Study-vaccine induced myocarditis risk by vaccine type, age, gender, and dose--Moderna higher risk

[stevil]

Fauci relates that he plans to get a fifth dose, while discussing the guidance.

I have been vaccinated, doubly boosted and infected. And I can tell you for sure I am going to get this updated vaccine of the ba4/5 matched variant within three months of my getting infected.

So that is two primary, two boosters, and the new bivalent booster, for five doses.

The considerably younger host of the show say she has also received the same number of doses as Fauci.

Fauci also indicates they want a yearly booster cadence established, which would be further doses, with potential effects.

Faucci would be in the "At Risk" category in NZ, being over 65, NZ recommends those over 65 getting the second booster, but also NZ allows people over 50 to get the second booster.

Personally I think NZ should make that second booster a bivalent booster (but that probably comes down to how many of the other type of booster they have in stock and how much it would cost to get the bivalent)

 

[Don't Panic]

Exactly. Even if you have had more than one (let's say 2), of the monovalent boosters, you should still get this bivalent booster.

So that would be

2 primary doses

2 monovalent doses

1 bivalent doses.

Total doses: 5





Of course not, it just came out. That would be taking two doses in close connection.

But you indicated:



That would be three doses, two primary, and one booster, with high risk getting four doses with the second booster.

The USA advice could result in 5 if you had two boosters already.

So what? The CDC advice is simple, if it has been at least 2 months since your last monovalent vaccination, get the bivalent booster and since the virus is endemic now, prepare to have an annual vaccination just like the flu virus vaccination.
Yes, the bivalent booster will be my fifth when my local pharmacy has it available. And yes, all vaccines have risk and this one has been a very low risk vaccine.
As for NZ it is probably as simple as they don't have the bivalent available yet but will distribute it when it becomes available.

 

[tall73]

So what? The CDC advice is simple, if it has been at least 2 months since your last monovalent vaccination, get the bivalent booster and since the virus is endemic now, prepare to have an annual vaccination just like the flu virus vaccination.
Yes, the bivalent booster will be my fifth when my local pharmacy has it available. And yes, all vaccines have risk and this one has been a very low risk vaccine.
As for NZ it is probably as simple as they don't have the bivalent available yet but will distribute it when it becomes available.

I was noting the advice here as the other poster gave the advice in NZ. You have verified that some are on dose five.

 

[tall73]

This is what is being made publically available (for free) in NZ.

Getting COVID-19 vaccines

Supporting health and wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand.

www.health.govt.nz

A second booster is recommended for those at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 – a minimum of 6 months after a first booster. For those who are not considered at risk of severe illness from COVID-19, a two-dose primary course and a first booster dose provide very good protection against severe illness from COVID-19 at this time.

There is no mention of a bivalent booster. (the second booster might be a bivalent, but it doesn't say)

Here's an opinion article from a university in NZ, it discusses second boosters and the bivalent booster.

Should you get a second booster? - The University of Auckland

Opinion: Whether to get a second booster is nowhere near black and white. Helen Petousis-Harris and Janine Paynter explain why we can't 'boost' our way out of this grey area.

www.auckland.ac.nz

What can a second booster do for you?

people most likely to benefit from a second booster are the elderly and those most at risk of complications from Covid-19. The available data supports second boosters for these people, but there is little information to indicate much additional benefit in younger people who do not have underlying conditions.

What about the new Omicron vaccines?

Some new Covid-19 vaccine formulations have introduced Omicron variants into the current mRNA vaccines, alongside those targeting the original ancestral strain. These vaccines are called bivalent, and they have been approved for use in many countries including the US, the UK and Australia.

While the antibody responses against Omicron are a bit better, the new bivalent Omicron boosters appear unlikely to make a lot of difference compared to the current formations when it comes to keeping people away from hospital.

What the government of NZ is recommending and providing for NZers seems to be consistent with this university opinion article.

Maybe USA is having to try a little harder due to having such a high percentage of unvaccinated people???? and so the impact on the vaccinated over there is that they are to have more boosters. Perhaps you guys are still trying to reduce the rate of spread rather than to simply reduce the severity, which is the phase that NZ seem to be in???

Thank you for the full information regarding NZ.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes. People have died from the vaccine

Have they?

And it was higher for one vaccine in particular. So if you are a young man or woman considering a vaccine, then putting it in perspective would not be looking at the .007 figure for the whole group, but looking at the numbers that apply to your situation.

Has that happened in this thread? I'm seeing lots of handwaving about relative risks, but has anyone actually laid out the numbers?

 

[tall73]

Have they?

Yes.

Has that happened in this thread? I'm seeing lots of handwaving about relative risks, but has anyone actually laid out the numbers?

Yes.

Post one quoted the higher risk for young men taking Moderna:

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes.

Post one quoted the higher risk for young men taking Moderna:

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.

