"You cannot use cases presenting to health care systems as the denominator, as that is is not the totality of infections." BINGO! ( and the last line....priceless. thank you!)
Comparing "percentage of myo per vaccination" to "percentage of myo per covid infection" is the correct comparison WITHOUT vaccine mandates, because the vaccination rate might be actually low... though never as low as the incredibly low risk of kids catching covid.
However, in most present contexts, the more appropriate question, given *mandates*, which will bring vaccination levels of children close to 90-100%, is to compare "total myo of vaccinated of 5-10" versus "total myo among non vaccinated 5-10". Because, comparing statistical entities of vastly different prevalence (100% vaccination versus 0.001% c19 cases in children) leads to distorted statistical analysis. And we need to publish these numbers each month, to account for the rate of change of vaccination levels in that age group. In the early days, the population size of the unvaccinated group is larger, and at some end point, the population size of the vaccinated will dominate, and somewhere in between, we'll be at a 50:50 vaccinated/non-vaccinated level, which would reveal the most precise myo assessment.
Thirdly, to warrant mandates, it does NOT suffice to demonstrate that one is simply lower risk than the other. In order to mandate a medical treatment, an inefficient one at that, people must retain personal choice unless the benefit outweighs the risk by a very large amount.
One way of reducing myocarditis and probably many other adverse effects of the COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines would be to aspirate the needle in an attempt to ensure that the fluid which is about to be injected stays in the muscle, rather than being injected into a blood vessel where at least some of it will travel quickly to other parts of the body. Such travel to distant tissues is not at all intended and it is easy to imagine ill-effects occurring from this. Aspirating the needle involves inserting it, holding it still and withdrawing the plunger to see if some blood is visible in the syringe. If it is visible, the nurse or doctor starts all over again (thereby discarding the vaccine fluid).
The Li article reports on injecting mice with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine intramuscularly and intravenously. "only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis as evidenced by cardiomyocyte degeneration, apoptosis, and necrosis with adjacent inflammatory cell infiltration and calcific deposits on visceral pericardium, although evidence of coronary artery or other cardiac pathologies was absent." Also: "The histological changes of myopericarditis after the first IV-priming dose persisted for 2 weeks and were markedly aggravated by a second IM- or IV-booster dose. Cardiac tissue mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-1β, interferon (IFN)-β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α increased significantly from 1 dpi to 2 dpi in the IV group but not the IM group, compatible with presence of myopericarditis in the IV group. Ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes was consistently found in the IV group."
The costs and benefits of aspiration during IM injections are controversial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/ . However, this article was written in 2014 and concerned a variety of drugs and vaccines with the typical intention that the muscle physically holds the material and releases it slowly into circulation. These past debates did not contemplate a mass injection campaign in which the injecting material programs our own cells to produce viral spike proteins on their cell membranes, for the express purpose of the immune system developing antibodies against these proteins, and with the inevitable consequence that macrophages destroy these cells.
At the end of September, in Australia, 8 people had been killed by a side effect of the AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine - thrombotic thrombocytopenia - with another 140 people diagnosed and presumably hospitalised. This was from 11.6M doses, with some proportion of these being the second dose - so I guess this was from the first and sometimes the second injection (for which there was a lower risk of this condition occurring) for about 6 million people.
Perhaps this was due, in large or whole part, to vaccine fluid going straight into circulation - the risk of which could have been greatly reduced by aspiration.
If the authorities were doing their job properly, then we would surely know they were considering this research and contemplating ways of reducing harm by making aspiration mandatory. I know of no such reports.
Vaccination is the third best approach to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding, transmission, harm and death. The second best approach is a variety of early treatments, including melatonin, ivermectin, quercetin, zinc. magnesium, vitamin C and B vitamins https://c19early.com - with the most important early treatment of all, for the great majority of people whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are a fraction of the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L required for full immune function, being rapid repletion of 25-hydroxyvitamin D with ~1mg calcifediol (70kg bodyweight). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/ . Calcifediol _is_ 25-hydroxyvitamin D. It goes straight into circulation and boosts levels in 4 hours. Failing that, bolus D3 should be used, though this takes a few days due to the need for hydroxylation in the liver. Please see the research articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
The best single approach to suppressing the pandemic is to supplement properly with vitamin D3 so that most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are 50ng/ml or more, instead of their usual unsupplemented range of 5 to 25ng/ml. Combining this with a handful of early treatments would be far superior, far less expensive, far safer and far more beneficial to general health than this profitable, supposedly sophisticated, risky and not very effective global vaccination program. Nonetheless, people with serious co-morbidities should probably be vaccinated, even if vitamin D replete and able to access several early treatments.
