chopflop
Premiership Player
- Nov 15, 2020
- 3,362
- 9,315
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
How are there no bullets in the gun when the SCIENCE (god - we have to listen to "the science") says that younger people are more likely to be hospitalised from the vaccine than the virus?
![]()
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis
Objectives Establishing the rate of post-vaccination cardiac myocarditis in the 12-15 and 16-17-year-old population in the context of their COVID-19 hospitalization risk is critical for developing a vaccination recommendation framework that balances harms with benefits for this patient...www.medrxiv.org
Results A total of 257 CAEs were identified. Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.
From the comments on that paper, which is not yet peer-reviewed. Some methodology issues and authors as members of conservative policy advocacy groups. Curious no????
It's like people dressing up turds in labcoats and calling it science.
I have to say this is rather odd way to do BRA. I am not commenting on your observed rates, as others already did. So I will focus on the expected rate side. First, the OE analysis should be based on background rates of myocarditis in the general population. There is an abundance of publicly available data from massive collaborative projects such as OHDSI or ACCESS, so I don't really understand your decision not to compare background rates of myocarditis. But more troubling is the choice of COVID hospitalisations. It's almost a rule of thumb that the expected rates should never be based on a condition that may be influenced by the vaccine in question or, for that matter, any public health/mitigation policies that are contextually related. One could immediately see vaccination could have differential effect on both sides of the comparison: on one side it would drive COVID hospitalisation down, given the potential effect on transmission, and on the other side it could potentially drive myocarditis among vaccinated kids up, if the risk is real. As a result, you will overestimate the risk of myocarditis among the vaccinated. The effect of non-interventional mitigation measures will further decrease the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, but without having an effect on the risk of post-vaccination myocarditis, leading to further overestimation of the risk of myocarditis among the vaccinated. Though too obvious, this was apparently overlooked by the US CDC. The OE analysis should also be based on the same conditions and the same risk windows, which is far from what you did here. Thus, the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations cannot be considered the counterfactual in this analysis.
Last, I think you should have highlighted in the abstract that the risk of COVID hospitalisations among those with comorbidities was actually greater than the risk of myocarditis. Otherwise it's rather misleading.





