Oh boy. I hope this doesn’t create more vaccine hesitancy.

[Catwoman]

I just saw this info about a possible link between the Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation. There is no proof yet, but just the fact that the story was reported will play into the hands of the anti-vaxxers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-examining-heart-inflammation-cases-in-people-who-received-pfizer-covid-shot/ar-BB1g2bUA?li=BBnbfcL

Don’t get me wrong — if there is an actual danger of myocarditis, of course I want the public to know about it, but I’m also concerned that even the slightest hint of an issue (with no real conclusions yet) may add to the already-noticeable effect brought about by the Johnson and Johnson “pause.” 

My concern is that this will give already-hesitant people another reason to refuse to get vaccinated, when this may well turn out to be nothing to worry about. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-examining-heart-inflammation-cases-in-people-who-received-pfizer-covid-shot/ar-BB1g2bUA?li=BBnbfcL

Obviously, if the heart issue turns out to actually be brought on by the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, people need to be informed of that, and decisions will need to be made, but right now, there are no conclusions, and I hope the media doesn’t pounce on this before more research is published. There is so much phony information being spread around, particularly on social media, and it is leading many people to decide against being vaccinated.l

I truly hope this concern turns out to be for nothing! 

[Farrar]

"Tens" of cases in a nation where millions were vaccinated doesn't set off major alarm bells for me. Especially because presumably some of these folks had Covid and Covid can cause myocarditis. That plus normal rates... Of course, they should look at it because I know nothing. It's just that the numbers don't seem that alarming.

[SoCal_Bear]

Just speculating out loud here...I wonder how much undiagnosed myocarditis there is in the general population. I know it is the 3rd leading cause of sudden death for children and young adults.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by calbear

[Drama Llama]

I hope this doesn't jeopardize approval for  12 - 15 year olds.

[Catwoman]

7 minutes ago, Farrar said:

"Tens" of cases in a nation where millions were vaccinated doesn't set off major alarm bells for me. Especially because presumably some of these folks had Covid and Covid can cause myocarditis. That plus normal rates... Of course, they should look at it because I know nothing. It's just that the numbers don't seem that alarming.

I’m feeling the exact same way you are about it. 

I’m worried that people will hear this information and start thinking, “Well, there’s another vaccine that could kill me,” and end up deciding the vaccine is more dangerous to them than Covid, without trying to find out what the actual risk is, if any. 

I wish they wouldn’t rush to report these things until there is some solid information available. I know everyone wants to be the first one to publish a big scoop, but they should also know that a lot of people won’t read the whole article and see that there are no conclusions yet; they will read the headline and the first few lines of the article and think they know all about it — and “heart inflammation” sounds scary!

[Faith-manor]

7 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I’m feeling the exact same way you are about it. 

I’m worried that people will hear this information and start thinking, “Well, there’s another vaccine that could kill me,” and end up deciding the vaccine is more dangerous to them than Covid, without trying to find out what the actual risk is, if any. 

I wish they wouldn’t rush to report these things until there is some solid information available. I know everyone wants to be the first one to publish a big scoop, but they should also know that a lot of people won’t read the whole article and see that there are no conclusions yet; they will read the headline and the first few lines of the article and think they know all about it — and “heart inflammation” sounds scary!

I agree. I do feel like responsible journalism is not a thing anymore. No one waits for enough information to be constructive before publishing yet another sensationalist headline. Ratings. Apparently that is all that matters anymore, and rarely are follow up studies/data/investigation conclusions that contradict the doom given the same fanfare as the doom. I think it is a big factor in why it is so difficult for people to make risk/benefit analysis decisions.

[Katy]

Tens of cases makes it seem more likely people are being more careful about symptoms and are more likely to get a diagnosis than typical to me. 

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, Farrar said:

"Tens" of cases in a nation where millions were vaccinated doesn't set off major alarm bells for me. Especially because presumably some of these folks had Covid and Covid can cause myocarditis. That plus normal rates... Of course, they should look at it because I know nothing. It's just that the numbers don't seem that alarming.

And when I quickly looked into this, it became clear that myocarditis is an issue with ANY immune challenge - from flu vaccine to the common cold. But that vaccines cause many many fewer cases than the illnesses themselves. Same with Covid obviously. 

