I honestly don't know what he said because i ignore what any of the talking heads say on any side. it's not a dataset, or a real scientific study, i tend to ignore it. trying to cut out any of the political bias that way. That said, i believe the premise is true that the hospitalization numbers reported will get inflated due to that premise. Looking at the COVID-NET data description (where i sourced this) it isn't clear but looks like the data may be anyone in the hospital with covid, and not be controlling for those in the hospital for covid.

that said though, I have read some pre-prints from S. Africa and UK where they do track that a bit better, and for omicron, they were seeing roughly 1/2 the total covid hospitalizations were incidental and unrelated to covid. In south Africa that was specially focused on kids. so if you assume that holds true to the data set i posted (which is likely an overestimate since my data cuts off pre-omicron and consensus seems that delta was more severe) then you could cut these numbers in half. that would mean the myocarditis risk is 1/5th instead of 1/10th. So while the gap would close, the premise still stands.

harge57 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

gunan01 said:

---

0.03% risk of myocarditis in a 5yo based on that study. Not really worth discussing.

---

Still a Substantially higher risk of myocarditis from the vaccine than a serious Covid case for a 5yo.

---

i'm not making the argument on whether or not the vaccine is worth while for the age group, but your statement here is demonstrably false. here is a plot of the rate of hospitalization rates by age group. this was the percentage chance of being hospitalized with a confirmed covid case, not the whole population risk.

so even if you take the lowest point, on the 5-17 age group, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is less than one tenth the risk of being hospitalized with covid. again, i know both of these are tiny risks, but to say the myocarditis risk from the vaccine is higher is just plain wrong.

---

This seems like you are missing a probability factor of contracting Covid in the first place.

You are also looking at the rate for 5 to 17. The subgroup of 5 to 11 is much lower.

Additionally there are studies showing the following.
"Approximately 18% of children admitted to hospital needed critical care.2 "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32960186/


Rough math should be:
Vaccine Myocarditis is 100% x .05% = .05%
Serious covid case is X% who get COVID x .5% x 18% of hospitalizations that actually need critical care

I'm not sure what that X% is but only 300k 5-11 year olds got covid in 2020.

---

i used the age breakdowns i did because some of my datasets stopped reporting the full age breakdown, so i used what i had. so keeping to 5-17, the 12 month risk of contracting a confirmed case of COVID using the rolling 12 months ending 11/13/2021 was ~8%.

and i'm not "missing" that probability factor, i intentionally let it out because that's not what i was looking at, which is why i clarified what the plot showed. I did that because i wanted to look at "if you get Covid, what is your go forward risk at that point" i left it that way primarily because it's nearly impossible to say what the X% risk is in the future. also, to your 18% i would argue that is possible to have a "serious case of covid" and not need "Critical care". I would say hospitalization is a "serious case" but thats because the word serious is entirely subjective.


and again, i'm not arguing one way or the other for the vaccine, just pointing out, that unless you start introducing a bunch of assumptions to the dataset (some of which may be correct), it is impossible to support the statement "Still a Substantially higher risk of myocarditis from the vaccine than a serious Covid case for a 5yo." with the data currently available.

it's why they won't consider natural immunity as being useful

they want simple numbers on a page with the goal being something approaching 100% of recordable actions

i wouldn't have recommended natural immunity via a delta infection without being vaccinated, but if you got it then you got it and there's immunity attached to that if you made it

NicosMachine said:

---

It appears from the study that Covid vaccines prevent young children from dying from all causes. Very interesting proposition.

Study
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm705152a1.htm?s_cid=mm705152a1_w

Time frame: November 3December 19, 2021 (46 days)
Doses: 8.7 million (Assuming two doses per kid, there were 4.35 million children)
Age group: 5 to 11 (children)
Normal Death rate: 13.4 per 100,000 for that age group
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm
# deaths in study: 2
# myocarditis in study: 15


Over any 46 day period how many children would normally die out of 4.35 million children age 5-11?

13.4/100,000 (normal death rate) x (4.35M kids x (46days/365days ))
= 0.000134 x 705,753.425 = 73

So 73 children out of 4.35 million children age 5-11 would normally die over 46 days, but if they are getting vaxxed, only 2 died, and their deaths weren't even caused by the vaccine. The covid vaccine is a wonder drug that prevents children from dying.

---

I think there are a few issues with this. First, those doses were given over the 46 days, not on day 1. So, median window for adverse effects would probably be somewhere around 23 days rather than 46 (rough estimate, assuming doses are uniformly distributed over that time).

Second, this is going by voluntary data reporting and is not all deaths. The leading cause of deaths in this age group is accidents, followed by cancer. If a kid gets run over by a truck, it probably is not going to get reported in to the dataset. If a kid has terminal cancer, I think it's pretty likely that death won't get reported in either.

corndog04 said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

It appears from the study that Covid vaccines prevent young children from dying from all causes. Very interesting proposition.

Study
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm705152a1.htm?s_cid=mm705152a1_w

Time frame: November 3December 19, 2021 (46 days)
Doses: 8.7 million (Assuming two doses per kid, there were 4.35 million children)
Age group: 5 to 11 (children)
Normal Death rate: 13.4 per 100,000 for that age group
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm
# deaths in study: 2
# myocarditis in study: 15


Over any 46 day period how many children would normally die out of 4.35 million children age 5-11?

