Teenage boys are 14 times more likely to suffer heart complications from Pfizer jab

still unbanned wrote:

Actual CD,

without denominators, the numbers you picked out mean very little. The CDC report you linked to concludes that

the benefits of vaccination clearly outweighed the (tiny) risk.

That "tiny" risk doesn't seem so tiny to people who have suffered vax injury.

Many scoff at people who dismiss the "tiny" risk of COVID, but then they scoff at the "tiny" risk of vax injury. Differentiating between two different "tiny" risk factors is a bit of a joke and shows biases/ intellectual dishonesty. They're either both small risk or not. A hypothetical 2% risk vs. 1% risk is very small. Or you can choose nearly 0% risk by not getting either. Taking the vax is a 100% chance of taking that small risk, or you can not get COVID at all.

Bernie, the vax is very safe.

Thinking you can rely on teenagers to 'mask up and social distance' is not safe. And it is absurd if they attend school in person.

bernie wrote:

still unbanned wrote:

Actual CD,

without denominators, the numbers you picked out mean very little. The CDC report you linked to concludes that

the benefits of vaccination clearly outweighed the (tiny) risk.

That "tiny" risk doesn't seem so tiny to people who have suffered vax injury.

Many scoff at people who dismiss the "tiny" risk of COVID, but then they scoff at the "tiny" risk of vax injury. Differentiating between two different "tiny" risk factors is a bit of a joke and shows biases/ intellectual dishonesty. They're either both small risk or not. A hypothetical 2% risk vs. 1% risk is very small. Or you can choose nearly 0% risk by not getting either. Taking the vax is a 100% chance of taking that small risk, or you can not get COVID at all.

The difference between a 0.0016% chance and a 2.3% chance is not insignificant.

"Although the study did not break down the myocarditis risks by age or by sex, the median age of people who developed the condition after vaccination was 25, and 19 of the 21 cases were in males, the researchers reported.

In addition to myocarditis, the Pfizer vaccine was also associated with an increased risk of swollen lymph nodes, appendicitis and shingles, although all three side effects remained uncommon in the study. Coronavirus infection was not associated with these side effects, but it did increase the odds of several potentially serious cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks and blood clots.

“Coronavirus is very dangerous, and it’s very dangerous to the human body in many ways,” said Ben Reis, a co-author of the new study and the director of the predictive medicine group at the Boston Children’s Hospital Computational Health Informatics Program.

He added, “If the reason that someone so far has been hesitating to get the vaccine is fear of this very rare and usually not very serious adverse event called myocarditis, well, this study shows that that very same adverse event is actually associated with a higher risk if you’re not vaccinated and you get infected.”

... In their review of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, regulators paid close attention to an American health care claims database, which found that the risk of the conditions in 16- and 17-year-old vaccinated boys could be as high as 1 in 5,000. The cases in the database were unconfirmed, the F.D.A. cautioned in an analysis published this week, but they were considered a reasonable estimate of the possible risk. Even in the worst-case scenarios of post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis modeled by the F.D.A., the benefits of vaccination still outweighed the risks, the analysis said."

still unbanned wrote:

Bernie, the vax is very safe.

Thinking you can rely on teenagers to 'mask up and social distance' is not safe. And it is absurd if they attend school in person.

It's not safe for everyone, please stop glossing over that fact.

In regards to teenagers, that's a valid opinion. You may be right, but it is people's right to choose for themselves. If a few kids in each school develop myocarditis, from COVID, they will learn the hard way, and hopefully word will spread and others will make smarter choices.

I didn't clarify, I was meaning people in general(adults) can choose to take the risk of attempting to get neither, seeing that as lowest risk. If they can reasonably abstain from being in people's personal space. That's my bad.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

bernie wrote:

That "tiny" risk doesn't seem so tiny to people who have suffered vax injury.

Many scoff at people who dismiss the "tiny" risk of COVID, but then they scoff at the "tiny" risk of vax injury. Differentiating between two different "tiny" risk factors is a bit of a joke and shows biases/ intellectual dishonesty. They're either both small risk or not. A hypothetical 2% risk vs. 1% risk is very small. Or you can choose nearly 0% risk by not getting either. Taking the vax is a 100% chance of taking that small risk, or you can not get COVID at all.

The difference between a 0.0016% chance and a 2.3% chance is not insignificant.

Let's go with those numbers, neither is the difference between 0.0016% and 0% insignificant.

still unbanned wrote:

Actual CD,

without denominators, the numbers you picked out mean very little. The CDC report you linked to concludes that

the benefits of vaccination clearly outweighed the (tiny) risk.

