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

[whatisinausername]

Then you obviously don't work in San Francisco. https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/C19-07-Safer-Return-Together-Health-Order_0.pdf
As you can see, they change "the science" and the rules. Consistency and adherence would be nice, but only China is truly being consistent in their requirements, and they still haven't reached their goals.

Like everything made in China, they have a bad vaccine.
Science is about learning and changing to adapt. COVID has mutated and adapts as well. However, if we all got vaccinated, we would be in a very different position. Hospitals were overwhelmed needlessly because people refused to wear masks and get vaccinated.

 

[whatisinausername]

Even with a 100% uptake in the US, I still think we'd be dealing with it.

A) We can't control the uptake in other countries
B) Not every country was using the same vaccines, and we know that some worked better than others


Your statement here is a bit self-contradicting.

"If we all got vaccinated covid would be over"
- doesn't gel with -
"No one claimed it would have 100% results"


Speaking from personal experience, I've had 3 doses of Pfizer, and my 2nd covid infection came about a month after my booster dose last year around this time (when the booster was supposed to be a peak performance). I credit it for keeping the infection pretty mild, but clearly it didn't stop me from catching it (and likely being contagious in the few days prior to my symptoms showing up which prompted me to get a test), so I probably had inadvertently spread it to a few folks in that 1-2 day gap.

Unless you're suggesting that, had everyone gotten vaccinated during the first wave, it would've died out before it got to Alpha/Delta?

Even with a 100% willing population, that would've been a tough one to pull of logistically speaking, being that vaccines weren't even widely available until after the Alpha variant was already in the mix, and became "available to everyone" only about a month before Delta first started showing up.


I think you're putting a level of expectation on the vaccines that they can't possibly live up to.

No one thinks COVID is going away. The problems with COVID is what I was writing about from a hospital/health prospective.
I was absolutely overwhelmed. Nurses were overwhelmed. The reason for masks and working at home was to keep hospitals from collapsing. For every person that thought Jesus would save them from COVID and ended up in a hospital meant one less bed for a patient. Hospitals are not setup with staffing and room for pandemics. If a city has 1000 nurses and now needs 2000 you cannot conjure up another 1000.

Sorry for the bias in my prospective. I want to get back to what I consider normal. Not having to wear masks in public and hospitals with normal capacity. You might get COVID but you don't need to be hospitalized. Some people get COVID and don't know it and spread it. I never had symptoms, but there is no way I did not get it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You have 263,000,000 with at least 1 vaccination which gives 263,000 dead and 69,000,000 unvaccinated which gives 690,000 dead. for a total of 953,000 dead. The actual dead is higher than that, at 0.3% of your total population. So that means perhaps you had a significant amount of people die before the vaccine was available, or you have this high co-morbitity thing going on.
The per capita death rate of Covid in USA is 7.5 times higher than that in NZ.

That's why I mentioned the geography and comorbidity factors earlier.

Had the US mirrored the NZ's approach (in terms of adherence to the lockdowns and masks), we'd still have had higher per capita rates due to those factors.

So it's tough to extrapolate NZ's results and assume they would apply proportionately to other places.

We have a lot more big cities, a lot closer to together where people were commuting back and forth for essential reasons.

It goes without saying that having your large cities (IE: cities with over 100,000 people) being so far apart helps to slow down transmission quite a bit and makes it much easier to keep things regionally contained.

Also, having weather that makes things more conducive for outdoor instead of indoor helps as well.

Thus the reason that there were countries in Africa that seemed to do very well, despite having 3rd world healthcare systems, and in some cases, having heads of state that were handling things even worse than Trump.

I don't think there's any disputing that, from a policy perspective, Canada had stronger policies, earlier access to vaccines, and more competent leadership than say... Botswana or Zimbabwe (one of those nations was even led by a covid conspiracy theorist if memory serves), yet Canada ended up with higher case & death rates than those two nations.


With so many variables at play, it becomes difficult to gauge how much how effective each policy is.

