Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

Spanish study on combining a first dose of AZ and a second dose of Pfizer shows great results — better than 2 doses of AZ:

"The Combivacs study, run by Spain's state-backed Carlos III Health Institute, found the presence of IgG antibodies in the bloodstream was between 30 and 40 times higher in people who got the follow-up Pfizer shot than in a control group who only received one AstraZeneca dose. Meanwhile, the presence of neutralising antibodies rose sevenfold after a Pfizer dose, significantly more than the doubling effect observed after a second AstraZeneca shot." 

Good news on side effects as well:

"Just 1.7% of the participants reported severe side effects, which were limited to headaches, muscle pain and general malaise, said Dr Magdalena Campins, one of the study's leaders."These are not symptoms that can be considered serious," she said.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spanish-study-finds-astrazeneca-vaccine-followed-by-pfizer-dose-is-safe-2021-05-18/

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Spanish study on combining a first dose of AZ and a second dose of Pfizer shows great results — better than 2 doses of AZ:

"The Combivacs study, run by Spain's state-backed Carlos III Health Institute, found the presence of IgG antibodies in the bloodstream was between 30 and 40 times higher in people who got the follow-up Pfizer shot than in a control group who only received one AstraZeneca dose. Meanwhile, the presence of neutralising antibodies rose sevenfold after a Pfizer dose, significantly more than the doubling effect observed after a second AstraZeneca shot." 

Good news on side effects as well:

"Just 1.7% of the participants reported severe side effects, which were limited to headaches, muscle pain and general malaise, said Dr Magdalena Campins, one of the study's leaders."These are not symptoms that can be considered serious," she said.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spanish-study-finds-astrazeneca-vaccine-followed-by-pfizer-dose-is-safe-2021-05-18/

Oh, that’s really good.

I saw something the other day where about a combo where the side effects were higher than with either one. I know the second was mRNA but not sure about the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Oh, that’s really good.

I saw something the other day where about a combo where the side effects were higher than with either one. I know the second was mRNA but not sure about the first.

Yeah, the UK trial that combined AZ and Pfizer (in both directions) seemed to have a lot more side effects than they found in the Spanish trial. There was a big difference in the age groups, though — the UK trial only involved people over 50, vs ages 18-60 in the Spanish trial, so maybe younger people had fewer reactions. Also there was a difference in the time frames between doses: in the UK trial half the participants got the second dose after 4 weeks and half after 12 weeks, vs the Spanish trial where second doses were done 8-12 weeks after the first. So maybe the folks with the 4 week interval had more reactions? I haven't seen the actual data, only news reports, so I don't know if there was a significant difference in reactions between the different interval groups (or for that matter between the AZ/Pf vs Pf/AZ groups).

Oh, something else that may have made a difference just occurred to me — the UK trial recruited people who had not any any shots yet, while the Spanish trial recruited people who had already had the AZ shot 8-12 weeks earlier. So it's possible that there was some self-selection in the Spanish trial, where people who had a really bad reaction to the first shot may have been less inclined to participate? I don't know if they screened for, or factored in, the level of response to the first shot, since the first shot wasn't technically part of the trial.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, there are some pancoronavirus vaccines on the horizon that could possibly offer protection from a number of coronaviruses. Duke University’s recently worked well in rhesus monkeys. They will begin recruiting humans in trials in the next few years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pan-coronavirus-vaccine-variants-future-pandemics-2021-5

Amazing how vaccine technology has changed.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK study finds 88% efficacy against the Indian variant for 2 doses of Pfizer, and 60% for 2 doses of AZ, but much lower efficacy for a single dose of either:

"A study by Public Health England found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88% effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 variant two weeks after the second dose. That compared with 93% effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 "Kent" strain which is Britain's dominant COVID variant.

Two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 60% effective against symptomatic disease from the Indian variant compared with 66% effectiveness against the Kent variant, PHE said.

