The big question is how quickly and completely can that layer restore itself? If damage accumulates over time and people are catching new variants every 3-4 months it is only a matter of time before mortality from cardiovascular issues in COVID negative formerly infected people goes much higher and much younger. We need studies on the cardiovascular recovery pace after COVID damage in different age groups, and after repeat COVID diagnosis from different variants.
I had Delta once. Prior to it I would ride 30 miles on my bike like it was a breezy day. When I'd take breaks to vacation or whatever I could pick back up easily. A year after COVID, I'm struggling to hit 20 miles and I lose my progress easily. I'm not sure it's COVID related, but nothing else has changed in my life.
Adding to this, I'm not sure I had COVID, but 1) I had cardiac troubles before the pandemic, 2) did many months of bike to gain back some average cardiovascular health 3) I got vaccinated in Jan, and now my heart is doing different things (less fatigue but more and larger skipped beats). It's hard to know what's causing what now. I assume a lot of people are in the same case.
Like you I was a 50km/30 mile wake up and go person regardless of baseline health before the pandemic. Since I got the original strain in March 2020, I struggle to break 10.
Professional triathlete Lucy Charles-Barclay had Covid in November 2020 and then won the Ironman 70.3 world championship 10 months later. Everyone is different.
Lockdowns have also broken everyone’s regular exercise and healthy habits. On charts we all assign this to Covid, but lockdowns were an artificial, additional decision.
The vaccine antigen is only a small part of the virus. Furthermore is was modified and is inert.
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behi...
Because of international pharmacovigilance we know that ARNm vaccine induce some myocarditis and pericarditis, at a much lower rate than the virus and less severe.
"She says she has preliminary evidence that vaccination can lead to microclots, although in most cases they go unnoticed and quickly disappear—an effect she and a colleague saw in their own blood and that of eight other healthy volunteers, which they sampled after their vaccinations."
The clotting issues would presumably come from the spike protein binding with your ACE2 receptors and downregulating them. Of course it's kind of moot, since empirically we know that getting the vaccine has a hugely positive expected value.
Useless anecdotal evidence from my wife’s hairdresser, she has just been diagnosed with Myocarditis after having a Moderna booster, she thinks it’s linked…
Funny enough, one of the original MRNA treatments developed my Moderna was something that would temporarily activate stem cell generation around heart tissue. Sounds like in testing, the mice that got the treatment after having a heart attack were much less likely to have subsequent heart attacks.
I saw that it's mostly severe infection that results in high levels of auto-antibodies. But the studies I saw seemed to indicate that they only focused on acute infection. I wonder what the prevalence of anti-autobodies are in mild cases and how that correlates with the main article's finding of cardiovascular risk increase even in mild cases. Specifically, if these individuals already had auto-antibodies or some other outlying issue, or if this reaction is representative of the entire group.
It could take years for some autoimmune issues to arise. It would be quite concerning if this affects nearly everyone infected, including asymptomatic or mild infections following vaccination.
Many of the "Covid-19 increases risk of XYZ" popular media articles lack baseline comparisons to other virus infections. (Disclaimer: Yes, we know Covid-19 isn't the flu, and it's more deadly.) My point is: how much does heart-disease risk increase post-Covid compared to say post-Influenza? Is it comparable or is the risk magnitudes larger than with other virus infections? This is an important benchmark, I understand scientific journals don't cater to laypeople but popular media does.
From CDC website: "Studies have shown that flu illness is associated with an increase in heart attacks and stroke. A 2018 study found that the risk of having a heart attack was 6 times higher within a week of a confirmed flu infection."
> Yes, we know Covid-19 isn't the flu, and it's more deadly.
This isn't a true statement. It depends on the age group. Flu is far more deadly to young children whereas COVID rarely even results in a cold in younger children.
But to your point, basically any infection that causes systemic inflammation can increase heart disease risk. Even the common cold is dangerous for people at high risk of heart disease.
