Safety of the Pfizer vaccine compared to COVID

2,463 Views | 18 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by SoupNazi2001
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:51a, 8/27/21
While abundantly obvious to most that the vaccine is significantly safer compared to getting COVID, it is nice to have data and charts that appropriately demonstrate this.

This article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compares some of the common conditions associated with COVID and the mRNA vaccine and does a wonderful job of demonstrating why even in the young and healthy, it is worthwhile to get vaccinated, as there are other issues outside of death that COVID can cause. (Important to note that transient lymphadenopathy is a benign issue)



No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
34
1 edit
bay fan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02a, 8/27/21
S
Thanks Doc. Well displayed, easy to understand information for those that want to understand. Sadly, too many are unable/unwilling to focus on real facts from real sources. Great info for sure though.
Reply Quote
13
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:15a, 8/27/21
Here is the full table of adverse events they evaluated.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
11
gunan01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 8/27/21
AG
I predict no anti-Vaxxer will respond. And if they do, they won't have digested the figures you posted.
Reply Quote
19
cbr
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37a, 8/27/21
AG
Thank you for posting. Study appears credible, and its expressed limitations seem reasonable from a first skim. A useful data point in making decisions.
Reply Quote
4
4the_Record
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:57a, 8/27/21
Does this include all age groups?

Honest question...

For low risk groups like 2 - 18 year Olds with no known complicating factors, would it be better to be infected and recover than be Vaccinated? Would being Vaccinated young interfere with someone's ability to develop nature immunity?

My wife and all my kids were infected and have recovered so the only question we have left is when/if to supplement that immunity with the Vaccine. Now for me, I wish the Vaccine had been available earlier as it would have spared me and my wife a rough go... but I'm still not sure about whether it makes sense for kids.
Reply Quote
4
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:12a, 8/27/21
This included ages 16 and up. Kids are a low risk group, so rates of complications from COVID and the vaccine will be very low. Right now, EUA for the vaccines has only been granted from children 12-18, so I would not be so bold to comment on children below that age cutoff. For children 12-18, the vaccine is safer than getting COVID, undoubtedly, but again, the risks of COVID are quite low. The main concern with the vaccine in children is myocarditis; however, as you can see, the rates of myocarditis appear to be higher in those that developed COVID compared to their immunized counterparts, at least in this study's patient population. This tracks, as it would make little sense that a vaccine mimicking a viruses spike protein would somehow lead to more myocarditis cases than the virus itself.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
8
4the_Record
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24a, 8/27/21
I appreciate the detailed response.

That leaves the last part of my question...

With the immunity related to recovery apparently significantly better than that achieved through Vaccination and as COVID will likely be with us, in different strains and variations for the foreseeable future, Is there any disadvantage to getting Covid and recovering AFTER being Vaccinated? Meaning, would the Vaccine impact the strength of your natural immunity if/when you were infected subsequent to being vaccinated?

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gunan01 • 10:58a, 8/27/21
gunan01 said:
I predict no anti-Vaxxer will respond. And if they do, they won't have digested the figures you posted.


Those figures are easy to understand but it's also pretty clear that unless they're broken down by age and other risk factors related to overall health they're not being wholly honest.

[Be respectful. - Staff]
Reply Quote
5
Edited by Staff
Complete Idiot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 11:11a, 8/27/21
TarponChaser said:
gunan01 said:
I predict no anti-Vaxxer will respond. And if they do, they won't have digested the figures you posted.



Those figures are easy to understand but it's also pretty clear that unless they're broken down by age and other risk factors related to overall health they're not being wholly honest.
The link may not be obvious, but find the link provided in the original post and read the article, they don't have exactly what you want but do list the participants by age group.

Lack of honesty is a weird claim unless their conclusion was age specific and they didn't provide age specific information, which is not the case. Could they break it down by age, sure. And then someone might ask about breaking it down by age and comorbidities. And if they did that someone might ask for full illness and medication histories. And then claim the sample sizes for micro categories were too small.
Reply Quote
15
Edited by Staff
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Complete Idiot • 11:18a, 8/27/21
Complete Idiot said:
TarponChaser said:
gunan01 said:
I predict no anti-Vaxxer will respond. And if they do, they won't have digested the figures you posted.

Don't be a moron.

Those figures are easy to understand but it's also pretty clear that unless they're broken down by age and other risk factors related to overall health they're not being wholly honest.
The link may not be obvious, but find the link provided in the original post and read the article, they don't have exactly what you want but do list the participants by age group.

Lack of honesty is a weird claim unless their conclusion was age specific and they didn't provide age specific information, which is not the case. Could they break it down by age, sure. And then someone might ask about breaking it down by age and comorbidities. And if they did that someone might ask for full illness and medication histories. And then claim the sample sizes for micro categories were too small.

It's a lack of transparency because the data for the entirety of this thing has been quite clear. There are stark differences in risks that break down on age, obesity, and other health issues.