PHE said a first dose of both vaccines was 33% effective against symptomatic disease from B.1.617.2 after three weeks, lower than its 50% effectiveness against B.1.1.7. Hancock said that showed that getting both doses of the vaccine was "absolutely vital."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/two-covid-shots-effective-against-india-variant-english-health-body-2021-05-22/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was shocking, but on the other hand not really…

It says social media influencers in Europe are reporting that they have been offered money to push the idea that the vaccines are dangerous.  I wonder how much of that is going on here in the US?  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/26/influencers-offered-money-pfizer-discredit-russia/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2NZeGVPkI_zMt2xPJMk8bUGsWdsFP7j8duhPee0GiFrkIQUdfbqKOHAlo
 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case report of myocarditis following mRNA vaccine, with relevant stats at the time it was submitted (may be out of date already). Also describes symptoms and test results, negative results for other viruses. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321003289

Its interesting that this person had similar symptoms after the first dose, just not as intense. Might be something to think about if a young man has some chest pain, chills, after the first dose? 

Quote

The Israeli Ministry of Health reported 62 cases of myocarditis in patients vaccinated for COVID-19 out of 5 million vaccinated individuals. Most cases occurred after the second dose of mRNA vaccines, with only 6 cases diagnosed after the first dose. The prevalence was higher in men under 30 years of age, increasing from 1/100 000 for the general population, to 1/20 000 for the 16-30 years old group. Two of the 62 patients died. The U.S. Department of Defense reported 14 military personnel diagnosed with myocarditis following COVID vaccination, 13 of them after their second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Three of the personnel received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and 11 had received the Moderna vaccine, with an occurrence of 0.52/100 000 among the 2.7 million military personnel vaccinated [2,3].

Quote

We believe that given the negative PCR test for COVID-19, as well as the negative viral serologies, myocarditis, in this instance, was due to the vaccine, rather than acute infection, but the latter possibility cannot be totally discounted. The mechanisms involved in such vaccine-related myocarditis are not clear as of this writing [11].


WHO has a note up about the investigation of this side effect.

https://www.who.int/news/item/26-05-2021-gacvs-myocarditis-reported-with-covid-19-mrna-vaccines

Quote

The COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) is reviewing reports of a small number of cases of myocarditis reported in individuals vaccinated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The subcommittee noted that in most of the reported cases, the individuals have recovered. The subcommittee is soliciting and monitoring for additional information to assess for any relationship to COVID-19 vaccination.   

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis is an inflammation of the lining that surrounds the heart. While it can cause serious illness, it is frequently mild and responds well to conservative treatment.

On May 17, the  US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group concluded that  there are few reports of myocarditis to date and that these cases  seem to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often after the second dose of the vaccine, and typically within 4 days after vaccination [1]. Most cases appeared to be mild and follow up is ongoing.

Quote

The GACVS subcommittee noted that most of the information received so far is based on spontaneous, passive reporting. More rigorous studies using alternative data sources and more robust study designs including comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are needed to assess a potential causal association between the event and the vaccine. Some countries, such as Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States have embarked upon such studies. The GACVS subcommittee will review further as more data become available. The subcommittee also underscored the importance of having a harmonized case definition. A draft case definition for myocarditis has been developed recently by the Brighton Collaboration [2].

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, HeartString said:

I thought this was shocking, but on the other hand not really…

It says social media influencers in Europe are reporting that they have been offered money to push the idea that the vaccines are dangerous.  I wonder how much of that is going on here in the US?  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/26/influencers-offered-money-pfizer-discredit-russia/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2NZeGVPkI_zMt2xPJMk8bUGsWdsFP7j8duhPee0GiFrkIQUdfbqKOHAlo
 

 

 

 


I would presume it is going on in most places — and in both* directions. Perhaps even micro-influencers right here on WTM forums. 
 

* “Both” probably doesn’t begin to describe options. Pro any one vaccine compared to others, or Vice versa, or in favor of or against all of them ... 

 

like when you were talking about advertising - I think influencers and micro influencers are a standard part of advertising nowadays. It doesn’t require any “conspiracy theory” to assume that. 

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pen said:


I would presume it is going on in most places — and in both* directions. Perhaps even micro-influencers right here on WTM forums. 
 

* “Both” probably doesn’t begin to describe options. Pro any one vaccine compared to others, or Vice versa, or in favor of or against all of them ... 

 

like when you were talking about advertising - I think influencers and micro influencers are a standard part of advertising nowadays. It doesn’t require any “conspiracy theory” to assume that. 

They are a standard part of advertising, but all of the ones that I'm aware of tell you that they were paid for such and such product, or given it free in exchange for a review, or that they are using affiliate links.  NPR makes a disclosure statement every time they cover Facebook or Bill Gates, among others.  Transparency is important. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pen said:


I would presume it is going on in most places — and in both* directions. Perhaps even micro-influencers right here on WTM forums. 
 

* “Both” probably doesn’t begin to describe options. Pro any one vaccine compared to others, or Vice versa, or in favor of or against all of them ... 

 

like when you were talking about advertising - I think influencers and micro influencers are a standard part of advertising nowadays. It doesn’t require any “conspiracy theory” to assume that. 

Is that a confession?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HeartString said:

They are a standard part of advertising, but all of the ones that I'm aware of tell you that they were paid for such and such product, or given it free in exchange for a review, or that they are using affiliate links.  NPR makes a disclosure statement every time they cover Facebook or Bill Gates, among others.  Transparency is important. 


All the ones you are “aware of”. 
Seems somewhat circular in that we only know when we see such a statement that it is happening . If the statement is not made, we do not know about it.   There’s no logical reason to assume every influencer announces the fact. Especially if it’s a situation where they might be kicked off a site if they did. 
 

I think usually if it’s a matter of a brand of jeans it may not be a huge big deal. But if life and death decisions are involved then it is different. Yet possibly even things like giving jeans to influencer kids to wear causes a change in people’s minds and ability to evaluate what they are seeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Is that a confession?

No. I am giving my own opinions. No payments.  
 

ETA: And I am not particularly good at influencing people am I?  — I think it probably is the opposite currently where if I write something most of you probably tend to do the opposite.  I think successful influencers tend to be subtle, canny, and very effective.  Probably without people usually even realizing they are being influenced. 

 I have some suspicions of people who may be paid influencers here, but may be as wrong about them as you are about me, and I am not going to accuse anyone. Could be there are none on WTM.  Could be there are.  I think being alert to possibility is probably wise. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Pen said:
41 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

No. I am giving my own opinions. No payments.  
 

 I have some suspicions of people who may be paid influencers here, but may be as wrong about them as you are about me, and I am not going to accuse anyone. Could be there are none on WTM.  Could be there are.  I think being alert to possibility is probably wise. 

I think a lot of people who have been influenced by these campaigns don’t realize they have been the target of them. I wonder how many of the anti  Covid vax people know how much of that is part of a Russian propaganda campaign. And does anyone think that was because Putin had benevolent reasons for not wanting people in the US to take the vaccination? In looking back through news coverage, it’s clear that pre-Covid, it was clear on all sides of the media representation that Russia was engaged in a malicious anti-vaccination effort that contributed to a lot of measles deaths in the UK, for example: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/russian-trolls-blamed-for-spreading-anti-vaccination-propaganda

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45294192

 

Edited by KSera
Typo
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pen said:


All the ones you are “aware of”. 
Seems somewhat circular in that we only know when we see such a statement that it is happening . If the statement is not made, we do not know about it.   There’s no logical reason to assume every influencer announces the fact. Especially if it’s a situation where they might be kicked off a site if they did. 
 

I think usually if it’s a matter of a brand of jeans it may not be a huge big deal. But if life and death decisions are involved then it is different. Yet possibly even things like giving jeans to influencer kids to wear causes a change in people’s minds and ability to evaluate what they are seeing. 

Other than a few mommy bloggers I don't follow many "influencers", that's why I added the caveat.    It is a good reminder to think critically about who we're getting our info from.  How credible are these people?  Where is there information coming from?  Sure the Kardashians might have relevant ideas about lipstick, but maybe not medical info?  Separating out opinion from fact, and thinking about just where that opinion is coming from. 

