Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The sources are literally three comments up! And the point is that the risk is higher than the risk from COVID!



“ Teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems from the vaccine than be hospitalised from Covid-19.”

This is comparing rates of myocarditis vs rates of hospitalization, which is two different things.

We would need to see rates of myocarditis due to vaccination vs rates of myocarditis due to natural infection.


Plus that's comparing one risk of the vaccine to one risk of the virus. You need a holistic comparison. COVID messes you up in lots of other ways too, ways in which the vaccine does not.


I'm curious how, in your mind, myocarditis is being diagnosed and reported in children if not at the hospital?

Heart inflammation is not typical in children or adolescents. This is not based on self-reporting.

Are you aware that UK regulators have not approved the vaccine for 12-15 year-olds (or any children younger), based on this risk, specifically?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669


> myocarditis is being diagnosed and reported in children if not at the hospital?

The vast majority of people who visit a doctor are diagnosed with no hospitalization and the recommended course for most myocarditis cases is not hospitalization. If the recommendation were hospitalization then many more infected young males would be hospitalized based on myocarditis diagnosis.


“Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.” [0]

So there’s a preprint stating that COVID-19 causes myocarditis at a higher rate than via vaccination. So it’s not quite clear to me whether or not, if looking at it from a risk of myocarditis, that not getting vaccinated is the better choice.

And according to the JCVI, it still is marginally beneficial to get vaccinated over not getting vaccinated. So it’s not like they are advising that natural infection is safer than vaccination.

“For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.” [1]

[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advic...


The part of the JCVI decision you omitted is:

"The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed." [1]

As a concerned parent, this is how I will be approaching vaccination for my sons.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advic...


The term hospitalization implies an inpatient (or at least observation) stay, as opposed to an outpatient encounter like the emergency department or a clinic. Most diagnoses made in the outpatient setting do not require hospitalization, which could include both COVID and myo/pericarditis.

EDIT: speling




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: