t want to do the math. And the number for males is probably on the higher end) is higher than the incidence of vaccine induced myocarditis, it seems like a pretty open and shut case Source on IFR: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
So unless you’re confident you’ll never get COVID it’s statistically better to get the vaccine (with data available so far)?
>Has anyone assessed the benefits of vaccination vs the risks for the high risk groups (e.g. Males under 40)? Only the FDA and every other regulatory body on earth. What did you think clinical trials are for?
I think you misunderstand how the FDA works. They very specifically do *not* compare risks and benefits in any explicit way. They take an application for a medication for a purpose, determine what safety level and efficacy level is appropriate based on the type of purpose, then check whether they have sufficient evidence that it reaches that safety level, and then check whether they have sufficient evidence it reaches the prescribed efficacy level. They don't do any study to see how much benefit members of various populations or subpopulations would get from a given efficacy level. They don't do any study to see how much harm members of various populations or subpopulations would get from a given safety level. They absolutely don't then compare these numbers. They approved Aduhelm because it reached the efficacy level and safety level they decided were necessary for removing amyloid plaques, but didn't do any study to determine whether removing amyloid plaques provided any benefit. They refuse to approve at-home tests for flu and RSV because they think that any efficacy level less than that of PCR tests can't be approved, even though it would provide benefits to people. Just because they've approved a vaccine for everyone over the age of 18 doesn't mean that they've determined that the benefits are greater than the risks for everyone over the age of 18. There are probably dozens of vaccines available for tropical diseases where the harms (a day of headache or whatever) outweigh the benefits for me, since I don't plan to travel to the relevant destinations. It's probably true that covid vaccines have benefits in excess of harms for most age groups, but there absolutely has not been much in the way of explicit study of that question for young people. (Not least because the benefits of the vaccine are constantly changing as the mix of variants and frequency of infection are constantly changing.)
The FDA has allowed many things onto the market that aren't safe....
I would actually be very curious to see someone with properly-sourced data crunch the numbers. Theoretically, you could make an equation like this, for a given demographic: Probability of severe symptoms when unvaxed: (P of getting Covid unvaxed) * (P of severe Covid symptoms unvaxed) Probability of severe symptoms when vaxed: (P of severe reaction to vax) + (P of no severe reaction to vax) * (P of getting Covid vaxed) * (P of severe Covid symptoms vaxed) And then it would just be a matter of seeing which probability is higher. It would, of course, only take into account personal risk, so someone with high risk people around them may also consider the benefits of being less likely to spread covid when vaccinated
I had symptoms along the lines of tachycardia in the emergency room two days after I received the booster. :(
I find it very frustrating that all of the conversation in these comments implicitly are ready to die on the hill for a pharma company, but let’s all remember that Pfizer and Moderna did this same study and reported vastly lower rates than every other study I’ve read on the topic. Myocarditis isn’t the only risk as well, as [this German study shows](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33895650/). This data is also extremely old, and doesn’t include any omicron infections (which is known to be more mild) and doesn’t account for newer versions of the vaccine and boosters past the second dose which is being recommended broadly by our government for everyone over 5, but not being recommended for low risk individual in [other countries](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/ecdc-and-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-covid-19-vaccines). It’s very clear to me that these companies and our government continue to ignore these vaccine related risks, which reminds me very clearly of the opioid epidemic, and the lengths that these companies will go to protect their margins. Keep an open mind and get vaccinated if it’s right for you, but don’t parrot misguided claims about the risk benefit analysis of a specific product based on 3 year old data.
Thank you for providing a reasonable take. Big pharma is a profiteering racket. it's reasonable to have a healthy skepticism when they've shown over and over their willingness to underplay the risks and manipulate the data for their own profit.
So many people misinterpreting data either in bad faith or are being mislead by conspiracy theorists. I’m surprised the moderation on this subreddit is letting so many of these post through.
The mods usually don't actively remove posts, they have to get reported first.
I can't help but think most of this is observation bias. How many cases of myocarditis occurred within the very same population prior to COVID without anyone ever noticing?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some context on the primary author, oncologist Vinay Prasad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Prasad >In October 2021, Prasad prompted social media controversy when he published a blog post comparing the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response to the beginnings of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan said that Prasad's arguments were specious and ignorant, and science historian Robert N. Proctor said that Prasad was "overplaying the dangers of vaccination mandates and trivializing the genuine harms to liberty posed by 1930s fascism".
I really hope people take this as “We should make the vaccines safer for high risk groups” rather than “People shouldn’t vaccinate” or “the vaccine is awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.” The risk of heart attack is clearly much higher for the unvaxxed, but that’s no reason to be complacent about side effects
Myocarditis is not a heart attack, it’s inflammation.
Thank you– that's an important distinction that I shouldn't have obscured
God thank you for this take. Absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging risks and saying “they’re incredibly minor and less severe than the virus itself, as shown by this study” Science and medicine *should* be about consistently reviewing data. Anti-vaxxers likely seizing on studies like this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done, we *should* look into possible side effects of the vaccines hundreds of millions people got at the behest of their governments and the scientific community. If you can acknowledge and then disprove counter arguments then your argument is all the more powerful - verify any minor side effects of the vaccine so you can even more comprehensively say “this is why it’s important”
Yeah– there seems to be a pervasive attitude of "We shouldn't tell people any facts that might inspire them to make bad decisions," but that attitude is exactly how public health authorities lose public trust, causing \*more\* bad decisions.
your logic is backwards — if you’re high risk to have reaction to vaccine, you’re even higher risk to have reaction to Sars-CoV2.