 

I did find this interesting though, as far as influencers go.  Almost all of the COVID misinformation can be traced back to the same 12 influencers on social media.  Talk about an echo chamber.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pen said:

No. I am giving my own opinions. No payments.  
 

ETA: And I am not particularly good at influencing people am I?  — I think it probably is the opposite currently where if I write something most of you probably tend to do the opposite.  I think successful influencers tend to be subtle, canny, and very effective.  Probably without people usually even realizing they are being influenced. 

 I have some suspicions of people who may be paid influencers here, but may be as wrong about them as you are about me, and I am not going to accuse anyone. Could be there are none on WTM.  Could be there are.  I think being alert to possibility is probably wise. 

There are definitely some people pushing Insta Pots and Speed Queens.....interesting. 🙂   

  • Like 1
  • Haha 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pen said:

 

 I have some suspicions of people who may be paid influencers here, but may be as wrong about them as you are about me, and I am not going to accuse anyone. Could be there are none on WTM.  Could be there are.  I think being alert to possibility is probably wise. 

Well you did throw it out there which seemed like an accusation.  How about we try to avoid throwing around accusations and conspiracies that don't have actual evidence?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well you did throw it out there which seemed like an accusation.  How about we try to avoid throwing around accusations and conspiracies that don't have actual evidence?

I’ll try to be more careful!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

There are definitely some people pushing Insta Pots and Speed Queens.....interesting. 🙂   

Instapot almost certainly owes a lot to this site.  😊

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well you did throw it out there which seemed like an accusation.  How about we try to avoid throwing around accusations and conspiracies that don't have actual evidence?


 

Btw: if you aren’t aware of microinfluencers in our society in general, you might find it interesting . 

 

inBeat - #1 Micro Influencer Agency in North America

 

We have built software that allows us to filter influencers for follower count, engagement rate, and spam. We consider each influencer's audience interests, age, and location to match you with relevant creators. How many micro-influencers do you have in your network? Our influencer marketing agency has worked with over 16,000 micro-influencers.

 

 

 

a different one claiming even more microinfluencers:l (and if there are 10 million or more available through just one company (and many many companies now ) I would think that there’s a good chance that WTM has at least one person — just logically and statistically. But maybe not. Maybe WTM is pristine!) 


 

“get access to over 
10 million influencers

Micro influencers in our community span all niches from fitness and beauty to fashion and books. We extensively vet and organize our micro influencer community by their demographics, psychographics and geographic locations “

or specific to Covid:

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) - As Oregon gets closer to opening COVID-19 vaccine eligibility to all adults, the Oregon Health Authority is ramping up a campaign with social media influencers to encourage...

PDF Social Marketing Recommendations for COVID-19 Vaccine

for COVID-19 Vaccine Prepared for the Washington State Department of Health C+C | December 2020. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Social Marketing Overview 9 ... • Influencers: Partnerships with micro digital influencers as well as notable organizations and people to grow trust in the vaccine and support with robust tactics toolkit.

Kaiser Permanente enlists social media micro-influencers ...

Kaiser Permanente has turned to social media influencersin a bold, yet trendy, move to promote Covid-19 vaccinations to communities of color, hoping to build confidence and combat widespread...

How Influencers, Celebrities, and FOMO Can Win Over ...

That means enlisting mega-influencers—celebrities, prominent clergy, and social leaders—and everyday people who serve as micro-influencers to endorse the vaccine and encourage people to seek it. In the 1950s, when polio was rampant, Elvis Presley extolled the benefits of his own widely publicized vaccination, generating buzz about the shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


 

Edited by Pen
Adding more on
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-27/astrazeneca-follows-up-with-german-lab-on-vaccine-clotting-links?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
 

Pretty interesting theory from German Researchers on why AZ and J&J might be causing blood clotting 

“The theory set out in a preprint by the lab, headed by Professor Rolf Marschalek, suggests that the adenovirus vectors can deliver the DNA gene sequencing into the nucleus, not the fluid found inside the cell where proteins are usually produced. Parts of the resulting spike protein split inside the nucleus, according to the theory, producing mutant versions that are secreted into the body and trigger blood clots in very rare events.”