 

[stevil]

With so many variables at play, it becomes difficult to gauge how much how effective each policy is.

Sure. I fully acknowledge that every country is different.
I would suggest that 3rd world countries have probably grossly undercounted their death rate.

My main assumption is that eventually everyone will get exposed to the virus. And that for those unvaccinated the deathrate will be about 1% and for those vaccinated the death rate will be 0.1%. So those are your upper and lower bounds.

How close you are to the lower bound depends on your vaccine uptake, and also how much damage was incurred before vaccines were available.
NZ were able to protect ourselves long enough to get vaccinated.
Significant differences between NZ and USA is that we are surrounded by water, we largely have a trust in our government, we respect science. We are generally pragmatic rather than idealistic. We don't have culture wars, We don't have much partisan media, our people aren't typically partisan.
In USA you have the primary elections and so people register themselves as Democrat or Republican.
We don't register ourselves as belonging to one party or another in NZ. We just go into the general election as voters.

We don't typically get excited about political rallies, we don't rush around buying flags and hats and other political merch.
Elections are typically more about policy and less about the personality of the party leader.
And we didn't get a major political party tying their brand to anti science, anti masks, anti vaccines. If they tried, it would have been a very bad strategy for them. Most NZers would have abandoned their preferred party if they did that.

 

[tall73]

COVID, like the flu is not something that stops once you get it. I've known people who have gotten it three times now. It mutates and the best way to stop it is immunization and booster shots. I work in a hospital surrounded by nasty, nasty stuff. I work in what might as well be Gehenna. I get all of my shots and I don't get sick.

Yes, some get it again. But some who have the virus and get the vaccine also get it again, since the vaccine is not sterilizing. And the rates of reinfection are actually not that high, though they certainly happen (as @ThatRobGuy can testify).

Another relative works in daycare. She got it initially. But despite various variants going through the building since, she has not been reinfected, even when working in a room full of kids who had to be sent home when testing positive for COVID.

The reality is that front line workers are going to be exposed in an endemic situation. And with no sterilizing vaccine, preventing transmission isn't possible. And like the vaccine, prior infection helps reduce severity the next time.

So instead of a blanket mandate they need to consider the risk-benefit of repeated vaccine doses for someone who is young, healthy, and already had the virus. As the study in this thread OP shows there can be risks attendant with each dose.

That is even more the case now that the current variants are somewhat more mild.

Anyone who cares for the sick and refuses to get vaccinated ought to be fired. I am DONE dealing with dead patients and critical results. Even if you have antibodies and you can still be a vector.

There is no sterilizing vaccine. Anyone, even the vaccinated, could be a vector.

And since we are giving opinions I would say health officials who remove informed consent for a non-sterilizing vaccine should be fired.

I would not say that it made sense to fire someone during the Delta wave who had documented prior infection and ongoing antibodies, but retain someone who had been vaccinated. Studies were showing equivalent or better protection from prior infection on the whole. So it is not a scientific argument to compel someone to get a shot, especially when the vaccine is not sterilizing.

Her company took her back, and she has not made anyone sick, unlike some who were there when she was laid off and had the vaccine, but still spread the virus to the residents. I guess they were still vectors.

 

[tall73]

I'm not an anti vaxxer. Traditional vaccines have a long history of being effective and safe.

Agreed, I have taken a number of vaccines. And these vaccines may also make sense for many. But their one-size-fits-all approach to this one doesn't make a lot of sense. And mandates compromise informed consent which is something we should not cast aside.

MRNA vaccines are brand new, and wildly different. I don't pretend to know all the details, but I knew that much.


I also know medical science almost never gets it right on the first try. We didn't do long term tests....we apparently skipped some short term tests too.


I probably would have been comfortable getting a shot if everything seemed acceptable 2-3 years later. Sadly, that wasn't an option. My wife was recovering from a serious medical issue. It didn't seem like the time to stand on principle when it could cost me everything else....not just my job, but my family. If it were just my job...I would have refused. I have responsibilities.