The CDC reports 16.3 flu/pneumonia deaths per 100,000 [0]. That's 0.0163 percent.
Johns Hopkins University reports covid-19 has 278.89 deaths per 100,000 - a 1.2% mortality rate in the US [1].
That would put covid-19 at 278.89/16.3 = ~17 times more deadly than the flu. Just because the numbers don't hold for a particular age group doesn't make the aggregate statement false. In fact, it would be misleading to categorize "17 times more deadly" as anything other than "more deadly."
Edit: I made a mistake dividing the percentages the first go around, reporting covid-19 as 73 times more deadly than influenza. I have updated the 3rd paragraph to show the calculations directly.
The only study that I've seen compare Covid-19 to the flu is one related to long-covid. You can have long-covid-like symptoms after the flu, but it is about twice more likely with Covid-19 than with the flu.
Think a study should consider duration of symptoms as well as how often they occur.
I have had post-viral symptoms after flu a few years ago and long-covid now. Recovery after flu was about 6 months, I'm coming up to two years with long-covid.
It's best to remeber that even if covid was in all aspects identical to flu, it will not replace flu. We'll have covid and flu. So even in the best case scenario (which isn't real) we are facing doubling of dmg from seasonal flu.
Given that different variants of the same virus outcompete each other (very evident with Covid), why would that not apply to different viruses of similar nature? SARS-CoV2 and Influenza both effectively compete for the same vulnerable population, and abide similar epidemiological dynamics. There is also some level of cross-immunity for corona viruses.
they're not identical but they're also not totally independent. There is a certain percentage of the population that is very vulnerable to both illnesses, yet they can't die twice.
Yeah, a lot of these viruses seem to do damage to the heart. I saw this study recently [1] about the flu vaccine reducing mortality in those with cardiovascular disease and I wonder if it would apply more generally in reducing risk of CVD in those who don’t have it?
Figure 5 is "Risk and 6-month excess burden of post-acute sequelae by organ system in people who were hospitalized during the acute phase of breakthrough COVID-19 compared to those hospitalized with seasonal influenza "
If I'm reading Figure 5 right in the original paper*, it looks like the biggest cardiac impact is on people who were hospitalized or went to the ICU for covid, and the effect on people who were not hospitalized is present but relatively small. Am I interpreting the data correctly?
Almost all of these factors are significantly elevated over the control groups, and their attempts to normalize the data (ST2) do not eliminate the problem. We're talking about tiny differences in small numbers, and their population is biased toward the sick and the old. It's already clear from the main paper that most of the signal comes from the oldest, sickest cohort, but once you know that pretty much everyone in the study was old and sick, it's clearly difficult to generalize from this.
This thread is awash with 20-somethings pontificating about heart damage based on a paper about elderly veterans. Simply irresponsible reporting.
Relatively small compared to the impact for severe cases, but it looks very relevant if you consider the amount of people that are getting COVID and that many governments and societies are basically throwing the towel and accepting that people should just catch it.
Covid infections aren't the only thing that happened. Lives changed and access to medical care was reduced. Both could easily explain the slight increase in health risks.
I also didn't see them compare the contemporary control group to 2017. The majority of the contemporary control group probably were infected with Covid. If there were a significant impact they should have different outcomes than the 2017 group.
This isn't a representative sample of the general public. Per supplementary tables 1-2, the average age of the participant was over 60, and had multiple co-morbidities. We know that age is the #1 risk factor.
The people in the "hospitalized" cohort, in particular, were quite old and sick prior to the disease.
These numbers are exceptionally high on aggregate. From the article: "out of every 1,000 people studied, there were around 4 more people in the COVID-19 group than in the control group who experienced stroke."
This means that for every million people who got COVID-19, we would expect 4,000 more strokes. Using a lower-bound estimate that 50% of the population will get COVID-19 at some point, this would mean roughly 650,000 more cases in the US alone (~330 million people), and this is in addition to baseline. A totally devastating pandemic.