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small UK study comparing 3-week and 12-week intervals for the Pfizer vaccine, in a cohort of very elderly (80+) patients. This seems to be getting a lot of media attention focusing on higher antibody levels in the 12-week group, while downplaying or ignoring the fact that T-cell response was MUCH lower in that group compared to the 3-week group. 

From the preprint:
"In donors without evidence of previous infection the peak antibody response was 3.5-fold higher in donors who had undergone delayed interval vaccination. Cellular immune responses were 3.6-fold lower."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.15.21257017v1.full-text

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-27/astrazeneca-follows-up-with-german-lab-on-vaccine-clotting-links?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
 

Pretty interesting theory from German Researchers on why AZ and J&J might be causing blood clotting 

“The theory set out in a preprint by the lab, headed by Professor Rolf Marschalek, suggests that the adenovirus vectors can deliver the DNA gene sequencing into the nucleus, not the fluid found inside the cell where proteins are usually produced. Parts of the resulting spike protein split inside the nucleus, according to the theory, producing mutant versions that are secreted into the body and trigger blood clots in very rare events.”

 

That raises some interesting questions about the viability of adenovirus vaccines — is this mechanism specific to the SARS2 spike protein, or could this be an issue for future adenovirus vaccines against any virus? And is it specific to adenoviruses, or could it be an issue with any viral vector vaccine?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest data on AZ and blood clots. Minute 8 of this podcast 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09jyzm4

35 million doses administered in the UK

332 cases of the specific kind of blood clot

58 deaths, so fewer than two deaths per million doses. Compared to 1,900 deaths per million people from Covid. Of course there's a difference between dying from an accidental infection and a deliberate vaccination, and the vaccine data is per jab, not per person.

I actually think the blood clot deaths will fall from now on - under-40s are being given Pfizer or Moderna instead, and when I had my second AZ jab this week, the symptoms to watch out for were very clearly set out verbally and in writing. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There was also a big poster outside the vaccination room listing all known contraindications (or potential contraindications), including but by no means restricted to the blood clot-related ones. People reporting these had a doctor check their records and ask further questions to determine the best approach. (I had this happen to me; I was in an all-Pfizer session, the doctor eventually advised I go ahead with extra monitoring (with my approval), I collapsed and needed oxygen for a few minutes during that monitoring phase, it was there ready for me so I didn't have to go to hospital, and we all decided that was sufficiently minor that I will have dose 2 as planned at the end of July, with the same measures).

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

The Covid Vaccine Is Free, but Not Everyone Believes That https://nyti.ms/3iccEf1

Screenshot_20210601-144947_NYTimes.jpg

Unsurprising, since they asked for insurance info at 2 of the 3 providers we used.  (The one that didn't was the university that set up a mass vax center.)  People who have deductibles may logically assume they will take a hit.  Messaging needs to be better.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question.  Maybe dumb, maybe previously asked but I missed it.

We know roughly 5% of the people who get mRNA vaxes will not receive immunity from Covid.

Is it logical to assume that if we experienced definite side effects (like fatigue for a day), we are not among that 5%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

I have a question.  Maybe dumb, maybe previously asked but I missed it.

We know roughly 5% of the people who get mRNA vaxes will not receive immunity from Covid.

Is it logical to assume that if we experienced definite side effects (like fatigue for a day), we are not among that 5%?

Unscientific vocabulary: unfortunately not, as I understand it.  The side effects come from a kind of immediate bodily reaction, whereas the immunity comes through a different mechanism.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I have a question.  Maybe dumb, maybe previously asked but I missed it.

We know roughly 5% of the people who get mRNA vaxes will not receive immunity from Covid.

I don’t think it’s quite that straightforward. The 95% reduction in symptomatic cases is relative risk reduction. There could be other reasons other than lack of immunity that someone has a symptomatic breakthrough, like innate immune factors or viral dose. 
 