[SKL]

I think that there is a phenomenon with Covid as well as with the vaxes where people are more likely to discover pre-existing conditions earlier, because either they're being more observant, or the virus/vax aggravates something that was already quietly there.

That said, of course they need to investigate this, and I think they should be transparent about it.  If it's wrong to downplay the seriousness of Covid for some people, it's equally wrong to downplay the seriousness of a vax reaction. 

One hopes that with more research, they can identify who is at risk and be selective about who gets what vax (if any) based on this information.

[Hadley]

I agree.  My biological dad had a heart transplant when I was ten.  He developed problems after a virus settled in his heart.  Unfortunately, these things can happen.  I hope people realize that life comes with risk.  Everything has risks.  It’s all about hedging the best bet some days.  I still maintain that Covid is much more dangerous than the vaccine.  

[Carrie12345]

Guess what else can cause myocarditis?
Anyone wanna do a drum roll?

[vonfirmath]

2 hours ago, Hadley said:

I agree.  My biological dad had a heart transplant when I was ten.  He developed problems after a virus settled in his heart.  Unfortunately, these things can happen.  I hope people realize that life comes with risk.  Everything has risks.  It’s all about hedging the best bet some days.  I still maintain that Covid is much more dangerous than the vaccine.  

Yes. My friend's husband who had a heart transplant -- it all started due to a virus. A run of the mill everyday cold. Nothing major. But it weakened his heart.

[hopeallgoeswell]

Does anyone know if the vaccine manufactures have an endpoint that measures adverse events/death after vaccination of people who have tested positive for the virus/antibodies before getting vaccinated?

https://noorchashm.medium.com/already-or-had-a-covid-19-infection-or-think-you-did-b282f9471605

From the above article:

I state the above, because I know, as a matter of scientific principle, that once a person is naturally infected by a virus (any virus), antigens from that virus persist in the body for very long after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. So, when a vaccine reactivates an immune response in such recently infected persons, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain. So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — AND, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.

 

 

[SKL]

15 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Does anyone know if the vaccine manufactures have an endpoint that measures adverse events/death after vaccination of people who have tested positive for the virus/antibodies before getting vaccinated?

https://noorchashm.medium.com/already-or-had-a-covid-19-infection-or-think-you-did-b282f9471605

From the above article:

I state the above, because I know, as a matter of scientific principle, that once a person is naturally infected by a virus (any virus), antigens from that virus persist in the body for very long after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. So, when a vaccine reactivates an immune response in such recently infected persons, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain. So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — AND, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.

Is there any advice as far as not getting the mRNA vax (or not getting the 2nd dose) if you have antibodies?  I have a friend who has antibodies (supposedly from a recent case, though she doesn't know when), and is up for her 2nd dose on Saturday.  She isn't in the best health and should be warned if this is a concern.

[hopeallgoeswell]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Is there any advice as far as not getting the mRNA vax (or not getting the 2nd dose) if you have antibodies?  I have a friend who has antibodies (supposedly from a recent case, though she doesn't know when), and is up for her 2nd dose on Saturday.  She isn't in the best health and should be warned if this is a concern.

The doctor from the link I posted would be a good place to start if your friend would like more information.  I've found a few podcasts with him as the interviewee where he goes into more detail and gives more references.  There are other doctors, immunologists, etc. who have been sharing their concerns as well.  I don't know of any other vaccine that is recommended for people who have already built up natural immunity via getting and recovering from the wild virus.  In fact, the few vaccines we do have for viruses can be skipped if an individual can show proof of antibodies from natural infection.

[Melissa Louise]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/27/essential-poll-fewer-than-50-of-over-50s-willing-to-get-pfizer-or-astrazeneca-vaccines

Tracks with the straw poll I did at school last week. 

Hesitancy is a real issue. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that the danger of vaccine hesitancy is not really the issue here.  The issue is whether information should be withheld from the public in order to get them to be willing to accept a vaccine that may have some downside risks as well.

I personally decided to get vaccinated despite some known issues with the vaccine, specifically because I wanted to attend a very important big event that made it worth the risk.  Aside from that, I was in a good position to be able to shelter pretty much solitarily, and wait things out, which would have been no particular danger to anyone.  But if I had reason to think, as some are advocating here, that information about side effects was being hidden from the public, I would have been far less likely to move forward.  That's the vaccine hesitancy that that kind of censorship produces.