The question to which we want an answer is actually this one:
What is a person's risk of the getting myocarditis from the vaccine compared with the same person's risk of getting Covid when unvaccinated and then getting myocarditis as a result?
If one is even comparing the risk of serious illness between a vaccine and the disease, then any argument as to the safety of that vaccine has been lost.
As a database programmer who would otherwise do some analysis on this topic, I find it impossible to justify donating my time addressing this. There are two reasons.
The FDA benefit/risk breakdown does not acknowledge that the efficacy of the vax breaks down after about 5 months and then it goes negative. Studies of the UK and Israel data show this.
The test for infection is notoriously bad. The PCR tests should not have been used, and when they were used they were done badly. Reporting from the field was bad also.
To really test the efficacy, benefits and risks, controlled studies are needed. The slap-dash way the vax was released with bad testing and bad controls make it impossible to get good numbers for evaluation. The argument from gov't is that the vax is good, and it is up to someone else to prove it isn't. How can you prove it's bad when you are prevented from having credible data to work with? The whole thing stinks.
Thank you for replying and I don't dispute your point at all! But also don't follow how it is germane to the question I raised? Severity of myocarditis could be parameterized and applied equally to both sides of the comparison, whatever level you choose.
I and several other commenters here seem to be saying/asking the same thing: the terms of the comparison you set out seems biased in favor of the vaccines "winning", because it implicitly assumes the choices are get vaccinated or get covid. For, say, a boy with pre-existing immunity in an area with low transmission the ~6-month risk of him getting covid must be near zero, right? So the vaccine myocarditis risk is "all risk."
I use ~6 months but fill in whatever length of protection is provided by the vaccine before it wanes and another shot (i.e. another round of risk) is required.
And another question - why aren't scientists falling over each other to publish research on mechanisms that cause myocarditis from either the vaccine or natural infection?
My understanding is this happens in other similar viruses with their own versions of spike proteins. Wonder if there is a way to study it by proxy to get around out radioactive this can be.
Any sense of if it's more likely to be autoimmune or direct damage from spike? If the former, then an all or nothing effect seems possible. If the latter, then I am concerned there are many with subclinical damage.
I also suppose there could be some autoimmune causes as well as direct spike damage.
I'm not a Doctor but have completely immersed myself in this topic since Delta scared me and my wife back into our bubble. Naturally I have opinions but they are short of the conviction I would like to have. I had conviction back when I thought more likely than not the vaccine was safer than an infection, at least for older people. But this spike protein information feels like it changes the game. Studies finding the infection spike can do damage on its own....ok then what about the vaccine versions? And now I'm tilted against the official narrative because I feel they've been obscuring the numbers when it comes to risk to children. So I'm a bit vaccine hesitant. My father-in-law is a virologist so naturally my wife is full speed ahead for vaccines.
Dishonest data manipulation and flawed study design have bothered me at every step of the way in every aspect this and many other population health issues. Without accurate data and legitimate risk analysis, all you get is fear-mongering and marketing hype.
A simple question, but pointless. What we care about is the risk the vaccine presents vs. the risk COVID presents. Taking a particular potential AE / complication and comparing them in a vacuum is pointless.
Jim - not pointless! You are asking a much more massive question, which requires knowing the individual risk of each AE in order to calculate. At this point our government apparently doesn't even have clear data on this partiicular side effect, which is easier to diagnose than many potential other AEs.
So in the end you are correct I suppose, but let's start somewhere (and myocarditis seems a very good place to start)
Myocarditis is not a good place to start. It rarely occurs and goes away in a matter of days without the need for medical treatment. It's a red herring that sounds way scarier than it is.
I do think I'll probably pay for your substack, but I had already paid for several others before you starting publishing here more, so I'm still considering.
Anyway, great quick post. I always appreciate your thoughtful approach.
It's refreshing to hear someone say they don't know everything. Do you have an estimate?
The CDC estimates 150 per million (for all age groups) - how of do you think that they are?
You state that we don't know the denominator, which is a big problem. How accurately do we know the number of myocarditis cases caused by infection (the numerator) in the same age groups?
Regarding the denominator - what range of seroprevalence is estimated? It always seems to be lower than we hope.
Another question - Is there any clinical difference between myocarditis cases caused by vaccination and those caused by infection?
Thanks Dr. Prasad! You're one of the few people I trust to act in good faith. I have 2 boys, one in each of rhe age groups you mention and rely on you for sound information.