Since they say that they don’t even know what level of antibodies is protective yet, they can’t even look at antibody results and say for sure that the 5% is because there are 5% of people who did not respond to the vaccine. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More about myocarditis, from Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-health-ministry-finds-some-myocarditis-cases-linked-to-vaccines-669835

Quote

After the ministry received reports on some cases diagnosed closely after a coronavirus vaccination, a committee of experts was appointed to look into the issue. The committee included public health experts specialized in epidemiology, members of the National Center for Disease Control and academics from the Tel Aviv University, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology and Haifa University.

The committee considered all the myocarditis cases between December, when the vaccination campaign started, and May.

Out of the 275 cases reported in the period, some 148 occurred in the aftermath of a dose of the coronavirus vaccine – 27 cases out of 5,401,150 recipients of the first dose and 121 within 30 days after the second dose (out of 5,049,424). Some 11 patients of the former and 60 of the latter suffered from pre-existing conditions.

Many of the cases were reported among men 16-30, and especially ages 16-19. In addition, most of the patients were discharged from the hospital in less than four days, and 95% of the cases were considered mild.

“There is a likelihood of a connection between receiving a second dose of vaccine and the onset of myocarditis in young men aged 16-30,” the group of experts concluded. “The connection is stronger in young people aged 16-19 compared to other ages and it decreases as age increases. In most cases, it is a mild illness that passes within a few days.”

According to the Health Ministry, a recommendation regarding the vaccination for children ages 12-15 will be formulated by the epidemiological team and will be communicated to the ministry’s director general.


More here https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination

Quote

The COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to put young men at elevated risk of developing a heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis, researchers in Israel say. In a report submitted today to the Israeli Ministry of Health, they conclude that between one in 3000 and one in 6000 men ages 16 to 24 who received the vaccine developed the rare condition. But most cases were mild and resolved within a few weeks, which is typical for myocarditis.

I would like to know what “most” means, and what are the outcomes of those that aren’t considered “mild.” Mild here means hospitalized four days or fewer. 🤔

Interesting that so many had preexisting conditions. 
 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Penelope said:

More about myocarditis, from Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-health-ministry-finds-some-myocarditis-cases-linked-to-vaccines-669835


More here https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination

I would like to know what “most” means, and what are the outcomes of those that aren’t considered “mild.” Mild here means hospitalized four days or fewer. 🤔

Interesting that so many had preexisting conditions. 
 

I wonder if younger people with pre-existing conditions, and therefore possibly more risk from Covid, might have been more likely to get vaccinated as soon as possible. If myocarditis is more likely in that population, it would be interesting to compare the risk to them of getting myocarditis to the risk to them if they got Covid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, SKL said:

I have a question.  Maybe dumb, maybe previously asked but I missed it.

We know roughly 5% of the people who get mRNA vaxes will not receive immunity from Covid.

Is it logical to assume that if we experienced definite side effects (like fatigue for a day), we are not among that 5%?


no

 

having a reaction to vaccine does not guarantee immunity  - having no reaction to vaccine does not mean no immunity

 

ALso

 

“relative risk reduction” was calculated as being around 95%  (what was looked at for reduction of what risk in trials I looked at was very specifically defined — basically was reduced risk of having a severe case — Not Immunity  . Absolute Risk Reduction “ was roughly only around    1%    for the various main vaccines I was following.

 

The 95% was not based on “immunity”  - though perhaps some will have immunity .

And in general a 95% Relative Risk Reduction does not mean what most people think it means. Does not mean 95% of people who take vaccine are now Immune . It’s a  mathematical formula to compare treatment group with control group, or sometimes to compare several treatments to each other - and comparison is based on the trial protocol.  (Some trial could have been looking at immunity, but the ones I read were not.)

 

I recommend spending a while reading about “Absolute Risk Reduction” versus “Relative Risk Reduction.”     I posted a few articles on that some time in past. But I don’t know on what thread . 

 

If you want help finding information about absolute versus relative risk reduction let me know and maybe I can help. I think it is very important to understand.