[Moonhawk]

I don't think information should be kept from the public. I just wish the public could understand the information they are getting. 

It's good to know that the vaccines are being monitored so carefully and that even very very small patterns and coincidences are being tracked and looked into further. "The system is working" 

But when you don't look at it in the context of X doses given, X side effects, Who were more susceptible to the side effects VS X Covid cases, X side effects, who were most susceptible to the side effects, the data becomes meaningless. [Death is a side effect] That "VS" part is crucial to making decisions; when you take Covid out of the equation you can only see the risks you are taking on with the vaccine, not the benefits you are gaining. But, usually in the news, these news releases about the vaccine are being looked at in isolation, not in the greater picture.

So yeah, transparency best in these cases. Fear-mongering is a bad side effect, but that doesn't mean the right thing shouldn't be done even if the data is misused or misrepresented by others.

[kbutton]

On 4/26/2021 at 12:21 AM, calbear said:

Just speculating out loud here...I wonder how much undiagnosed myocarditis there is in the general population. I know it is the 3rd leading cause of sudden death for children and young adults.

Yes! I don't know if the law is still in effect, but our state actually had/has a law that if a child has ever had certain symptoms, they have to be screened and cleared by a doctor before being allowed to play sports. Our pediatrician said that while good-intentioned, most kids don't have symptoms, which is why they end up dropping dead. It will help the few people who show symptoms or have a pre-existing condition that pre-disposes them to myocarditis, but those kids already likely have a cardiologist who has given them guidance for activities.

On 4/26/2021 at 9:23 AM, SKL said:

I think that there is a phenomenon with Covid as well as with the vaxes where people are more likely to discover pre-existing conditions earlier, because either they're being more observant, or the virus/vax aggravates something that was already quietly there.

I think there is something to this, but I think it's mostly about numbers. The sheer number of people with Covid means we indivually know more people who've been sick and who had a condition exacerbated by Covid, and worldwide, there are more cases to study and analyze.

20 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I don't know of any other vaccine that is recommended for people who have already built up natural immunity via getting and recovering from the wild virus.  

We vaccinate for the flu all the time because the circulating variants change all the time, and because you can get the flu over and over. 

Not all illnesses change the same rate, have the same vulnerable populations, etc. 

[Catwoman]

59 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that the danger of vaccine hesitancy is not really the issue here.  The issue is whether information should be withheld from the public in order to get them to be willing to accept a vaccine that may have some downside risks as well.

I personally decided to get vaccinated despite some known issues with the vaccine, specifically because I wanted to attend a very important big event that made it worth the risk.  Aside from that, I was in a good position to be able to shelter pretty much solitarily, and wait things out, which would have been no particular danger to anyone.  But if I had reason to think, as some are advocating here, that information about side effects was being hidden from the public, I would have been far less likely to move forward.  That's the vaccine hesitancy that that kind of censorship produces.

Who is advocating for information about side effects to be hidden from the public? That’s not what anyone here said.

[Carol in Cal.]

15 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Who is advocating for information about side effects to be hidden from the public? That’s not what anyone here said.

There has been a lot of talk about wishing that the press would wait longer before reporting on this, which amounts to the same thing.  I don't think that that is anyone's intention, which is why I posted about it, as kind of an alert to downside risks that were not anticipated here.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Carol in Cal.

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that the danger of vaccine hesitancy is not really the issue here.  The issue is whether information should be withheld from the public in order to get them to be willing to accept a vaccine that may have some downside risks as well.

I personally decided to get vaccinated despite some known issues with the vaccine, specifically because I wanted to attend a very important big event that made it worth the risk.  Aside from that, I was in a good position to be able to shelter pretty much solitarily, and wait things out, which would have been no particular danger to anyone.  But if I had reason to think, as some are advocating here, that information about side effects was being hidden from the public, I would have been far less likely to move forward.  That's the vaccine hesitancy that that kind of censorship produces.

Honestly, I think the problem is neither transparency nor vaccine hesitancy. It's sensationalist journalism and short attention spans that like to read only headlines.