I'd like to this number. Then on top of this is the concern that this isn't the only long term side effect of infection or vaccination. Then I'd love it broken down by severity of case with infection. Is it reasonable to presume that a mild infection, short of hospitalization, so maybe as bad as a fever, may have less long term effects than a sever infection? Is it possible vaccination is less harmful than aymptomatic infection? Then mild 2 day runny nose? Then 2+days of fever? Etc.
But I don't have much time. I'm slated to have my 5 and 7 year olds vaccinated this Friday. I'd love to know average level of isolated spikes in blood after vaccination vs infections of various severity as well. Throw troponin measures in there as well.
Why not wait for more of information? The vaccine will still be available two months from now and we’ll know more about side effects. Unless of course you’re being mandated.
While I'm nervous my wife and virologist father-in-law are not. I don't have enough conviction to hold this up. Not when factoring in timing concerns both with the holidays, and the fact last year at this time we had a wave start. (I'm in NJ, the uptick started earlier last year but I think it stayed warmer later and its now getting cold) If we delay I'll be on the hook if they get infected. I was asked what do I think will really change between now and mid-December. I suspect most likely nothing.
It is tough for me to tell if my lack of conviction is a lack of courage or the fact there is a lot of uncertainty. Juggling small statistics of risk of infection vs vaccination isn't lending itself to overruling my wife, my father-in-law, the CDC, the FDA, most of our friends and family that we know.
Fair enough. I’m lucky my husband and I are on the same page on this one. I’m biased because this spring I was sure I was going to get J&J, but I wanted to wait a few weeks and was very glad I did as it turned out as I’m exactly the wrong demographic for it.
Fwiw I don’t think you’d be overruling the FDA, I listened to most of the panel discussion (you can find on YouTube) and many of their remarks cast doubt on whether this is necessary for all kids. In fact they asked to vote on just high risk kids first and we’re told they had to approve for all or none.
Maybe a compromise would be to space out the doses? Monica Gandhi’s recommendation is eight weeks for better immunity and the FDA panel also stated the three week interval is sub-optimal. Our school district reports cases by vaccination status and the overwhelming majority of cases are in vaccinated kids, virtually all the middle school cases. Which is odd because they were vaccinated more recently.
you have a good point about the FDA panel. I haven't watched all of it but hearing some people talk and raise concerns helped engender some trust in me. I talked to my father-in-law and he started of with...well it as 17-0 vote. And my wife, from talking me, was, well yeah but there were some concerns about healthy kids vs those comorbidies. Maybe I need to deep dive in that some more.
Oh and I think it be interesting to review antibody ratios of myocarditas patients. Could there be a optimal ratio of Spike protein antibodies vs other antibodies? I keep asking this on Twitter and various substacks hoping it can happen, or an appropriate expert, immunologist I take it, can tell me why this line of thinking isn't that important.
In practical terms of cost for a local health authority, how much do seroprevalence of a large cohort cost, please? What is the cost of a seroprevalence test for an individual male child, youth, approximately, please? Thank you.
Vinay, at risk of overdoing it (since I dropped a comment requesting it on YT already), I want to plead a case for you to interview Dr. Peter McCullough. I'm a patient (pre-pandemic) and I've messaged him as well. Please make it happen!
lack of a denominator has been a concern of mine in almost every report on Covid especially 'cases' but 'cases' drive headlines and move governments into lockdowns and masks and vaccines. I'm curious if cases keep rising what are the total cases reported in a country? Have we seen 330 million cases in the US yet? The other number I love to watch people squirm over is the rising Covid death count - every headline quoting the death count will use the words 'continuing to climb' as if we should expect it to end or maybe reverse.
"You cannot use cases presenting to health care systems as the denominator, as that is is not the totality of infections." BINGO! ( and the last line....priceless. thank you!)
Comparing "percentage of myo per vaccination" to "percentage of myo per covid infection" is the correct comparison WITHOUT vaccine mandates, because the vaccination rate might be actually low... though never as low as the incredibly low risk of kids catching covid.
However, in most present contexts, the more appropriate question, given *mandates*, which will bring vaccination levels of children close to 90-100%, is to compare "total myo of vaccinated of 5-10" versus "total myo among non vaccinated 5-10". Because, comparing statistical entities of vastly different prevalence (100% vaccination versus 0.001% c19 cases in children) leads to distorted statistical analysis. And we need to publish these numbers each month, to account for the rate of change of vaccination levels in that age group. In the early days, the population size of the unvaccinated group is larger, and at some end point, the population size of the vaccinated will dominate, and somewhere in between, we'll be at a 50:50 vaccinated/non-vaccinated level, which would reveal the most precise myo assessment.