 

 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

More about myocarditis, from Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-health-ministry-finds-some-myocarditis-cases-linked-to-vaccines-669835


More here https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination

I would like to know what “most” means, and what are the outcomes of those that aren’t considered “mild.” Mild here means hospitalized four days or fewer. 🤔

Interesting that so many had preexisting conditions. 
 

It seems that almost half of the cases were not linked to the vaccine? If it is almost even in vaccinated and not, are we jumping the gun to think it is related to the vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is about vaccine misinformation as the biggest hurdle to vaccination, and addresses some of the common ones:

 

Misinformation remains the biggest hurdle as vaccination effort turns to cash incentives

Many of the vaccine reluctant have expressed vague concerns that, perhaps, the trials have simply failed to identify dangerous side effects that will suddenly appear round about the time that most of the population is fully vaccinated.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, called those assertions highly unlikely. In the history of vaccines, he noted, side effects have always appeared within two months of administration.

“There are no long-term effects where you find that one year, two years, later your child or you develop some problem that wasn’t picked up initially,” Offit said. “It has never happened.”

That’s not to say that clinical trials, even those with many thousands of participants, will necessarily spot every rare complication. 

As was the case with a very small number of blood clots among the recipients of the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine, it is possible for indications to crop up only when a very wide swath of the general population has been inoculated.

But, especially where the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — available for longer than Johnson & Johnson doses — are concerned, we’re now way past the point where even very, very rare side effects should be visible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pen said:


no

 

having a reaction to vaccine does not guarantee immunity  - having no reaction to vaccine does not mean no immunity

 

ALso

 

“relative risk reduction” was calculated as being around 95%  (what was looked at for reduction of what risk in trials I looked at was very specifically defined — basically was reduced risk of having a severe case — Not Immunity  . Absolute Risk Reduction “ was roughly only around    1%    for the various main vaccines I was following.

 

The 95% was not based on “immunity”  - though perhaps some will have immunity .

And in general a 95% Relative Risk Reduction does not mean what most people think it means. Does not mean 95% of people who take vaccine are now Immune . It’s a  mathematical formula to compare treatment group with control group, or sometimes to compare several treatments to each other - and comparison is based on the trial protocol.  (Some trial could have been looking at immunity, but the ones I read were not.)

 

I recommend spending a while reading about “Absolute Risk Reduction” versus “Relative Risk Reduction.”     I posted a few articles on that some time in past. But I don’t know on what thread . 

 

If you want help finding information about absolute versus relative risk reduction let me know and maybe I can help. I think it is very important to understand.

 

 

 

A good article from BMJ summarizing relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Penelope said:

More about myocarditis, from Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-health-ministry-finds-some-myocarditis-cases-linked-to-vaccines-669835


More here https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination

I would like to know what “most” means, and what are the outcomes of those that aren’t considered “mild.” Mild here means hospitalized four days or fewer. 🤔

Interesting that so many had preexisting conditions. 
 

This is an especially good question as Israel has no set definition of "mild" (unlike the UK, whose definition boils down to "not outright preventing usual daily activities" and unlike Penelope's location, which defines it as "fewer than 5 days in hospital"). Thus it would be necessary to look at sciencemag.org's source to find the definition of "mild" they're talking about.

* - Israel does have a largely-set definition of "severe", primarily based on natural oxygenation level of below 90%, but some people in hospital with COVID don't meet that definition, so it doesn't give us much of a clue about how "mild" would be defined.

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

This is an especially good question as Israel has no set definition of "mild" (unlike the UK, whose definition boils down to "not outright preventing usual daily activities" and unlike Penelope's location, which defines it as "fewer than 5 days in hospital"). Thus it would be necessary to look at sciencemag.org's source to find the definition of "mild" they're talking about.

* - Israel does have a largely-set definition of "severe", primarily based on natural oxygenation level of below 90%, but some people in hospital with COVID don't meet that definition, so it doesn't give us much of a clue about how "mild" would be defined.