Life insurers are already seeing it play out too, there was a 40% increase in life insurance claims for working age adults in the last couple years: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/58... A significant amount of people are dying unexpectedly early.
...and that's a generously low lower bound, because at this point, the only thing that could prevent a percentage approaching 100% would be a (near) extinction event like an asteroid strike or an all-out nuclear war.
New Zealand has been basically isolated and Covid free for the past year. Their population is approaching 95% vaccinated. It would be interesting to see statistics on heart disease rates in their population over the past year, as we could then be certain any increase is vaccine related and not Covid related.
> It's already known that vaccines increase rates of Myocarditis, especially amongst young males.
An Israeli study showed an incidence rate of 2.13 cases/100k people [1] - the common incidence rate for myocarditis in the US is ~22/100k [2].
COVID-19 itself has a 146/100k incidence of myocarditis, in contrast [3].
So please, stop spreading that "vaccines increase the rate of myocarditis", there is no evidence that supports this. And especially, get vaccinated because the complications from COVID-19 are way worse both in severity and rate.
I think increase in myocarditis in young males could be fully explained by how they changed their (social) behavior after getting their second dose after a year of lockdowns. Exposing themselves to additional risks including covid which we know the vaccine doesn't protect completely against.
That's certainly an important year over year comparison that would be very illuminating about the actual heart-related risks of the vaccine. It is important though that we focus this comparison on New Zealand itself, as far too many studies have been comparing countries with disparate ages and obesity rates while using vaccinate rates as the only relevant metric.
Would you mind to be more specific? What do you mean by 'until open borders'? Air and/or sea? How were domestic and international related infections different? Were containment measures different for both?
Pre-omicron, it did. Australia and New Zealand were pretty much at the herd immunity threshold from vaccination, before even getting much third dose coverage or vaccinating children.
Omicron is sufficiently immune-escaping that it changed that, but I continue to be surprised how many people don't realise that the vaccines were actually very effective at preventing infection and transmission for pre-omicron variants.
Edit: I don't mean they prevented infection and transmission 100%, obviously. But for two doses the total reduction in transmission was like 80%, and higher still for three doses. This is more than most people (other than Australians and NZers who watched vaccination bend the curves in real time) realise, from the way people talk you'd think the vaccines barely reduced infection and transmission at all.
Why is this downvoted? It's technically correct and supported by studies (look it up). Vaccinated people can and do get and transmit the virus. Frequently without even realizing it.
It doesn't mean vaccination isn't required as it's proven to significantly reduce mortality especially among the older population.
This Danish study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v...) of Omicron household secondary attack rates found a 52% reduction in susceptibility for boosted individuals and a 51% reduction in transmissibility from boosted individuals.
In other words, if both the infected person and the household member were boosted, the likelihood of a household member becoming infected was reduced by 74% compared to if both were unvaccinated. (This number is for Omicron, for Delta the reduction is even higher at 92%.)
In other words, while you are technically correct that the vaccines do not completely prevent infection or transmission, they do, in fact, significantly reduce the likelihood.
It probably does reduce transmission because it helps your body defeat it more rapidly, in some cases so quickly that you don't even notice you had it. More rapidly = less time to transmit it to other people.
What I would like to know is, for young males (i.e. those who are most at risk of myocarditis after the vaccine), does the vaccine lessen cardiac risks in a subsequent infection or not?
I am 31 and got a heart attack caused by a blood clot last year. Had to undergo double bypass surgery. This happened two months after my second shot so every doctor dismissed the fact of it being related to the vaccine.
I was fit and healthy, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and exercising regularly with no family history.
I never had symptoms but maybe at some point I caught covid without knowing despite going out very rarely and always observing precautions.
My brother passed away at 35 from an undiagnosed heart condition. He was in incredible physical shape and had run a half-marathon a few weeks earlier. He had never smoked, he drank moderately and he was a vegetarian. He had no history of any kind of heart problems (or any serious medical problems, in fact), but one day he felt dizzy and had trouble staying upright, so he took a sick day from work, took a nap and never woke up. This was in 2017.
