I am absolutely pro vaccine despite my heart problems, but this kind of argumentation basically means that regardless of how bad the vaccine is, it gets away free because "covid would probably be worse".
That's kind of how relative risk works. I mean, no COVID would be nice, but we left that world behind two years ago. What do you mean "get away free" anyway? There's no morality here. The vaccine didn't "do" anything wrong. It is either efficacious or it isn't, and the side effects are either worth it or they aren't. From what we can tell, the risk of heart problems from the vaccine is so much lower than from COVID. What more would you like people to do?
The preprint discussed in that post specifically calls out that there weren’t enough myocarditis events in the 13-17 age group to reliably estimate the relative risk, so I don’t see where that conclusion is coming from
Also, note the higher relative risk only applies to the full moderna dose
I’m not saying that I don’t think myocarditis is a risk factor for kids and teens, just that this paper isn’t giving a quantitative assessment of its relative risk vs Covid. If you have seen research that does provide quantitative insight, I would be interested to read it; I have two kids under 5 and I’m still evaluating things.
I have a pre-teen daughter myself and while she's not directly in a "risk-group" (like boys are) I wouldn't feel comfortable shoving jabs and boosters after boosters into her, when the benefits are dubious.
This is why many countries are holding off on vaccinating kids still, even though some countries like the US seem to be hellbent on vaccinating 100% at any cost.
Edit: The above study has risks broken up by which vaccines were administered as 1st/2nd (page 12). Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
Edit2: Keep in mind we haven't vaccinated <12 year olds extensively yet, but the data on young children is already worrisome (to the point where risks of myocarditis seem to outweigh risks of Covid).
Edit3: I'm myself double-jabbed, so not an antivaxxer per se, even though I'm classified as one as per "modern definition".
Thanks for the link, it’s interesting that they have similar findings to other studies based on passive reporting systems like VAERS in the US.
I don’t think the forever-recurring boosters are going to be a thing, it seems like cellular immunity is holding, and from the apparent drop off in myocarditis with greater spacing between doses one and two in this paper, that seems like evidence that 3-6 months would have been a better spacing than 3-4 weeks
> Interestingly Moderna+Pfizer seems to have no(!?) risk, whereas myocarditis is very high among Pfizer+Moderna. Not sure what to make of it.
I wouldn’t pay this much heed at all (based on this data at least). There were under 10k people in that first group (and zero cases of myocarditis), and the confidence intervals of the poisson regression overlap. You can even see from the figure how the model predicts a non-zero rate even though there were no actual cases!
really? I know many people who "got omicron" shortly after Christmas... by which I mean, they self-tested daily and eventually the test came up positive, with symptoms ranging from literally nonexistent to that of the mildest of colds—a far cry from my mom's ten-day absolute misery (and very real fear for her life given her immunosuppressed state) back in early 2020 that I personally witnessed & took care of her during. if that's what we're dealing with now, I don't see any reason why someone like myself who hasn't taken any of these vaccines or boosters or whatever to start doing so now. what part of my own personal risk assessment here is misguided?
How this does help anyone in particular to decide for themselves, unless you include some other factors like pre-existing conditions, sex, or age to the comparison?
People are not averages of the whole population. We would not need doctors if medical advice was this simple.