I have no problem with any one person's decision. I told my children to wait a month or so we could see. Millions of jabs give you a lot of info fast. My husband and I got ours as soon as possible. We were willing to be part of the data. I do have a problem when my father tells my 18 year old that 1 in 250 people who get the vaccine die. My daughter simply asked "which vaccine" and he couldn't tell her of course. She knows she can't really argue with her grandparents but I told her she can ask questions. 

Transparency is good. Latching onto extraordinarily rare occurrences because you see headlines about them constantly, not so great.

[ktgrok]

Just now, frogger said:

Honestly, I think the problem is neither transparency nor vaccine hesitancy. It's sensationalist journalism and short attention spans that like to read only headlines.

 

THIS!!!

I don't want this stuff not reported on, but I want it reported on with the proper context, and without crappy click bait headlines that are totally misleading. Given that people see SO many headlines via social media, their phone alerts, etc, they can't actually be expected to fully read each article. Having such misleading headlines is downright immoral. 

[vonfirmath]

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

Honestly, I think the problem is neither transparency nor vaccine hesitancy. It's sensationalist journalism and short attention spans that like to read only headlines.

I have no problem with any one person's decision. I told my children to wait a month or so we could see. Millions of jabs give you a lot of info fast. My husband and I got ours as soon as possible. We were willing to be part of the data. I do have a problem when my father tells my 18 year old that 1 in 250 people who get the vaccine die. My daughter simply asked "which vaccine" and he couldn't tell her of course. She knows she can't really argue with her grandparents but I told her she can ask questions. 

Transparency is good. Latching onto extraordinarily rare occurrences because you see headlines about them constantly, not so great.

From a certain perspective, 10 out of 10 people who get the vaccine die.

OF course, 10 out of 10 people who don't get the vaccine will also die.

It's all about the span of time.

 

And 1 in 250 directly related to the vaccine is ridiculous.

However, like you, I got the vaccine. But I'm not sure I'm convinced for my kids yet.

 

[DoraBora]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

There has been a lot of talk about wishing that the press would wait longer before reporting on this, which amounts to the same thing.  I don't think that that is anyone's intention, which is why I posted about it, as kind of an alert to downside risks that were not anticipated here.

Agree with this.  Though providing ammunition to people who are dead-set against the vaccines is the last thing I want, it seems wrong to withhold potentially negative information until problems have been thoroughly studied, especially when TPTB are encouraging all eligible folks to be vaccinated as soon as possible.  They don't hesitate to publish positive reports.

I do wish people would dig into reported data, just a little bit.

[frogger]

Just now, vonfirmath said:

From a certain perspective, 10 out of 10 people who get the vaccine die.

OF course, 10 out of 10 people who don't get the vaccine will also die.

It's all about the span of time.

 

And 1 in 250 directly related to the vaccine is ridiculous.

However, like you, I got the vaccine. But I'm not sure I'm convinced for my kids yet.

 

I agree, but you know that isn't what he meant. He implied through context that it was a result of the vaccine. But man, the goofy stuff they are hearing constantly is driving me nuts.

 

Part of me just wanted them to be able to choose which vaccine my children got. They are mostly getting this vaccine for the benefit of society, not themselves, so it seems they should at least be able to look at the data and get the one they think best. We are blessed to have my favorite available in our area so it probably won't be long. Need to finish those finals. 

[vonfirmath]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

I agree, but you know that isn't what he meant. He implied through context that it was a result of the vaccine. But man, the goofy stuff they are hearing constantly is driving me nuts.

 

Part of me just wanted them to be able to choose which vaccine my children got. They are mostly getting this vaccine for the benefit of society, not themselves, so it seems they should at least be able to look at the data and get the one they think best. We are blessed to have my favorite available in our area so it probably won't be long. Need to finish those finals. 

I guess when someone is being ridiculous I don't feel any compunction in making it more obviously ridiculous.

 

(Ignore the colors on this map. They don't tell the same story the actual percentages do!):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html

says 95.9 million people in the US have been fully vaccinated. IF 1 in 250 died, then that would be 383,600 people dying after vaccination. You just don't hide numbers like that. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by vonfirmath

[frogger]

1 minute ago, vonfirmath said:

I guess when someone is being ridiculous I don't feel any compunction in making it more obviously ridiculous.