It's certainly rare, but young fit people do have heart problems. You can't conclude that this had anything to do with the vaccine, this is not how science works. Certainly the long-term health effects of the vaccines should be studied, but bandying about these kinds of anecdotes is dangerous: it's the same kind of thing that has (wrongly!) convinced so many people that vaccines cause autism.
By the way, this is not to minimize what you went through, I cannot imagine how scary or painful it must've been. I hope you will have a strong path to recovery, and I wish you all the best.
That's terrible, I hope you're recovering to the best possible.
Do you happen to know what was your blood pressure prior to the heart attack, and/or your apob level?
At least you should have it checked now (I assume that's what have been prescribe by your doctors).
It is my understanding that it is more statistically sound to point the cause of a heart attack at your age to genetic/epigenetic factors instead of a potential coronavirus infection with no symptoms.
The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.
Unfortunately this study's message is quite obfuscating, probably intentionally. They mean exactly what they say though: covid-induced myocarditis rate is higher than vaccine-induced myocarditis rate, but it says nothing about covid-induced myocarditis rate in relation to vaccination status.
> The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine .
What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men.
> So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.
This is a separate claim about the conditional probability, which I haven't seen data on. The unconditional probability does not inform the conditional probability.
Everyone will eventually be exposed to covid (probably repeatedly). It's possible with vaccinations that not everyone will be infected with covid however, as even against omicron it appears 3 doses of vaccine (especially a mix of pfizer and moderna) provide efficacy of 60%+ for at least 15 weeks. Omicron-specific versions of the mRNA vaccines are also already in testing, so I would hope those will be available for future boosters. (Of course there will be future variants as well, but it seems likely those would branch off of Omicron, so an updated vaccine would likely still prove more effective than the current ones would.)
I suppose for some version of "eventually" then everyone would likely expect to get a breakthrough case eventually, but even so the vaccines should drastically reduce the number of times one expects to be infected, so still risk would be reduced, even if it wasn't for breakthrough cases (although it appears that vaccines reduce the risk there as well).
The change in conditional probability though likely flips when considering the third dose - the third dose is most likely to cause myocarditis, and least likely to protect against severe covid causing myocarditis (because the first two doses are already providing a high level of protection).
> "This is the figure, and it shows really clearly, that when you look at myocarditis just in this group, men under the age of 40, it is crystal clear, pfizer dose 2, pfizer dose 3, moderna dose 1, moderna dose 2, have rates of myocarditis greater than the rate of myocarditis post SARS-CoV-2 infection"
This comment will probably get flagged, but I am genuinely curious from a scientific lens. What is the distribution of post-COVID heart disease conditional on having taken the vaccine?
This is actually the best reason to have people remain unvaccinated, and to not strictly mandate vaccines.
I'm pro-vax (god, why do I have to say that?) but what's seriously pissed me off about this whole COVID thing is how quickly it became political. At the beginning there was a real sense of "we're in this together" but now you can be pretty certain of someones political affiliation if they choose not to wear a mask.
Vaccines prevent you getting the worst of the illness, they don't really prevent you catching and infecting others, so vaccines are a "cure" for overwhelmed healthcare systems and a protection for the individual.
So why do you need to have a vaccine pass to go places? You can still carry the virus and infect people.
Having unvaccinated parts of the population means we can track if it was the wise decision or not, hindsight is 20-20 and it seems obvious to me now that we should vaccinate.. But it also seemed obvious in the 50s that fireproofing buildings with asbestos was the right decision too.
now you can be pretty certain of someones political affiliation if they choose not to wear a mask
Arguably it's the other way around. Not wearing a mask (if voluntary) is the normal and natural choice, which should tell you nothing about a person at all. Choosing to wear one even when not required, on the other hand, tells you a lot about that person and their perception of risks/expert status etc.