13.4/100,000 (normal death rate) x (4.35M kids x (46days/365days ))
= 0.000134 x 705,753.425 = 73

So 73 children out of 4.35 million children age 5-11 would normally die over 46 days, but if they are getting vaxxed, only 2 died, and their deaths weren't even caused by the vaccine. The covid vaccine is a wonder drug that prevents children from dying.

---

I think there are a few issues with this. First, those doses were given over the 46 days, not on day 1. So, median window for adverse effects would probably be somewhere around 23 days rather than 46 (rough estimate, assuming doses are uniformly distributed over that time).

Second, this is going by voluntary data reporting and is not all deaths. The leading cause of deaths in this age group is accidents, followed by cancer. If a kid gets run over by a truck, it probably is not going to get reported in to the dataset. If a kid has terminal cancer, I think it's pretty likely that death won't get reported in either.

---

You make a good point about the "median window for adverse effects". That would substantially decrease reported deaths in the window. Add to that to the lag time in VAERS, which can be months for two reasons: the person reporting it doesn't necessarily do it immediately and there are so many submissions to VAERS that there is a huge backlog in processing submitted reports. Therefore, the number of these reports are clearly conservative. The authors did not explain if or how they accounted for the time lag in reporting events.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

FlyRod said:

---

Salute The Marines, alas f16 permeated this board a long time ago. Thank you for your posts.

---

Yeah - it would be terrible to be exposed to a contradictory opinion!

Most people will take news like this and retreat right back to their corners. And because the risk is so slight for all children (thank God) the unfortunate result is an increase in respective confirmation bias.

Saluters': "See, I dodged that bullet and the vaccine I gave my kid isn't going to harm them!"
Skeptics: "See, I dodged that bullet and didn't give my kid something that could've harmed them!"

Those like KidDoc have the right level of nuance (administer to at risk patients), but unfortunately the policy outcomes are binary (either a schools mandates it or not) which is why those who believe in nuance cringe each time something like this comes out.

---

This was a quote from a moderator when I was banned in December for posting "contrary evidence":

"The Politics forum is where counterpoints and counter narratives are freely discussed.
'Contrary evidence' is a Politics forum topic - not the Covid forum.

Gig 'em!
Moderator"

[See WatchOle's thread stickied at top of this forum on what he wants for this forum. - Staff]

NicosMachine said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

FlyRod said:

---

Salute The Marines, alas f16 permeated this board a long time ago. Thank you for your posts.

---

Yeah - it would be terrible to be exposed to a contradictory opinion!

Most people will take news like this and retreat right back to their corners. And because the risk is so slight for all children (thank God) the unfortunate result is an increase in respective confirmation bias.

Saluters': "See, I dodged that bullet and the vaccine I gave my kid isn't going to harm them!"
Skeptics: "See, I dodged that bullet and didn't give my kid something that could've harmed them!"

Those like KidDoc have the right level of nuance (administer to at risk patients), but unfortunately the policy outcomes are binary (either a schools mandates it or not) which is why those who believe in nuance cringe each time something like this comes out.

---

This was a quote from a moderator when I was banned in December for posting "contrary evidence":

"The Politics forum is where counterpoints and counter narratives are freely discussed.
'Contrary evidence' is a Politics forum topic - not the Covid forum.

Gig 'em!
Moderator"

[See WatchOle's thread stickied at top of this forum on what he wants for this forum. - Staff]

---

I think there is a very strong relationship between "Contrary evidence" and INFORMED CONSENT!

FYI even the CDC website now states myocarditis is a possible side affect, but how often is a parent informed of this prior to making the decision to having their children jabbed?

Quote:

---

We gave every single parent a VIS before vaccine as I hope the pharmacies do as well, they can decide to read it or not. We don't have COVID vaccine in my clinic due to the storage and freezing requirements but when I am asked I certainly inform them of the myocarditis risk.

---

I think I remember you saying a while back that you were wondering if it would reduce the risk of myocarditis if we spaced the shots out like some other countries are doing (I think UK is 12 weeks apart?) Any more data on a longer wait reducing risk of heart issues?

My 9yo girl and 11yo boy got first shots in mid December, then 9yo tested positive on the 26th. They are tight so 11yo has now been thoroughly exposed by her. Wondering about holding off a while on his second shot.

setsmachine said:

---

Quote:

---

We gave every single parent a VIS before vaccine as I hope the pharmacies do as well, they can decide to read it or not. We don't have COVID vaccine in my clinic due to the storage and freezing requirements but when I am asked I certainly inform them of the myocarditis risk.

---

I think I remember you saying a while back that you were wondering if it would reduce the risk of myocarditis if we spaced the shots out like some other countries are doing (I think UK is 12 weeks apart?) Any more data on a longer wait reducing risk of heart issues?

My 9yo girl and 11yo boy got first shots in mid December, then 9yo tested positive on the 26th. They are tight so 11yo has now been thoroughly exposed by her. Wondering about holding off a while on his second shot.

---

No it has not been systemically studied unfortunately. It makes sense that it would decrease the risk of myocarditis and I have been advising my teens with risk factors to space them out by 6 months.

Thanks, that is helpful to know