> The reason you're downvoted is you're bringing anecdotes to a "multiple large studies with millions of data points" fight.
My point wasn't about the anecdotes, but the fact that it isn't a risk comparison of being vaccinated or getting infected, but rather the risk of vaccination AND infection vs. infection.
And presumably being infected once is tantamount to vaccination.
If you're vulnerable there's an argument but from my vantage covid vaccination for the majority of healthy people is just needless and excessive exposure to spike protein.
That first time you get infected, you are at higher risk of myocarditis than if you were vaccinated and then infected. That's what this article is about.
"The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine."
> [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination was higher than baseline but] was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively)
> The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]).
Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14.
They also very importantly mention that vaccination has a higher risk of myocarditis for men under 40.
In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk.
> Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
Presumably repeated infections carry less risk over time, I see no mention of this scenario.
> Is this to say that Moderna carries a higher myocarditis risk than infection prior to vaccination? 11.76 vs 11.14.
No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap.
It also says that the Pfizer vaccine carries a significantly lower risk. 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85] vs 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36]
> In other words the healthiest portion of the population was coerced into needless health risk
It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man) understand statistics better than you do.
> No. It's saying the confidence intervals, which you omitted, overlap.
Moderna isn't looking good with this data either way.
> It turns out, the doctors and public health officials who recommended you get the Pfizer vaccine (instead of Moderna because you are a young man)
I don't think this was ever recommended when it was rolled out or during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era.
> understand statistics better than you do
I have a degree that required high level math, I was able to read the data on IFR, etc. and see that I was never at any significant risk. If I'm vitamin D replete, physically fit and not obese I'll be fine. Turns out I was right.
> I don't think this was ever recommended ... during the unconstitutional vaccine mandate era
It certainly was when they discovered that Moderna's higher dose resulted in more myocarditis cases than Pfizer's, which happened very soon after the rollout and long before any mandates. There were never any unconstitutional mandates enforced, so this seems to be a conspiracy theorist rant.
> I have a degree that required high level math
Despite that, you were suckered by vaccine conspiracy theorists and came to wrong conclusions, as this thread demonstrates. You have a greater chance of being fine by taking the vaccine, and you reduce the risk of mutations. It's clear your degree did not require statistics, which both doctors and public health specialists are required to study.
My point wasn't about the anecdotes, but the fact that it isn't a risk comparison of being vaccinated or getting infected, but rather the risk of vaccination AND infection vs. infection.
And presumably being infected once is tantamount to vaccination.
If you're vulnerable there's an argument but from my vantage covid vaccination for the majority of healthy people is just needless and excessive exposure to spike protein.
reply