Thirdly, to warrant mandates, it does NOT suffice to demonstrate that one is simply lower risk than the other. In order to mandate a medical treatment, an inefficient one at that, people must retain personal choice unless the benefit outweighs the risk by a very large amount.
"though never as low as the incredibly low risk of kids catching covid."
Since when kids have an incredibly low risk of catching covid?
Alex - I'm going to try to help Tracy by saying she meant to say the incredibly low risk of kids having a severe outcome from covid. 😏
i think the "low risk" is that they don't get severe illness, not that they don't catch it.
One way of reducing myocarditis and probably many other adverse effects of the COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines would be to aspirate the needle in an attempt to ensure that the fluid which is about to be injected stays in the muscle, rather than being injected into a blood vessel where at least some of it will travel quickly to other parts of the body. Such travel to distant tissues is not at all intended and it is easy to imagine ill-effects occurring from this. Aspirating the needle involves inserting it, holding it still and withdrawing the plunger to see if some blood is visible in the syringe. If it is visible, the nurse or doctor starts all over again (thereby discarding the vaccine fluid).
Evidence for and discussion of this can be found in Li et al.: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927 , Knowlton: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab741/6359059 and Merchant: https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/06/postgradmedj-2021-141119 .
The Li article reports on injecting mice with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine intramuscularly and intravenously. "only IV group developed histopathological changes of myopericarditis as evidenced by cardiomyocyte degeneration, apoptosis, and necrosis with adjacent inflammatory cell infiltration and calcific deposits on visceral pericardium, although evidence of coronary artery or other cardiac pathologies was absent." Also: "The histological changes of myopericarditis after the first IV-priming dose persisted for 2 weeks and were markedly aggravated by a second IM- or IV-booster dose. Cardiac tissue mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-1β, interferon (IFN)-β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α increased significantly from 1 dpi to 2 dpi in the IV group but not the IM group, compatible with presence of myopericarditis in the IV group. Ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes was consistently found in the IV group."
The costs and benefits of aspiration during IM injections are controversial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5333604/ . However, this article was written in 2014 and concerned a variety of drugs and vaccines with the typical intention that the muscle physically holds the material and releases it slowly into circulation. These past debates did not contemplate a mass injection campaign in which the injecting material programs our own cells to produce viral spike proteins on their cell membranes, for the express purpose of the immune system developing antibodies against these proteins, and with the inevitable consequence that macrophages destroy these cells.
At the end of September, in Australia, 8 people had been killed by a side effect of the AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine - thrombotic thrombocytopenia - with another 140 people diagnosed and presumably hospitalised. This was from 11.6M doses, with some proportion of these being the second dose - so I guess this was from the first and sometimes the second injection (for which there was a lower risk of this condition occurring) for about 6 million people.
Perhaps this was due, in large or whole part, to vaccine fluid going straight into circulation - the risk of which could have been greatly reduced by aspiration.
If the authorities were doing their job properly, then we would surely know they were considering this research and contemplating ways of reducing harm by making aspiration mandatory. I know of no such reports.
Vaccination is the third best approach to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding, transmission, harm and death. The second best approach is a variety of early treatments, including melatonin, ivermectin, quercetin, zinc. magnesium, vitamin C and B vitamins https://c19early.com - with the most important early treatment of all, for the great majority of people whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are a fraction of the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L required for full immune function, being rapid repletion of 25-hydroxyvitamin D with ~1mg calcifediol (70kg bodyweight). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/ . Calcifediol _is_ 25-hydroxyvitamin D. It goes straight into circulation and boosts levels in 4 hours. Failing that, bolus D3 should be used, though this takes a few days due to the need for hydroxylation in the liver. Please see the research articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
The best single approach to suppressing the pandemic is to supplement properly with vitamin D3 so that most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are 50ng/ml or more, instead of their usual unsupplemented range of 5 to 25ng/ml. Combining this with a handful of early treatments would be far superior, far less expensive, far safer and far more beneficial to general health than this profitable, supposedly sophisticated, risky and not very effective global vaccination program. Nonetheless, people with serious co-morbidities should probably be vaccinated, even if vitamin D replete and able to access several early treatments.
The question to which we want an answer is actually this one:
What is a person's risk of the getting myocarditis from the vaccine compared with the same person's risk of getting Covid when unvaccinated and then getting myocarditis as a result?