That sounds like it made sense then in your situation.

 

[tall73]

I work in Micro/Molecular/Virology and I DO NOT have to wear a mask anymore. PRAISE JESUS.

COVID would be OVER if we simply got vaccinated. Opinions to the contrary simply kill people. Period.

A non-sterilizing vaccine with waning effects was not going to get rid of COVID. That is why focus has been on reducing hospitalization and death. A person should consult their doctor and discuss the risk-benefit equation for their individual situation.

 

[tall73]

Not really. What kills people is not getting vaccinated.

Not really? The other poster said the vaccines kill people.

You are posting in a thread studying people who were hospitalized or died from Myocarditis following vaccination. So "not really" isn't goig to cut it. The vaccines have killed people.The relative risk is the issue in this thread.

That is why everything is a risk-benefit calculation, and the risk for a healthy young man may be different than for others, and some may want to avoid Moderna as it carries a higher risk.

COVID would have been eliminated had everyone been vaccinated. Because so many did not get vaccinated it began mutating. Now we are living with it FOREVER.
That would make scientific sense.

-It began mutating almost immediately, even prior to vaccines.

-Those who got the vaccine could still contract and pass the virus.

-Many poor countries could not access vaccine doses. It was only rich countries who could dream of having 100 percent vaccination in the first place.

-COVID is transmitted among animals. For instance, 33 percent of white tail deer in four states were found to have antibodies, during a time span before wide-spread vaccine roll-out:

System Maintenance

Studying the susceptibility of certain mammals, such as deer, to the SARS-CoV-2 virus helps to identify species that may serve as reservoirs or hosts for the virus. It also helps us understand the origin of the virus and predict its impacts on wildlife and the risks of cross-species transmission.

APHIS collected a total of 481 samples between January 2020 and March 2021 from Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. We detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 33 percent of those samples.

You were not going to eliminate it with these vaccines.

 

[tall73]

Hospitals are not setup with staffing and room for pandemics. If a city has 1000 nurses and now needs 2000 you cannot conjure up another 1000.

Mandating those who already had prior infection and didn't want to take on additional risk also removed medical staff needlessly when studies were showing the protection from prior infection was equal to, or greater than, vaccination.

 

[tall73]

My main assumption is that eventually everyone will get exposed to the virus. And that for those unvaccinated the deathrate will be about 1% and for those vaccinated the death rate will be 0.1%. So those are your upper and lower bounds.

But they of course don't represent individual risk. Very healthy young people can die from this virus, but nowhere near that rate. And they have to weigh the additional risks such as the one that is the actual subject of this thread. If you continue to take boosters forever, with each dose carrying some risk of myocarditis, which is elevated for young males, that may not be worth the trade off over time. Especially if the young person has already had COVID, which many have.

And if they can lower that risk by avoiding Moderna and taking another option, that is something they should know.

 

[stevil]

But they of course don't represent individual risk. Very healthy young people can die from this virus, but nowhere near that rate. And they have to weigh the additional risks such as the one that is the actual subject of this thread. If you continue to take boosters forever, with each dose carrying some risk of myocarditis, which is elevated for young males, that may not be worth the trade off over time. Especially if the young person has already had COVID, which many have.

And if they can lower that risk by avoiding Moderna and taking another option, that is something they should know.

In NZ they stopped after two vaccines and a single booster. I think high risk people could get a second booster, but the rest of us can't

 

[tall73]

In NZ they stopped after two vaccines and a single booster. I think high risk people could get a second booster, but the rest of us can't

Here is the USA CDC advice. You could have two or more boosters by now.

CDC recommends that people ages 5 years and older receive one updated (bivalent) booster if it has been at least 2 months since their last COVID-19 vaccine dose, whether that was:

• Their final primary series dose, or
• An original (monovalent) booster

People who have gotten more than one original (monovalent) booster are also recommended to get an updated (bivalent) booster.