You are right that the denominator is uncertain. That's the problem with Covid, because not everyone is diagnosed. The closest we have to a denominator is the sero-prevalence of Covid in the population. That is quoted in the 25-40% range, but was obviously lower in the early parts of the 10-month range.

The CDC is right that the risk of vaccination in the overall population is very low. The risk is still low in kids, thankfully, but the risk of myocarditis is about 1/5000-8000 in boys age 12-15, which is much higher than the post-Covid myocarditis. Of course, there are other problems with Covid than myocarditis. Overall, it's a risk-benefit decision that each child and family have to discuss.

As stated previously, one shot for most kids is probably a reasonable approach. Two shots for kids with risk factors.

The vaccine is far far safer than contracting COVID for every age group. Notice the OP just glossed over that.

You anti vax fearmongers are getting lazy.

bernie wrote:

The Grim Reaper wrote:

The difference between a 0.0016% chance and a 2.3% chance is not insignificant.

Let's go with those numbers, neither is the difference between 0.0016% and 0% insignificant.

How do you plan on not getting COVID? Do you live in your basement?

This is a time where "14x" sounds scary, but when you look at the absolute risk it is still really low.

By the way, I should have mentioned that the great majority of post-vax myocarditis happens after the second shot. This is why many countries recommend one shot only for young kids.

POKE IT POKE POKE wrote:

surgical wrote:

I don't care!

IF they don't get vaccinated they can die for all I care.

It's kind of hard to die from the sniffles, but ok.

disingenuous prick

2600 bro wrote:

bernie wrote:

Let's go with those numbers, neither is the difference between 0.0016% and 0% insignificant.

How do you plan on not getting COVID? Do you live in your basement?

No. But great argument, very convincing.

It's simple, mask up and socially distance.

2600 bro wrote:

The vaccine is far far safer than contracting COVID for every age group. Notice the OP just glossed over that.

You anti vax fearmongers are getting lazy.

A risk is a risk...

Who's anti-vax? Sounds like you're the lazy one.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

bernie wrote:

That "tiny" risk doesn't seem so tiny to people who have suffered vax injury.

Many scoff at people who dismiss the "tiny" risk of COVID, but then they scoff at the "tiny" risk of vax injury. Differentiating between two different "tiny" risk factors is a bit of a joke and shows biases/ intellectual dishonesty. They're either both small risk or not. A hypothetical 2% risk vs. 1% risk is very small. Or you can choose nearly 0% risk by not getting either. Taking the vax is a 100% chance of taking that small risk, or you can not get COVID at all.

The difference between a 0.0016% chance and a 2.3% chance is not insignificant.

You've overstated the difference by a factor of 100 to try to make a point. You've lost any and all credibility.

bernie wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

The vaccine is far far safer than contracting COVID for every age group. Notice the OP just glossed over that.

You anti vax fearmongers are getting lazy.

A risk is a risk...

Who's anti-vax? Sounds like you're the lazy one.

It's true. If you are willing to forgo all social interaction you can avoid the shot and the risk of COVID. Delta is VERY transmissible. All social activity carries a risk of infection with Delta that when combined with COVID risk to health is greater than the risk of vaccination by a lot.

So your only choice to avoid both risks is to be recluse and poast on LRC.

surgical wrote:

I don't care!

IF they don't get vaccinated they can die for all I care.

You've obviously succumbed to the fearmongering.

The issue with the vaccines for kids is the assumption is that adolescents have the same immune systems as the 65 year olds that the vaccines were designed around. The below is data from the CDC and the FDA:

Children and adolescents receive the same dosage of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as adults. There are no patient weight requirements for COVID-19 vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccine dosage does not vary by patient weight.

Reports to VAERS suggest an increased risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart) following vaccination with both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, particularly following the second dose. (Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is authorized for emergency use in individuals 18 and older). Typically, onset of symptoms has been several days to a week following vaccination.

The FDA required both manufacturers to revise the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) to include a Warning pertaining to the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, as well as the Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers to include information about myocarditis and pericarditis. The FDA will provide updates to the public as additional details become available.

Basically what this means is they understand that they approved a dosage which is too great, but still fits their criteria of the benefits outweighing the risks. They went ahead with this dosage regimen because they felt it would take too long to run trials for this age group and get approval for a lower dosage (like they are doing now for younger kids). The truth is a single dose (or half dose two shot regimen) is likely sufficient for adolescents, and they likely know this, but can't actively say this (otherwise it would damage their public stance that the vaccines are "safe").

stick ball wrote:

The Grim Reaper wrote:

The difference between a 0.0016% chance and a 2.3% chance is not insignificant.

You've overstated the difference by a factor of 100 to try to make a point. You've lost any and all credibility.

Assuming you were responding to me, no, I haven't overstated anything. You can find those numbers in the two articles that I've linked on this thread.