Regardless of your position - pro-vax - I love that you point out the political elements to this.
The politics goes deeper: the definitions of the terms 'vaccine' and 'virus' were changed, governments have undertaken the biggest advertising campaign in history effectively bankrolling the media, people who died of unrelated causes but had a positive test were counted as covid deaths which plainly skews statistics, governmental psychological units were given a few rein, large corporations were allowed to remain open but small businesses were not, etc.
These are examples of how this was handled not in a neutral way, but to advance a political agenda. Especially when you consider that most western countries were implementing the same measures in a coordinated way.
> So why do you need to have a vaccine pass to go places? You can still carry the virus and infect people.
Even if they aren't 100% effective, vaccines still reduce both the likelihood that you will become infected and also the likelihood that you will transmit the virus to others.
It is important to note that given the timeline in the study (March 2020 to Jan 2021) most of the COVID-19 group was likely unvaccinated. It remains to be seen whether vaccination protects against these same risks.
Edit: This is confirmed in the supplementary data. Only 347 (0.23%) of the 162,690 people in the COVID-19 group were vaccinated prior to infection. That being said, a reasonably large percentage (61.93%) were vaccinated by the end of the follow up period, which would seemingly indicate that vaccination post-infection doesn't help all that much against these risks.
I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said? Most of the people in the COVID-19 group tested positive before the vaccines were approved in December 2020. Yes, they might have been vaccinated afterwards, but my point is they did not have vaccine-induced antibodies at the time of their infections.
Readit News
The big question is how quickly and completely can that layer restore itself? If damage accumulates over time and people are catching new variants every 3-4 months it is only a matter of time before mortality from cardiovascular issues in COVID negative formerly infected people goes much higher and much younger. We need studies on the cardiovascular recovery pace after COVID damage in different age groups, and after repeat COVID diagnosis from different variants.
One was a runner a Marathon was nothing for him and now almost a year later he can do a half Marathon.
The other one was a natural body builder. They know the weights they can push. He told me that 8 Months after Covid he was down 20% in weights.
https://www.uclahealth.org/heart/cardiac-repair-regeneration
Except that you got a year older.
I don't think there's any tissue that takes longer than a year to regenerate.
It is incorrect and irresponsible to extrapolate these two papers to the entire world.
The vaccine appears to cause minor damage, but more likely from the spike protein than from the immune response. C.f. this article:
https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-cases-coronavir...
"She says she has preliminary evidence that vaccination can lead to microclots, although in most cases they go unnoticed and quickly disappear—an effect she and a colleague saw in their own blood and that of eight other healthy volunteers, which they sampled after their vaccinations."
The clotting issues would presumably come from the spike protein binding with your ACE2 receptors and downregulating them. Of course it's kind of moot, since empirically we know that getting the vaccine has a hugely positive expected value.
Could be linked, probably not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4-DMKNT7xI
It could take years for some autoimmune issues to arise. It would be quite concerning if this affects nearly everyone infected, including asymptomatic or mild infections following vaccination.
From CDC website: "Studies have shown that flu illness is associated with an increase in heart attacks and stroke. A 2018 study found that the risk of having a heart attack was 6 times higher within a week of a confirmed flu infection."
This isn't a true statement. It depends on the age group. Flu is far more deadly to young children whereas COVID rarely even results in a cold in younger children.
But to your point, basically any infection that causes systemic inflammation can increase heart disease risk. Even the common cold is dangerous for people at high risk of heart disease.
Johns Hopkins University reports covid-19 has 278.89 deaths per 100,000 - a 1.2% mortality rate in the US [1].
That would put covid-19 at 278.89/16.3 = ~17 times more deadly than the flu. Just because the numbers don't hold for a particular age group doesn't make the aggregate statement false. In fact, it would be misleading to categorize "17 times more deadly" as anything other than "more deadly."