 

[stevil]

Here is the USA CDC advice. You could have two or more boosters by now.

CDC recommends that people ages 5 years and older receive one updated (bivalent) booster if it has been at least 2 months since their last COVID-19 vaccine dose, whether that was:

• Their final primary series dose, or
• An original (monovalent) booster

People who have gotten more than one original (monovalent) booster are also recommended to get an updated (bivalent) booster.

That's saying one booster, after the main one or two vaccine shots.

Most people in NZ had the two vaccines and the one booster. So it seems we are quite a bit ahead of USA in terms of vaccine take up.
We started off way behind, it took ages for the vaccine to come available in NZ, but then we overtook USA really quickly.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not really? The other poster said the vaccines kill people.

You are posting in a thread studying people who were hospitalized or died from Myocarditis following vaccination.

Yes, but let's keep it in perspective - the paper from the op shows this happens to about 0.007% of people who were vaccinated.

I mean, the op's paper even explicitly says "the net benefit of vaccination for the individual or on a population level should not be framed exclusively around the risks of myocarditis".

 

[tall73]

That's saying one booster, after the main one or two vaccine shots

Look again. It indicates three scenarios.

CDC recommends that people ages 5 years and older receive one updated (bivalent) booster if it has been at least 2 months since their last COVID-19 vaccine dose, whether that was:

• Their final primary series dose, or
• An original (monovalent) booster

People who have gotten more than one original (monovalent) booster are also recommended to get an updated (bivalent) booster.


Get the new bivalent booster if:

- It has been 2 months since the primary series. (This would make the new bivalent booster a first booster in this scenario)

- It has been 2 months since a booster. (This would make the new bivalent booster a second booster in this scenario)

- It has been 2 months since more than one booster (This would make the new bivalent booster a third booster, or, or potentially more).

 

[tall73]

Yes

Yes. People have died from the vaccine, so the "not really" comment from the other poster was incorrect.

but let's keep it in perspective

Indeed, let's keep it in perspective. It is one part of an individual risk benefit analysis.

- the paper from the op shows this happens to about 0.007% of people who were vaccinated.

Yes, when applied to the whole population in the study it was .007 that experienced hospitalization or death. But for young men, and to a lesser extent young women, it was considerably higher.

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.

I mean, the op's paper even explicitly says "the net benefit of vaccination for the individual or on a population level should not be framed exclusively around the risks of myocarditis".

Of course. It is only one factor in the analysis. And various individuals have different risk profiles. For those at higher risk they may want to avoid Moderna.

 

[stevil]

Look again. It indicates three scenarios.

CDC recommends that people ages 5 years and older receive one updated (bivalent) booster if it has been at least 2 months since their last COVID-19 vaccine dose, whether that was:

• Their final primary series dose, or
• An original (monovalent) booster

People who have gotten more than one original (monovalent) booster are also recommended to get an updated (bivalent) booster.


Get the new bivalent booster if:

- It has been 2 months since the primary series. (This would make the new bivalent booster a first booster in this scenario)

- It has been 2 months since a booster. (This would make the new bivalent booster a second booster in this scenario)

- It has been 2 months since more than one booster (This would make the new bivalent booster a third booster, or, or potentially more).

No it's not saying that.
Scenario 1 - 2 months since final primary series dose
Scenario 2 - 2 months since original (monovalent) booster - If you have had more than one of these you should still get the booster.


At no point is it saying that a person who has already received the bivalent booster should go get another bivalent booster.

 

[tall73]

No it's not saying that.
Scenario 1 - 2 months since final primary series dose
Scenario 2 - 2 months since original (monovalent) booster - If you have had more than one of these you should still get the booster.

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

At no point is it saying that a person who has already received the bivalent booster should go get another bivalent booster.

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

But you indicated:

In NZ they stopped after two vaccines and a single booster. I think high risk people could get a second booster, but the rest of us can't

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

 

[stevil]

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.

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???