IIRC the 300 some-odd that CDC first mentioned had no history of symptomatic Covid or evidence of such when they presented at the ER. They were tested as well. So that issue was examined for at least some of the patients if not all. CDC is acknowledging the link; however, they are obviously still trying to figure out the “why.”
So you think that, presented with this sort of data and risk analysis that CDC would normally call for a study?
I wouldn’t know (just a parent), though the question was asked - I don’t think that was a public comment but I don’t remember. For those with underlying conditions in the realm of the types of vaccine side effects seen in teens, and zero data on specific risk/benefit for subgroups - in this case, teens with those conditions - naturally it makes the decision challenging. Pfizer or J&J, or maybe Pfizer 1 dose, which seems sensible based on their slides, though I didn’t hear them entertain that idea - I wasn’t able to listen to the whole thing.
2 Likes
However, the tradeoffs were listed in terms of the specific population group, i.e. COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths within the group of 18-24 year old men, not the overall population that includes the older and less healthy people, versus myocarditis cases in 18-24 year old men.
It is also possible that some of the 18-24 year old men who would get myocarditis that may be vaccine-associated are also some of the same 18-24 year old men who would get bad cases of COVID-19. Some people are unlucky enough to lose either way… (if it is due to spike proteins causing issues regardless of whether they are attached to the rest of the virus, then it could be that the same people affected by vaccine-induced spike proteins are more vulnerable to the same issues if they get infected with real virus bearing those same spike proteins)
If there is a concern that it is specific to mRNA vaccines, then J&J - Janssen would be an alternate choice. Also, if Novavax is approved (it recently completed a successful trial with about 90% effectiveness – note that this is with more variants than when the mRNA vaccines did their trials), that is another option (it is a two dose vaccine that includes spike proteins directly, rather than using mRNA or viral vectors to get the recipient’s cells to make spike proteins).
However, if it is the spike proteins themselves that cause issues even if not attached to a virus, then all vaccines could have similar issues – as could natural infection with the real virus.
1 Like
Yes, exactly all of that. Excellent points.
There could be a separate consideration for time interval between dose 1 and 2 Pfizer, as it may be longer in other countries with different effects. I haven’t yet looked closely at that.
And I agree that it’s possible the concerns will be the same with all vaccine options and with covid. There is some difference in immune response in the nasal mucus membranes (as with covid) vs intramuscular that could possibly lead to different effect scenarios, but again no data that I’m aware of.
Ah . . . that changes things. Most important, perhaps, would be that the benefits quantified are not exhaustive, since 18-24 yo males interact with more than just their own age/gender group. Is that correct? I was interpreting the benefits as being total to all populations.
Thanks for that other set of slides as it adds more perspective to the (small) risks associated with these vaccines. Page AC-14 kind of lays out a pretty clear rationale for why J&J is “worth it” when looking at risks vs. benefits.
I think my concern about who benefits has been cleared up as the benefits quantified in the analyses are not exhaustive. Vaccines have strong positive externalities that apply to everyone. There is also the issue that MIS-C has a higher reported incidence (potentially higher risk for some age groups?) and that MIS-A has now popped up (both due to Covid). The evidence continues to point to the vaccine being more beneficial than harmful. My particular issue is to better understand that across age, gender, demographic, health, etc. (probably many feel that way). Covid doesn’t impact everyone the same, and apparently neither does the vaccine, so all this data and analysis on risks and benefits is very useful to us nerdy types who make decisions based on this sort of information.
From the Maine CDC: "Stat of the day: there are 31 people in the hospital with #COVID19 in #Maine.
29 of them are not fully vaccinated. That’s 94%.
We are reaching the point where hospitalization for #COVID19 is preventable.
Get vaccinated." #vaccinateME
5 Likes
I would think addressing these issues will be part of the full use authorization application…
1 Like
One medical professional here wrote, “Time to talk about the side effects of not vaccinating.”
8 Likes
From the article:
<< Michigan has gotten a first-dose vaccine to 328,675 residents ages 12-to-19, and a second-dose shot to 265,905 individuals in that age range.
Comparatively, there have been 141,865 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in youth 19 years and younger since the start of the pandemic, and at least 16 residents in that age range have died from their illness.>>
1 Like
Yes, I read the article. Just sharing for others.
1 Like
I feel that it’s important to share both sides of the story, not just one.
2 Likes
I assume people will read beyond the headline.
But it’s interesting that your post just alludes to half the story. Why is that? I’m genuinely interested.
It’s even better when you look across the entire country:
An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 0.1%.
And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average.
Everyone’s able to click on the story and several have already. Please, let’s not attack someone for posting it. It’s a sad story. The family and friends must be heartbroken . . .
I did not attack anyone for posting it. I’m saying it’s not accurate to attach a statement to the link that states just one side of the story that could convince a reluctant person to get the vaccine.