Edit: I made a mistake dividing the percentages the first go around, reporting covid-19 as 73 times more deadly than influenza. I have updated the 3rd paragraph to show the calculations directly.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm
[1]: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
I guess there are others, I just didn't randomly stumbled across them.
I have had post-viral symptoms after flu a few years ago and long-covid now. Recovery after flu was about 6 months, I'm coming up to two years with long-covid.
Within a week seems trivially small to the point of irrelevance. That would be when they are still sick with the flu, no?
1. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.019636
Same goes in the other direction, the sniffles can also cause myocarditis.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1062160/v1 Long Covid after Breakthrough COVID-19: the post-acute sequelae of breakthrough COVID-19 by Ziyad Al-Aly, Benjamin Bowe, Yan Xie
Figure 5 is "Risk and 6-month excess burden of post-acute sequelae by organ system in people who were hospitalized during the acute phase of breakthrough COVID-19 compared to those hospitalized with seasonal influenza "
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 h/t to @greenyoda for posting elsewhere in this thread.
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
Mean age of the Covid-19 cohort: 61.42
Percent with BMI over 30: 53.84%
Percent with chronic kidney disease: 19.52%
Lung disease: 15.26%
Diabetes: 32.13%
Hyperlipidemia: 33.97%
Hypertension: 26.7%
Almost all of these factors are significantly elevated over the control groups, and their attempts to normalize the data (ST2) do not eliminate the problem. We're talking about tiny differences in small numbers, and their population is biased toward the sick and the old. It's already clear from the main paper that most of the signal comes from the oldest, sickest cohort, but once you know that pretty much everyone in the study was old and sick, it's clearly difficult to generalize from this.
This thread is awash with 20-somethings pontificating about heart damage based on a paper about elderly veterans. Simply irresponsible reporting.
I also didn't see them compare the contemporary control group to 2017. The majority of the contemporary control group probably were infected with Covid. If there were a significant impact they should have different outcomes than the 2017 group.
The people in the "hospitalized" cohort, in particular, were quite old and sick prior to the disease.
Dead Comment
This means that for every million people who got COVID-19, we would expect 4,000 more strokes. Using a lower-bound estimate that 50% of the population will get COVID-19 at some point, this would mean roughly 650,000 more cases in the US alone (~330 million people), and this is in addition to baseline. A totally devastating pandemic.
It seems to be that the spike protein is responsible for this, which is present in both the virus and the vaccine.
So if they don’t have an increase in heart problems, it would strongly suggest the virus is the primary/significant culprit, not the vaccine.
An Israeli study showed an incidence rate of 2.13 cases/100k people [1] - the common incidence rate for myocarditis in the US is ~22/100k [2].
COVID-19 itself has a 146/100k incidence of myocarditis, in contrast [3].
So please, stop spreading that "vaccines increase the rate of myocarditis", there is no evidence that supports this. And especially, get vaccinated because the complications from COVID-19 are way worse both in severity and rate.
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
[3]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
I think increase in myocarditis in young males could be fully explained by how they changed their (social) behavior after getting their second dose after a year of lockdowns. Exposing themselves to additional risks including covid which we know the vaccine doesn't protect completely against.
Omicron is sufficiently immune-escaping that it changed that, but I continue to be surprised how many people don't realise that the vaccines were actually very effective at preventing infection and transmission for pre-omicron variants.
Edit: I don't mean they prevented infection and transmission 100%, obviously. But for two doses the total reduction in transmission was like 80%, and higher still for three doses. This is more than most people (other than Australians and NZers who watched vaccination bend the curves in real time) realise, from the way people talk you'd think the vaccines barely reduced infection and transmission at all.
It doesn't mean vaccination isn't required as it's proven to significantly reduce mortality especially among the older population.
Technically correct, but definitely not the best kind of correct.
In other words, if both the infected person and the household member were boosted, the likelihood of a household member becoming infected was reduced by 74% compared to if both were unvaccinated. (This number is for Omicron, for Delta the reduction is even higher at 92%.)