If one is even comparing the risk of serious illness between a vaccine and the disease, then any argument as to the safety of that vaccine has been lost.
As a database programmer who would otherwise do some analysis on this topic, I find it impossible to justify donating my time addressing this. There are two reasons.
The FDA benefit/risk breakdown does not acknowledge that the efficacy of the vax breaks down after about 5 months and then it goes negative. Studies of the UK and Israel data show this.
The test for infection is notoriously bad. The PCR tests should not have been used, and when they were used they were done badly. Reporting from the field was bad also.
To really test the efficacy, benefits and risks, controlled studies are needed. The slap-dash way the vax was released with bad testing and bad controls make it impossible to get good numbers for evaluation. The argument from gov't is that the vax is good, and it is up to someone else to prove it isn't. How can you prove it's bad when you are prevented from having credible data to work with? The whole thing stinks.
Dr. Prasad I have heard you reference p1 and p2 before, why ignore it here?
To get Covid-myocarditis you need to get covid first, right? Whereas when you get the vaccine there is a 100% chance you get the vaccine.
The apples to apples comparison is...
N-month going forward risk of a boy getting covid (remember: a lot of existing immunity) TIMES risk of that covid leading to myocarditis.
Where N is the number of months until booster / vaccine protection wanes.
Just having myocarditis is meaningless. In most vaccinations it's a temporary condition that doesn't require any medical treatment.
Thank you for replying and I don't dispute your point at all! But also don't follow how it is germane to the question I raised? Severity of myocarditis could be parameterized and applied equally to both sides of the comparison, whatever level you choose.
I and several other commenters here seem to be saying/asking the same thing: the terms of the comparison you set out seems biased in favor of the vaccines "winning", because it implicitly assumes the choices are get vaccinated or get covid. For, say, a boy with pre-existing immunity in an area with low transmission the ~6-month risk of him getting covid must be near zero, right? So the vaccine myocarditis risk is "all risk."
I use ~6 months but fill in whatever length of protection is provided by the vaccine before it wanes and another shot (i.e. another round of risk) is required.
"most vaccinations it's a temporary condition" - Evidence? See https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html along with https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001001. In most vaccinations there would be no immediate symptoms. Whether later onset symptoms get VAERS reporting is problematic.
And another question - why aren't scientists falling over each other to publish research on mechanisms that cause myocarditis from either the vaccine or natural infection?
My understanding is this happens in other similar viruses with their own versions of spike proteins. Wonder if there is a way to study it by proxy to get around out radioactive this can be.
Dennis - good idea.
Any sense of if it's more likely to be autoimmune or direct damage from spike? If the former, then an all or nothing effect seems possible. If the latter, then I am concerned there are many with subclinical damage.
I also suppose there could be some autoimmune causes as well as direct spike damage.
I'm not a Doctor but have completely immersed myself in this topic since Delta scared me and my wife back into our bubble. Naturally I have opinions but they are short of the conviction I would like to have. I had conviction back when I thought more likely than not the vaccine was safer than an infection, at least for older people. But this spike protein information feels like it changes the game. Studies finding the infection spike can do damage on its own....ok then what about the vaccine versions? And now I'm tilted against the official narrative because I feel they've been obscuring the numbers when it comes to risk to children. So I'm a bit vaccine hesitant. My father-in-law is a virologist so naturally my wife is full speed ahead for vaccines.
Dishonest data manipulation and flawed study design have bothered me at every step of the way in every aspect this and many other population health issues. Without accurate data and legitimate risk analysis, all you get is fear-mongering and marketing hype.
A simple question, but pointless. What we care about is the risk the vaccine presents vs. the risk COVID presents. Taking a particular potential AE / complication and comparing them in a vacuum is pointless.
Jim - not pointless! You are asking a much more massive question, which requires knowing the individual risk of each AE in order to calculate. At this point our government apparently doesn't even have clear data on this partiicular side effect, which is easier to diagnose than many potential other AEs.
So in the end you are correct I suppose, but let's start somewhere (and myocarditis seems a very good place to start)
Myocarditis is not a good place to start. It rarely occurs and goes away in a matter of days without the need for medical treatment. It's a red herring that sounds way scarier than it is.
According to the three month follow-up data presented at the ACIP meeting half the myocarditis cases still have symptoms three months later.
Citation(s) needed.
Unlocked article! 😊 Thank you!!
I do think I'll probably pay for your substack, but I had already paid for several others before you starting publishing here more, so I'm still considering.
