I’m not a scientist but to me this study seems to be badly mis-specified limiting its usefulness. They are comparing the risk of myo/pericarditis from the vaccine with the risk of hospitalization from a Covid infection. To me, the question/analysis should be quite different to extract a meaningful result. I would want to compare the risk of myo/pericarditis from the vaccine with probability of Covid infection (ideally probability of infection for an unvaccinated adolescent boy) and, given Covid infection, the risk of myo/pericarditis as a result of the virus. I would also want a sense of the relative severity of the myo/pericarditis in both cases if there is a difference.
Upthread someone posted that the incidence of infection in the population at large was around 43%. Using this simple assumption, the question for me then would be the incidence of myo/pericarditis in adolescent boys from infection *.43 versus the incidence of myo/pericarditis from vaccination.
Again, I’m not a scientist so its very possible I’m missing something. I just don’t find this analysis valuable.
Thanks for posting that piece. This has been one of my biggest concerns - will there be lingering effects down the line, 10 20 or 40 years out - similar to post polio syndrome?
I am not sure the author’s conclusion is valid though - that this fear could induce more people to get vaccinated. The vaccine does not prevent infection; it was not designed for that purpose. It is possible it reduces infection, but that’s not really my point. The vaccines are effective at what they were designed to do - prevent serious disease, hospitalization, and death. So the question becomes, is there any difference in the incidence of these blood clots if the infection is more severe - as we would expect a more severe disease in someone not vaccinated? If so, then maybe that would encourage more vaccinations - but I wouldn’t count on it.
The study is pointing to a ‘one size does not fit all’ approach to the vaccination strategy. In order to know the difference between the risk of myocarditis in young men, wouldn’t one need to know, first, how many have been infected? If the infection rate is low…then why risk the vaccine? If the infection rate is high but the incident of heart infection is low…then again…it’s time to revaluate a blanket approach.
What is the risk to CHILDREN of clots, strokes etc. Again…is it different than adults?
We are learning. Recommendations for spacing between doses are changing. Europe stopped administering Moderna to young people. We are now looking at vaccinating 0-5 year olds. I think it warrants a pause - especially since Omicron is waning and was less serious than the previous variants - before we move forward with very young bodies.
Yes, totally agree that the vaccine decision should be risk/benefit based. It sounds like you and I are saying somewhat the same thing. Need to look at the actual risk though - comparing the risk of myocarditis from vaccine to hospitalization from virus is not comparable. I agree with you - we need to know the infection rate in this population and impact of virus on those affected in this population of myocarditis (and clots, etc) and compare to the risk of similar side effects from vaccine to determine right approach.
That is comparing myocarditis reports in VAERS to hospitalization rates, or “apples to oranges”.
Actual COVID-19 causes much higher rates of myocarditis than mRNA second vaccine doses even in the young male age groups with the highest risk of vaccine associated myocarditis (first dose of vaccine has much lower risk).
My guy working front lines has told us all along they (informally) consider Covid to be a blood disease (due to the clots) that also affects the lungs. He tells us (so hearsay) that the frail die from Covid, but most others beat the actual disease dying a couple of weeks to months later. Those are the “post Covid” deaths caused by what Covid messed up in the body. It can affect essentially any organ or the heart, and when blood clots are involved, it can really get deadly. All (to him anyway) are Covid deaths as they wouldn’t have occurred without the original infection. I’m not sure where the official “Covid” death count ends. His personal saddest case was a lad his own age who had to be vented, then they couldn’t wake him up. It had been two weeks when we heard the story. I don’t know the end of it.
He also tells us they wonder among themselves how hard this is going to hit the medical world as people age, but more have Covid damage to everything from kidneys to lungs than was typical in the past. Will it burden the health system? They feel it is likely to decrease the life span of at least some, but of course, that’s all theory right now.
I’m not aware of my blood clotting issues from vaccines aside from the rare ones associated with J&J. When I googled to get more info, this site came up - it’s a quick view of things if anyone is interested in reading it:
There have only been a few published cases of VITT/TTS potentially associated with the mRNA vaccines - this syndrome is more common and more established with J&J/AZ. It’s a very tricky thing to treat because the patient has both a low platelet count and thrombosis. Usually the recommended therapies for one will worsen the other.
We have had a shortage of lung docs for a long time—well before I started attending medical conferences 15 years ago. In the years since the shortages have only grown.
Are Covid articles still open to all or are they firewalled?
It’s important that this is just a study - no implications of how much lasting damage there will be, if any.
One interesting note reading through:
The effects may be particularly notable because the study involved mostly people who — like the majority of Covid patients in the general population — were mildly affected by their initial Covid infection, not becoming sick enough to need hospitalization.
Titles are meant to catch the eye, but there’s nothing in the title or the first statement that wasn’t true. It is, however, why I added my extra statement regarding no implications at this time. More study will be needed for that.
It’s similar to how they’ve found “damage” with kidneys, cardiac, and lungs at this point without knowing if these things will fix themselves or cause problems down the road. Time is the only thing that will answer that question. It’s too new to know.
I have a migraine so can’t summarize thoroughly. Is it allowed to copy and paste?
The study was ages 51-81 who had baseline scans before COVID and three years later, after COVID, Much of the loss of gray matter was in the areas related to smell.
Rudimentary tests showed on effect on memory but the trail-making test showed some deficits for those older than early 60’s, which might suggest weaknesses in focus, processing speed and other skills. But none of the patients had significant testing. And there was no difference for those in their 50’s and early 60’s.
Normal brain shrinkage is 0.2-0.3% annually. The study participants lost an additional 0.2-2% over the 3 years between scans.
I’ll also add the reminder that this is the “Inside Medicine” thread, so the article is posted for being simply what it is, a study that bears further watching and more study for those of us interested in the medical aspect as it gets discovered - not something conclusive saying everyone with Covid is going to die from X.
This stuff is cheap (well, at least is has been up until now).
IMHO…our hope and path forward lies in EARLY! EARLY! intervention upon receipt of a positive test. We’ve spent a long time in the ‘go home, wait until your lips turn blue and then call 911’ phase. Sure, part of the reason is that this is a new/novel virus. But we’ve also been dragging our feet on early therapies. It’s hard not to see a connection between financial gain and one and only one narrative (vaccination über alles) causing at least some of the drag.