To clarify, it isn’t my location that defines mild that way. When I said “here, mild means...,”  I meant “here” as in the articles I linked, as well as a couple of others. 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital. 
 

Maybe that is considered “mild” for myocarditis, because the affected people get better. But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 
It sounds like what they mean for myocarditis is that the heart isn’t (probably?) permanently damaged.
ETA now I’m looking at your post again and I’m confused. At the beginning I think you are talking about myocarditis, but then in the second paragraph you are talking about mild Covid. I think that mild will have a different definition depending on the condition and who is defining it.

Edited by Penelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, ktgrok said:

It seems that almost half of the cases were not linked to the vaccine? If it is almost even in vaccinated and not, are we jumping the gun to think it is related to the vaccine. 

There will always be some myocarditis. They are saying that when they compare the numbers, the association with the vaccine seems to indicate a causal link. Even if they released all the numbers you’d need to do the analysis, it is complicated.

There is also the fact that the clustering is within a few days of the second dose, and that CDC says they do not see any association of cases after the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another article on the Israeli study.   

22 minutes ago, Penelope said:

But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 

True, but my purely anecdotal impression is that the standard for hospital admission in Israel is considerably lower than that in the US.  So it's sort of apples and oranges.

My teens are due for their second shots tomorrow and I plan to quiz the doctor on exactly what to watch out for in the coming days. 

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

To clarify, it isn’t my location that defines mild that way. When I said “here, mild means...,”  I meant “here” as in the articles I linked, as well as a couple of others. 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital. 
 

Maybe that is considered “mild” for myocarditis, because the affected people get better. But most of us probably don’t think of something that lands a young person in the hospital as “mild.” 
It sounds like what they mean for myocarditis is that the heart isn’t (probably?) permanently damaged.
ETA now I’m looking at your post again and I’m confused. At the beginning I think you are talking about myocarditis, but then in the second paragraph you are talking about mild Covid. I think that mild will have a different definition depending on the condition and who is defining it.

I agree — the word “mild” and the phrase “up to 5 days in the hospital” are not synonymous to me. I don’t think “mild” symptoms should require ANY hospitalization!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Penelope said: 
 

The articles keep saying the cases are mild while at the same time saying they spend no more than four days in the hospital 

If the definition is no more than 4 days does that mean they were all hospitalized for at least 1 day or could it be 0 days for some, and if so, how many had 0 days?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ktgrok said:

It seems that almost half of the cases were not linked to the vaccine? If it is almost even in vaccinated and not, are we jumping the gun to think it is related to the vaccine. 

Within the young men subgroup it is 5 to 25 times the background rate.  That is pretty strong evidence.  It is diminished to the background rate when you look at the whole group of all vaccinated people because the bulk of those vaccinated are older.  For the young men it's 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000.  If we go off cdc reports of 3 thousandish of the 3 millions kids who were infected with covid developed misc and covid rates remain at their current low levels (less than 5 per 100k per day by me) this is really looking like we shouldn't be going to get that second shot for my ds in that age group.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Within the young men subgroup it is 5 to 25 times the background rate.  That is pretty strong evidence.  It is diminished to the background rate when you look at the whole group of all vaccinated people because the bulk of those vaccinated are older.  For the young men it's 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000.  If we go off cdc reports of 3 thousandish of the 3 millions kids who were infected with covid developed misc and covid rates remain at their current low levels (less than 5 per 100k per day by me) this is really looking like we shouldn't be going to get that second shot for my ds in that age group.

Ok, that makes more sense. 

That said, I'd want to know what the rates of myocarditis is in those infected with Covid, not just MISC, which is a whole other thing. 

This small study found 15% of athletes infected with Covid had myocarditis - a much higher rate than from the vaccine. https://www.bvhealthsystem.org/expert-health-articles/covid-19-and-myocarditis-a-risk-for-athletes

Other link https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/

 

Edited by ktgrok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myocarditis was my biggest reason for getting DS21 vaccinated - his father died from heart failure caused by a virus. Knowing this new info, I'm still glad he got the vaccine. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...