So, while the risks of the vaccine and side effects may be pretty uniform across all those factors the risks of covid infection are not.
Reply Quote
4
88planoAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag • 11:21a, 8/27/21
AG
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:
This included ages 16 and up. Kids are a low risk group, so rates of complications from COVID and the vaccine will be very low. Right now, EUA for the vaccines has only been granted from children 12-18, so I would not be so bold to comment on children below that age cutoff. For children 12-18, the vaccine is safer than getting COVID, undoubtedly, but again, the risks of COVID are quite low. The main concern with the vaccine in children is myocarditis; however, as you can see, the rates of myocarditis appear to be higher in those that developed COVID compared to their immunized counterparts, at least in this study's patient population. This tracks, as it would make little sense that a vaccine mimicking a viruses spike protein would somehow lead to more myocarditis cases than the virus itself.
Am I looking at the info wrong? I went to the article also. It seems that myocarditis is one of the few adverse events that are higher in vaccinated vs covid? Or do I have something backwards. I understand that the risk is very very small with either scenario.
Reply Quote
cbr
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:08p, 8/27/21
AG
even if the study is completely honest, transparent and not subject to any unreasonable limitations, which i would hope that it is, there are still other significant factors:

1) long term implications

2) if you get the vaccine, you have a 100% chance of being exposed to the tiny chance of vaccine problems, whereas if you don't, depending on your lifestyle, there may be a pretty small chance of being exposed to covid's chances of complications. if you don't have kids in school, don't get on commercial airplanes or go into cities or crowded events, then when you add that math, the proper choice becomes much less clear

3) increasing news about vaccines being only a short term solution, requiring boosters, or not being effective against new variants, etc.

finally the universal, shrill, orwellian demands for vaccinations from sources that are indisputably nefarious doesn't give much comfort about taking the vaccine.





Reply Quote
6
979ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gunan01 • 12:56p, 8/27/21
AG
gunan01 said:
I predict no anti-Vaxxer will respond. And if they do, they won't have digested the figures you posted.
I read it as I still have <1% chance of any harm of my life regardless of vax. People can continue to talk about the multiples of safety (i.e. 20x less like to .....), but when you're dealing with percentages less that 1%, it is not relative.
Reply Quote
3
GeographyAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:57p, 8/27/21
AG
I have a friend who died right after being diagnosed with Covid while she and her husband were home during quarantine. They said she had an aneurysm, and that it wasn't caused by the Covid.

She was not vaccinated. (They were strongly anti-vax, even before Covid.)

Do y'all know if there been any studies on aneurysms and Covid?
If I’m posting, it’s actually Mrs GeographyAg.
Mr. GeographyAg is a dedicated lurker.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
03_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bay fan • 2:01p, 8/27/21
bay fan said:
Thanks Doc. Well displayed, easy to understand information for those that want to understand. Sadly, too many are unable/unwilling to focus on real facts from real sources. Great info for sure though.


From the study:

Quote:
The effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 has been confirmed in real-world studies,10,11 but high-quality real-world safety data on the messenger RNA (mRNA)based Covid-19 vaccines remain relatively sparse in the literature. The results of a study based on data reported by more than 600,000 vaccinated persons were recently published12; that study mainly assessed common and mild side effects. Two additional studies, which were based on surveys of vaccinated participants, involved small cohorts,13,14 and another study analyzed adverse events reported in the VAERS database.15 All these studies lacked controls. One study that did incorporate a control group included 8533 long-term care facility residents who had received the first dose of vaccine.16 The authors of this study concluded that the mRNA-based vaccines had an acceptable safety profile, and no notable adverse events were reported.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 03_Aggie • 2:09p, 8/27/21
AG
That section is describing the weakness or potential gaps in previous studies, which is why they did this study. It sets up the payoff in the next paragraph, where they say

Quote:
As of May 24, 2021, nearly 5 million people in Israel, comprising more than 55% of the population, had received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. In this study, we used the integrated data repositories of the largest health care organization in Israel to evaluate the safety profile of the BNT162b2 vaccine. We compared the incidence of a broad set of potential short- and medium-term adverse events among vaccinated persons with the incidence among matched unvaccinated persons. Potential adverse events related to medical interventions are best understood in the context of the risks associated with the disease that these interventions aim to prevent or treat, so we also estimated the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on this same set of adverse events.
Reply Quote
3
03_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:48p, 8/27/21
Correct, the intent was to point out why they felt their study was necessary. The first few posts around facts and digesting info presents a bit of irony considering the folks conducting the study did it because they don't believe there is enough quality data around the safety of mRNA vaccines.

They are also fairly transparent in the flaws of the data/approach in their own study.

Quote:
The effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 has been confirmed in real-world studies but high-quality real-world safety data on the messenger RNA (mRNA)based Covid-19 vaccines remain relatively sparse in the literature.
Reply Quote
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 88planoAg • 8:51p, 8/27/21
Yes, you are looking at the info wrong. Both the vaccine and COVID increase the probability of developing myocarditis compared to the control group; however, the rate of myocarditis appears to be slightly higher in the COVID group compared to the vaccine group, although, the confidence intervals of their risk ratios overlap meaning there is not a statistically significant difference between the two. What we can say; however, is that for the average person in this study population, you are no more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than you are from contracting COVID, although both incidence are rare.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
8:56p, 8/27/21
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.