For such a rare side effect to be considered a reason not to the get vaccine, you'd think we were talking about an incredibly rare disease rather than one which has infected a significant portion of the US population and is quite frequently serious enough to require hospitalization.

That's what I mean about these sorts of arguments falling apart when the absolute numbers show up. It makes it look like cherry picking to create rationalization for a predetermined conclusion.

I mean, if we could find a few hundred cases where seat belts caused a bit more net harm in an accident, would that be a reason to stop wearing them? It's the same argument here.

 

[tall73]

For such a rare side effect to be considered a reason not to the get vaccine, you'd think we were talking about an incredibly rare disease rather than one which has infected a significant portion of the US population and is quite frequently serious enough to require hospitalization.

Covid is not quite frequently serious enough to require hospitalization for young healthy males. The rate of 2nd dose hospitalization or death additional events for Moderna is approaching 1 in 10k. When millions in that age group could potentially get the vaccine, that is significant.

And if someone is in the young male group, why not just Avoid Moderna to considerably reduce risk?

In men younger than 40 years, we estimate an additional 4 (95% CI, 2–6) and 14 (95% CI, 5–17) myocarditis events per million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respec-tively; and an additional 14 (95% CI, 8–17), 11 (95% CI, 9–13) and 97 (95% CI, 91–99) myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively.

With Pfizer you expect 11 per million events after dose 2.

With Moderna you expect 97 per million after dose 2.

Hence, the study authors state:

These findings may justify some reconsideration of the selection of vaccine type, the timing of vaccine doses, and the net benefit of booster doses in young people, particularly in young men.

That is worth some discussion.

That's what I mean about these sorts of arguments falling apart when the absolute numbers show up. It makes it look like cherry picking to create rationalization for a predetermined conclusion.

Hardly! Pointing out that people should calculate their actual individual risk-benefit is not insisting on a predetermined conclusion. It is looking at the evidence. And the paper authors note that.

And yes, they note that myocarditis is not the only factor. But it is one to consider for young males.

 

[ranunculus]

Covid is not quite frequently serious enough to require hospitalization for young healthy males. The rate of 2nd dose hospitalization or death additional events for Moderna is approaching 1 in 10k. When millions in that age group could potentially get the vaccine, that is significant.

Now that we now some figures can we do the math? About 80 million men under 40 in America, the only group where the risk of myocarditis is greater from vaccines than from covid. In only this age and gender group, if every one got two doses of the vaccine with the most risk of myocarditis, Moderna, what would be expect? My estimation is about 8000 cases if every living man under the age of 40 got vaccinated.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hardly! Pointing out that people should calculate their actual individual risk-benefit is not insisting on a predetermined conclusion.

I still have to note that there's been none of that in this thread. Sure, lots of talk about the risks. I haven't seen much quantitative calculation of the full benefit of the vaccine. Sure, a few comparisons of one particular symptom of covid, but not a comprehensive look at the risk posed by the disease.

 

[Aldebaran]

Covid is not quite frequently serious enough to require hospitalization for young healthy males. The rate of 2nd dose hospitalization or death additional events for Moderna is approaching 1 in 10k. When millions in that age group could potentially get the vaccine, that is significant.

And if someone is in the young male group, why not just Avoid Moderna to considerably reduce risk?

In men younger than 40 years, we estimate an additional 4 (95% CI, 2–6) and 14 (95% CI, 5–17) myocarditis events per million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respec-tively; and an additional 14 (95% CI, 8–17), 11 (95% CI, 9–13) and 97 (95% CI, 91–99) myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively.

With Pfizer you expect 11 per million events after dose 2.

With Moderna you expect 97 per million after dose 2.

Hence, the study authors state:

These findings may justify some reconsideration of the selection of vaccine type, the timing of vaccine doses, and the net benefit of booster doses in young people, particularly in young men.

That is worth some discussion.



Hardly! Pointing out that people should calculate their actual individual risk-benefit is not insisting on a predetermined conclusion. It is looking at the evidence. And the paper authors note that.

And yes, they note that myocarditis is not the only factor. But it is one to consider for young males.

It's also a case for leaving the decision to vax or not as one between the doctor and the patient, which some on the Left have been advocating in other medical decisions. But now, if a doctor recommends not getting vaxxed, the government incentivizes the hospital to fire that doctor. So then it's back to being between the patient and the government again.

 

[Pommer]

It's also a case for leaving the decision to vax or not as one between the doctor and the patient, which some on the Left have been advocating in other medical decisions. But now, if a doctor recommends not getting vaxxed, the government incentivizes the hospital to fire that doctor. So then it's back to being between the patient and the government again.

You deciding not to get vaxxed won’t get me pregnant though.

 

[Aldebaran]

You deciding not to get vaxxed won’t get me pregnant though.

Is that your best argument for not allowing doctors and patients to decide what is appropriate treatment for the patient?

 

[Pommer]

Is that your best argument for not allowing doctors and patients to decide what is appropriate treatment for the patient?

It’s an argument that attempts to show your comment as a non sequitur.
A vaccination is to ward off evil spirits pathogens from a population (as a whole, excluding those unable to receive the vaccine due to immunosuppressive conditions, which requires everyone who can should get the vaccine).

If a woman seeks to have an unwanted fetus removed from her body, how does that affect your life?

 

[Aldebaran]

It’s an argument that attempts to show your comment as a non sequitur.
A vaccination is to ward off evil spirits pathogens from a population (as a whole, excluding those unable to receive the vaccine due to immunosuppressive conditions, which requires everyone who can should get the vaccine).

"Require" or "should"? It can't be both at the same time.

If a woman seeks to have an unwanted fetus removed from her body, how does that affect your life?

The same as it would if she hacked the baby to death with a knife 2 years after birth.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Require" or "should"? It can't be both at the same time.



The same as it would if she hacked the baby to death with a knife 2 years after birth.

Do not at all.

 

[tall73]

Tall73 said: Pointing out that people should calculate their actual individual risk-benefit is not insisting on a predetermined conclusion.

I still have to note that there's been none of that in this thread.

Of course it has been pointed out that people should calculate their individual risk and benefit.

It was quoted in post one, and just pointed out to you again.

Sure, lots of talk about the risks. I haven't seen much quantitative calculation of the full benefit of the vaccine. Sure, a few comparisons of one particular symptom of covid, but not a comprehensive look at the risk posed by the disease.

This thread is not intended to be medical advice, calculating someone's individual risk and benefit from the vaccine.

This thread is intended to let people know about a study that raises additional elements to consider as part of their risk/beneifit calculation.

The study, and this thread, were giving some indication of one specific risk in a specific population, which can then be placed alongside any other factors.

The authors of the study, said the following which was quoted in post #1:

Vaccination against COVID-19 has both major public health and economic benefits. Although the net benefit of vaccination for the individual or on a population level should not be framed exclusively around the risks of myocarditis, quantifying this risk is important, particularly in young people who are less likely to have a severe ill-ness with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The authors note the public health and economic benefits of COVID vaccines, and note that myocarditis is but one factor in a risk assessment. But they also indicate this may mean advising patients to reconsider the risk benefit calculation.

Again, these are there words, not mine, but are quoted in post #1

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.

and...

These findings may justify some reconsideration of the selection of vaccine type, the timing of vaccine doses, and the net benefit of booster doses in young people, particularly in young men.

You seem to indicate I have to spell out fully the benefit of vaccination in this thread. No, I don't have to in order to share news regarding a study highlighting a particular risk, and urging people to calculate their own risk benefit equation anew. That is up to the person and their doctor.

And the same is true for risks of the vaccine. They would have to evaluate factors such as known allergies, history of syncope following vaccination, etc. in addition to this particular risk.

So no, I haven't spelled out every possible risk and every possible benefit of the vaccines, and it is not necessary to do so in order to highlight this new information about a particular risk which people can then weigh into their calculation or discussions with their doctor.

You have framed your responses as though I am telling people not to be vaccinated. Meanwhile, you are ignoring statements from the authors of the study, quoted by me, that the issue is not just whether to be vaccinated or not. It also includes

-how many doses (boosters etc.) should be recommended if the risk of myocarditis is seen at some level with each dose
-timing between doses
-which vaccine should be administered (Moderna carries a higher risk).

 

[timothyu]

This thread is intended to let people know about a study that raises additional elements to consider as part of their risk/beneifit calculation.

Has the official narrative of Corporatism sanctioned that particular privilege?

 

[tall73]

Now that we now some figures can we do the math? About 80 million men under 40 in America, the only group where the risk of myocarditis is greater from vaccines than from covid. In only this age and gender group, if every one got two doses of the vaccine with the most risk of myocarditis, Moderna, what would be expect? My estimation is about 8000 cases if every living man under the age of 40 got vaccinated.

In men younger than 40 years, we estimate an additional 4 (95% CI, 2–6) and 14 (95% CI, 5–17) myocarditis events per million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respec-tively; and an additional 14 (95% CI, 8–17), 11 (95% CI, 9–13) and 97 (95% CI, 91–99) myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively.

They only count the first instance of myocarditis for a given individual in the study. So we can look at the number per million after each dose and see the amount for the two dose series.

Pfizer: 4 first dose 11 second dose = 15
Moderna: 14 fiirst dose and 97 second dose = 111
AstraZeneca: one dose = 14

So if we take your 80 million figure:

Pfiser: 1,200
Moderna: 8,880
AstraZeneca: 1,120

 

[tall73]

One thing that is not noted in this study is whether risk is similar throughout the group of 18-40 year olds. That is pretty large span. In other words, the grouping together suggests that 18 year olds have the same risk level as 40 year olds, but that may or may not be the case.

If there are differences then we would need to see the distribution among the 80 million.