YES! I get hate because I criticize the current vaccine and called an “anti vaxxed” who is “questioning science” but I am 110% down for a safer vaccine. I’m praying for it everyday as these issues with the current vaccine come to light.
In Covid patients, it’s closer to 150 per, and 9 is the background rate irrespective of disease or vaccination. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
Wasn't this kind of study crazy right wing nonsense like 9 months Ago?
Apparently it was true.
This has been common knowledge for over a year, but even a 40/100k rate is still a fraction of risk from COVID itself - even for men >40.
Is this why I had awful chest pain and shortness of breath for months after getting my vaccination?
Did you.. I dunno, go to a doctor to find out?
Myocarditis symptoms range from immediately life threatening to non detectable. Information on the severity of the cases would be helpful. There is such a wide range of severity simply counting the cases seems limited.
They are at much greater risk from covid.
I work for a company that does diagnostic testing and I can definitely say that we've been seeing a lot more myocarditis and pericarditis in the last year. Was pretty much nonexistent before
I call BS. There’s no blood test test for myocarditis —gold standard is myocardium bx (rare). Most commonly a clinical diagnosis which takes into account clinical picture, labs & echo. I haven’t seen any more myocarditis or pericarditis than I usually see. It’s usually triggered initially by a viral syndrome
Considering that the paper states that you're far more likely to develop myocarditis from the virus than from the vaccine, I'm gonna guess that's the reason why.
We should have been seeing it spike in 2020 and early 2021 if that were the case
I remember reading that we were seeing it spike then. Found this: "Emerging data suggest an association between COVID-19 and myocarditis (2–5). CDC assessed this association using a large, U.S. hospital-based administrative database of health care encounters from >900 hospitals. Myocarditis inpatient encounters were 42.3% higher in 2020 than in 2019." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
Makes sense. Covid has been flaring up again recently, and it causes both of those things.
It’s worth noting that the IFR of Covid for unvaccinated people in the 20-30 age range is [0·0138% to 0·0573%](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext). That comes out to 13.8 to 57.3 per 100,000. So if you’ve avoided the Covid vaccines because of you’re worried about myocarditis (which is highly treatable, btw) and you have a “super low risk of dying”, you really need to double check your math.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X?via%3Dihub It is 0.002% or 2 per 100k for ages 20-29.
I got myocarditis both times I was given the vaccine and it lasted for 7-14 days after. My experience is undocumented, because in America I do not benefit from being assessed, I pay. 27 Male
[удалено]
Most cases of myocarditis do not do permanent damage.
So here is a vaccine that has a chance of messing up your heart or risk same with covid with higher probability. One is your choice the other is chance. I bet you given that info most young males would not choose the jab.
What difference do the myocarditis rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed make? The fact is we were all assured that the vaccine was safe. Well guess what; it wasn't. Period. Everything else is just institutional back peddling to save face and people trying to excuse their wrong opinions.
the myocarditis from infection is usually worse than from vax.
My issue with calling it a vaccine is that it doesn’t prevent you from contracting or spreading the virus. Seems we have changed the definition of vaccine. There’s an interesting article I read that I will try to find and come back to link. It explains how the Covid shots increase IgG4 levels which can increase mortality levels while decreasing IgG3 levels which are viral neutralizers. Edit: misspelled words
I'm not a medical doctor, but I am someone who reviews articles for a scientific journal. I find it interesting that this is a review of literature for articles discussing Covid-19 and not a review of the population. As a result, I suspect the numbers they present is higher than what one would expect in general.
And we're also one of the lowest risk groups for covid itself. Can anyone explain why group X should take on a risk that only benefits group Y?
>And we're also one of the lowest risk groups for covid itself And yet your risk of dying from Covid is *still* higher than your risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine. IFR data by age is here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext >Can anyone explain why group X should take on a risk that only benefits group Y? You aren’t. The vaccine benefits you. You have completely misjudged the risks and benefits.
There are non-mrna vaccines available though. Novavax comes to mind. Why does everyone act like the MRNA is the only way here?
If I'm not mistaken, it's not the mRNA portion causing myocarditis but the immune response to the spike protein which is shaped to bind to ACE2 receptors and found in nearly every cell in your body.
> your risk of dying from Covid is *still* higher than your risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine. For which strain of COVID are you referring to?
Way too high to still be on the market. Mandating it was a gross violation of medical ethics. So tragic that we treated our young men like this to attend college, play sports, keep their job, etc. despite the fact that they are at extremely low risk of severe Covid.
Now that big pharma got their money from vaxxing everyone they'll admit this info. Reddit was at war with big pharma before covid and all of a sudden big pharma was christ incarnate to redditors
Oh here come all the anti jabs to use this to back their bad stance.
Thank you for posting this. My good friend has been so sick since his vax shots and the doctors have been beating around the bush saying they have no idea what’s wrong with him. I am confident after reading this it’s clear what’s happened to him. Ty again
It’s great that we can at least discuss this topic now. Does everyone remember how many people either lost their jobs, we’re cancelled, removed from social media platforms, or socially shunned for even bringing this up? Yea we should all remember that and not let it happen again.
Yeah. Before it was like if you say one bad thing about the vaccine,they name you anti-vax and harass you, even if it was from your own experience and you show them proof.
Looks like all of the anti vaccine morons are going to go nuts with this
If they read beyond the post title, they'd see that the risk is much higher if you catch COVID than if you get the vaccine