In other words, while you are technically correct that the vaccines do not completely prevent infection or transmission, they do, in fact, significantly reduce the likelihood.
I was fit and healthy, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, and exercising regularly with no family history.
I never had symptoms but maybe at some point I caught covid without knowing despite going out very rarely and always observing precautions.
It's certainly rare, but young fit people do have heart problems. You can't conclude that this had anything to do with the vaccine, this is not how science works. Certainly the long-term health effects of the vaccines should be studied, but bandying about these kinds of anecdotes is dangerous: it's the same kind of thing that has (wrongly!) convinced so many people that vaccines cause autism.
By the way, this is not to minimize what you went through, I cannot imagine how scary or painful it must've been. I hope you will have a strong path to recovery, and I wish you all the best.
Unfortunately this study's message is quite obfuscating, probably intentionally. They mean exactly what they say though: covid-induced myocarditis rate is higher than vaccine-induced myocarditis rate, but it says nothing about covid-induced myocarditis rate in relation to vaccination status.
What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men.
> So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.
This is a separate claim about the conditional probability, which I haven't seen data on. The unconditional probability does not inform the conditional probability.
I suppose for some version of "eventually" then everyone would likely expect to get a breakthrough case eventually, but even so the vaccines should drastically reduce the number of times one expects to be infected, so still risk would be reduced, even if it wasn't for breakthrough cases (although it appears that vaccines reduce the risk there as well).
Deleted Comment
- Vinay Prasad MD MPH ( https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk?t=47 )
Source used by the video author from nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
I'm pro-vax (god, why do I have to say that?) but what's seriously pissed me off about this whole COVID thing is how quickly it became political. At the beginning there was a real sense of "we're in this together" but now you can be pretty certain of someones political affiliation if they choose not to wear a mask.
Vaccines prevent you getting the worst of the illness, they don't really prevent you catching and infecting others, so vaccines are a "cure" for overwhelmed healthcare systems and a protection for the individual.
So why do you need to have a vaccine pass to go places? You can still carry the virus and infect people.
Having unvaccinated parts of the population means we can track if it was the wise decision or not, hindsight is 20-20 and it seems obvious to me now that we should vaccinate.. But it also seemed obvious in the 50s that fireproofing buildings with asbestos was the right decision too.
Arguably it's the other way around. Not wearing a mask (if voluntary) is the normal and natural choice, which should tell you nothing about a person at all. Choosing to wear one even when not required, on the other hand, tells you a lot about that person and their perception of risks/expert status etc.
The politics goes deeper: the definitions of the terms 'vaccine' and 'virus' were changed, governments have undertaken the biggest advertising campaign in history effectively bankrolling the media, people who died of unrelated causes but had a positive test were counted as covid deaths which plainly skews statistics, governmental psychological units were given a few rein, large corporations were allowed to remain open but small businesses were not, etc.
These are examples of how this was handled not in a neutral way, but to advance a political agenda. Especially when you consider that most western countries were implementing the same measures in a coordinated way.
Deleted Comment
Even if they aren't 100% effective, vaccines still reduce both the likelihood that you will become infected and also the likelihood that you will transmit the virus to others.
Edit: This is confirmed in the supplementary data. Only 347 (0.23%) of the 162,690 people in the COVID-19 group were vaccinated prior to infection. That being said, a reasonably large percentage (61.93%) were vaccinated by the end of the follow up period, which would seemingly indicate that vaccination post-infection doesn't help all that much against these risks.
That's the pool of 60+ year-old veterans who were selected after testing positive and then subsequently monitored for one year.
It is likely that many were vaccinated during the 1-year period from Jan 2021 - Jan 2022.
e.g. as of July 2021, the VA % vaccinated was about 50%, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-man...
We know that mRNA vaccines have resulted in negative cardiac consequences in some patients, although that has mostly been in younger men.