However, the latter point doesn't make this finding trivial; there was considerable debate during the pandemic, whether people who had recently contracted COVID (and thus had natural immunity already) should have the vaccine as scheduled anyway, on account of it "being harmless", with early evidence of VRM dismissed as conspiracy theories and fearmongering. I recall many people who declined the vaccine on that premise and were still labelled "antivaxxers" on that basis (which I thought was rather sad at the time).
Furthermore, in many countries this policy was further enforced via "vaccine passports", meaning people with natural immunity still had to vaccinate regardless, in order to be able to go outside and conduct their business as normal, effectively putting people at unnecessary risk purely for the sake of administrative convenience.
Therefore this is a clinically significant finding in my view. Not sure why the article got flagged so quickly on HN...
This is one of the only aggregation websites yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber, disappointing to see users actively try to push it in that direction.
Ironically HN almost seems like one of the better discussion venues for all of these incendiary (and possibly off-topic) posts, because:
> This is one of the only aggregation websites [that has] yet to turn into the typical Twitter/Reddit screaming chamber
HN occasionally has downvote wars, but overall it seems to have done pretty well, even while comment sections on other sites (Ars Technica...) devolved into screaming chambers.
I still think that a tagging system would greatly benefit the site.
Hard to take much meaning away from that without understanding the risk posed by not vaccinating.
If vaccines can prevent long COVID or "post viral syndrome," that's another potential cost benefit analysis. (which would make sense from a laymen perspective, killing k random cells seems bad, but killing N random cells seems strictly worse).
Indeed I'd be interested to know of those episodes of VRM, how many of them had recent COVID, and whether these individuals had worse outcomes. I suspect you'd find these individuals were put at increased risk, for no clear increase in benefit.
What's the benefit from vaccinating otherwise healthy young men against Covid? Not people in risk groups, but healthy young men.
It should be obvious that if your clinical trials cannot rule out major adverse events in 1 in N, you shouldn't vaccinate populations in which the benefit occurs in less than 1 in N.
> If vaccines can prevent long COVID or "post viral syndrome, that's another potential cost benefit analysis.
That's a big "If".
It's also worth noting that the incidence of post-vaccination myocarditis (from this study; 1.08 per 100k people) is significantly lower than the 2014 rate of myocarditis: 8.6 per 100k people [1]. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis from a covid infection is signfiicantly higher than the risk of myocarditis from the covid vaccine.
That being said, especially since the danger of covid is much less for young people, and the risk of the covid vaccine causing myocarditis is much higher for them, there's a growing push to stop vaccinating young people against covid. I think the CDC continues to quash its credibility by trying to sweep this under the rug, rather than presenting the facts--that there is risk, and there's a cost-benefit analysis.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05951-z [2]: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.... [3]: https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001957
If true, I don’t blame them. One thing they have learned this pandemic is the modern public doesn’t process nuance - see the usage of masks. If they broadcast this, a huge chunk of the population will think they should not vaccinate, COVID deaths will surge and more people died from COVID than vaccines induced myocarditis. Best to keep their mouths shut until more studies are completed and they have enough data.
The modern public doesn't have patience for lies. The messaging around the masks was explicitly untruthful, as we now know. Once the public picked up on that, the CDC etc. lost the benefit of the doubt, and that got us to where we are now. What you're referencing is the effect, not the cause.
> 21 deaths (4.4%), and 1 heart transplantation (0.2%).
The known death count for this age range, males, for covid in the US is roughly 1000, or 5:1. There’s not good estimates on severe long term impact of covid (long covid) in these ages, but the studies I found estimate 4-10%. Further, when considering the value of vaccination at any age, you need to consider the “firewall” effect in not further transmitting to more vulnerable people. Young children in multi generational homes can pose a non trivial risk to the elderly in their home. A child killing their grandparents isn’t an outcome to be discounted. Overall even with these results it seems like good public health advice to vaccinate everyone, while not downplaying the tragedy of any premature death for any reason.