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

He believes this stuff. He doesn't think he is being ridiculous because he has been lied to constantly. My step mom is the "researcher" in the house and was in a panic when I told her that yes, I was getting the vaccine. She tried to convince me not to. They don't think they are being ridiculous and yes, I actually care that they have been lied to, don't have the tools to vet sources or question how this abstract stuff is discerned. They have very little education and have worked hard their whole lives in the concrete rather than abstract partly because that was their lot. 

Free speech has consequences. I do think its benefits outweigh its costs and will fight for it but that doesn't make me happy that they are susceptible to lies.

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't think information should be kept from the public. I just wish the public could understand the information they are getting. 

It's good to know that the vaccines are being monitored so carefully and that even very very small patterns and coincidences are being tracked and looked into further. "The system is working" 

But when you don't look at it in the context of X doses given, X side effects, Who were more susceptible to the side effects VS X Covid cases, X side effects, who were most susceptible to the side effects, the data becomes meaningless. [Death is a side effect] That "VS" part is crucial to making decisions; when you take Covid out of the equation you can only see the risks you are taking on with the vaccine, not the benefits you are gaining. But, usually in the news, these news releases about the vaccine are being looked at in isolation, not in the greater picture.

So yeah, transparency best in these cases. Fear-mongering is a bad side effect, but that doesn't mean the right thing shouldn't be done even if the data is misused or misrepresented by others.

It's not vax vs. Covid.  It's vax vs. not vax. 

Not vax comes with a risk of getting Covid.  It's not 100% (in fact it appears way less than that), and there are various ways other than vaxing to mitigate that risk.

Not to beat a dead horse, but comparing getting the vax vs. getting Covid is just not logical.

It is especially illogical when you're talking about someone who already has antibodies, had the first vax already, or has some other valuable protection already in place.

[hopeallgoeswell]

On 4/27/2021 at 9:30 AM, kbutton said:

We vaccinate for the flu all the time because the circulating variants change all the time, and because you can get the flu over and over. 

Not all illnesses change the same rate, have the same vulnerable populations, etc.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320110619.htm

From the article:

The researchers found that the antibody repertoires remained highly static throughout. More than 70 percent of the antibody molecules found in the donor's bloodstream remained the same over five years. More than two-thirds of these persistent antibodies targeted invariant parts of the virus -- the elements that do not change from one year to the next.

These persistent antibodies continue to be produced by the immune system for years and can affect our ability to generate novel antibodies that recognize unique molecular features of a new seasonal strain.

"Currently, there is a very large scientific effort underway to design flu vaccine candidates that focus the immune system to produce antibodies targeting the invariant sites of vulnerability of the influenza virus," Lee said.

[hopeallgoeswell]

On 4/27/2021 at 8:15 AM, Plum said:

• After a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, people with a prior COVID-19 infection had antibody levels similar to those of people without prior infection after two vaccine doses.
• The results, which need to be confirmed in large, diverse populations, may point to a strategy to stretch the currently limited supply of vaccines against COVID-19.
   

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-response-vaccination-after-covid-19
 

PHILADELPHIA—People who have recovered from COVID-19 had a robust antibody response after the first mRNA vaccine dose, but little immune benefit after the second dose, according to new research from the Penn Institute of Immunology. The findings, published today in Science Immunology, suggest only a single vaccine dose may be needed to produce a sufficient antibody response.
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/april/penn-study-suggests-those-who-had-covid19-may-only-need-one-vaccine-dose

 

Personally, I’d go with one dose if I were her.
 

*full disclosure I may have some personal biases wrt this topic. 

Am I wrong in concluding that the blood wasn't tested for neutralizing antibodies before any shot was given in either of the studies?  Only after the first dose and then again after the second dose?  I only ask because there seems to be a sufficent neutralizing response after someone has had the virus, no first shot necessary.

[Lucy the Valiant]

58 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Am I wrong in concluding that the blood wasn't tested for neutralizing antibodies before any shot was given in either of the studies?  Only after the first dose and then again after the second dose?  I only ask because there seems to be a sufficent neutralizing response after someone has had the virus, no first shot necessary.

(Never mind, my comment came out wrong. I'm researching studies that HAVE tested people for antibodies before administering vaccines. Very interested here but limited time due to AP exams!)

Edited May 5, 2021 by Lucy the Valiant