Anyway, great quick post. I always appreciate your thoughtful approach.
It's refreshing to hear someone say they don't know everything. Do you have an estimate?
The CDC estimates 150 per million (for all age groups) - how of do you think that they are?
You state that we don't know the denominator, which is a big problem. How accurately do we know the number of myocarditis cases caused by infection (the numerator) in the same age groups?
Regarding the denominator - what range of seroprevalence is estimated? It always seems to be lower than we hope.
Another question - Is there any clinical difference between myocarditis cases caused by vaccination and those caused by infection?
Thanks Dr. Prasad! You're one of the few people I trust to act in good faith. I have 2 boys, one in each of rhe age groups you mention and rely on you for sound information.
I'd like to this number. Then on top of this is the concern that this isn't the only long term side effect of infection or vaccination. Then I'd love it broken down by severity of case with infection. Is it reasonable to presume that a mild infection, short of hospitalization, so maybe as bad as a fever, may have less long term effects than a sever infection? Is it possible vaccination is less harmful than aymptomatic infection? Then mild 2 day runny nose? Then 2+days of fever? Etc.
But I don't have much time. I'm slated to have my 5 and 7 year olds vaccinated this Friday. I'd love to know average level of isolated spikes in blood after vaccination vs infections of various severity as well. Throw troponin measures in there as well.
Why not wait for more of information? The vaccine will still be available two months from now and we’ll know more about side effects. Unless of course you’re being mandated.
While I'm nervous my wife and virologist father-in-law are not. I don't have enough conviction to hold this up. Not when factoring in timing concerns both with the holidays, and the fact last year at this time we had a wave start. (I'm in NJ, the uptick started earlier last year but I think it stayed warmer later and its now getting cold) If we delay I'll be on the hook if they get infected. I was asked what do I think will really change between now and mid-December. I suspect most likely nothing.
It is tough for me to tell if my lack of conviction is a lack of courage or the fact there is a lot of uncertainty. Juggling small statistics of risk of infection vs vaccination isn't lending itself to overruling my wife, my father-in-law, the CDC, the FDA, most of our friends and family that we know.
Fair enough. I’m lucky my husband and I are on the same page on this one. I’m biased because this spring I was sure I was going to get J&J, but I wanted to wait a few weeks and was very glad I did as it turned out as I’m exactly the wrong demographic for it.
Fwiw I don’t think you’d be overruling the FDA, I listened to most of the panel discussion (you can find on YouTube) and many of their remarks cast doubt on whether this is necessary for all kids. In fact they asked to vote on just high risk kids first and we’re told they had to approve for all or none.
Maybe a compromise would be to space out the doses? Monica Gandhi’s recommendation is eight weeks for better immunity and the FDA panel also stated the three week interval is sub-optimal. Our school district reports cases by vaccination status and the overwhelming majority of cases are in vaccinated kids, virtually all the middle school cases. Which is odd because they were vaccinated more recently.
you have a good point about the FDA panel. I haven't watched all of it but hearing some people talk and raise concerns helped engender some trust in me. I talked to my father-in-law and he started of with...well it as 17-0 vote. And my wife, from talking me, was, well yeah but there were some concerns about healthy kids vs those comorbidies. Maybe I need to deep dive in that some more.
There might be another option soon.
https://ocugen.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/ocugen-inc-announces-submission-emergency-use-authorization/
Oh I would be so happy if they would authorize this.
Oh and I think it be interesting to review antibody ratios of myocarditas patients. Could there be a optimal ratio of Spike protein antibodies vs other antibodies? I keep asking this on Twitter and various substacks hoping it can happen, or an appropriate expert, immunologist I take it, can tell me why this line of thinking isn't that important.
In practical terms of cost for a local health authority, how much do seroprevalence of a large cohort cost, please? What is the cost of a seroprevalence test for an individual male child, youth, approximately, please? Thank you.
Vinay, at risk of overdoing it (since I dropped a comment requesting it on YT already), I want to plead a case for you to interview Dr. Peter McCullough. I'm a patient (pre-pandemic) and I've messaged him as well. Please make it happen!
lack of a denominator has been a concern of mine in almost every report on Covid especially 'cases' but 'cases' drive headlines and move governments into lockdowns and masks and vaccines. I'm curious if cases keep rising what are the total cases reported in a country? Have we seen 330 million cases in the US yet? The other number I love to watch people squirm over is the rising Covid death count - every headline quoting the death count will use the words 'continuing to climb' as if we should expect it to end or maybe reverse.