While I like his math, this is much simpler than that. Covid induced mydocsrditis are most commonly from those hospitalized in the later stages of infection... most people don't even get to that stage...
You seem to have a hard time realizing that this discussion is about rare incidents of myocarditis that are related to covid vaccines.
The first link you provided, which talks about myocarditis in general rather than its relationship to covid, indicates the condition is generally manageable: "Most cases of myocarditis are self-resolving. Other cases recover several months after you receive treatment. In some cases, this condition can recur and can cause symptoms related to inflammation such as chest pain or shortness of breath." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/myocarditis
Your second and third links don't mention myocarditis, SARS-cov-2, or covid, so they aren't really relevant to this discussion.
The rest of your opinions are unsupported so - while you're certainly entitled to them - they're just your opinions.
To propose that the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis is serious enough to warrant not getting the vaccine is equivalent to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's possible that some people are sincere in their concerns but misinformed. It's also possible they're just vandals, shitposting for the fun of it, or trying to drum up some advertising revenue from their social media pages or some speaking engagements.
Pericarditis and myocarditis dont just magically appear.
Of course not. And the studies so far show that when triggered by covid the risk of getting seriously injured is vanishingly small when compared to the risk of injury from covid.
In comment 6 he reports that the 2nd CDC study "also did not compare the risk of myocarditis from infection vs vaccination." He is ignoring the fact that the AAP article is about the risk to children of myocarditis from covid, not the comparison of the risk of myocarditis from infection vs vaccination. The second study was referenced to show how small the risk of myocarditis from vaccination was. That's all.
In comment 4 Jeremy R. Hammond claims CDC researchers were being dishonest and says in comment 5 that "the 1st CDC study found an increased risk of myocarditis among children in the hospital with a COVID-19 diagnosis compared to hospitalized children without COVID-19.
It did not compare the risk of myocarditis with infection vs vaccination."
So, it did compare the risk of myocarditis with infection vs vaccination. Did he not read that far? Is it possible that he's quibbling about the fact that it was a study from Israel and not the CDC? Link to the Israeli study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Claiming dishonesty is a stretch, and the difference in risk ratio is considerable.
From comment 7 on he continues to ignore the Israeli study and produces some tweets that contradict it. I am unable to find his qualifications for doing this kind of analysis - or relevant credentials of any kind, for that matter - so I'm going to assume that the results from Tel Aviv and Harvard, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine, carry more weight. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Considering you're not vaccinated If 14 days haven't passed since your second dose.
If a child gets myocarditis 3 days after, I would assume these evil fucks would say it's unvaccinated myocarditis.
While I like his math, this is much simpler than that. Covid induced mydocsrditis are most commonly from those hospitalized in the later stages of infection... most people don't even get to that stage...
The vaccines are poison. You're playing Russian roulette with every shot you take.
They don’t lie to you, you just fail to read past the headlines and understand what you are reading.
Perhaps it can be, but the myocarditis acquired from covid is not.
"...the available data indicate that the majority of affected individuals, even if hospitalized, experience relatively mild illness, respond well to conservative treatment, and recover quickly. It is also important to consider that the risk of cardiac complications, including myocarditis, has been shown to be substantially increased following SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that it is higher following infection than after vaccination." https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2021/10/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-ccmoh-update-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-myocarditis-and-pericarditis.html
You seem to have a hard time realizing that this discussion is about rare incidents of myocarditis that are related to covid vaccines.
The first link you provided, which talks about myocarditis in general rather than its relationship to covid, indicates the condition is generally manageable: "Most cases of myocarditis are self-resolving. Other cases recover several months after you receive treatment. In some cases, this condition can recur and can cause symptoms related to inflammation such as chest pain or shortness of breath." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/myocarditis
Your second and third links don't mention myocarditis, SARS-cov-2, or covid, so they aren't really relevant to this discussion.
The rest of your opinions are unsupported so - while you're certainly entitled to them - they're just your opinions.
"The known risks of COVID-19 illness (including complications like myocarditis/pericarditis) outweigh the potential harms of having an adverse reaction following mRNA vaccination, including the rare risk of myocarditis or pericarditis which despite hospitalization, is relatively mild and resolves quickly in most individuals." https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/rapid-response-recommendation-use-covid-19-vaccines-individuals-aged-12-years-older-myocarditis-pericarditis-reported-following-mrna-vaccines.html
To propose that the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis is serious enough to warrant not getting the vaccine is equivalent to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's possible that some people are sincere in their concerns but misinformed. It's also possible they're just vandals, shitposting for the fun of it, or trying to drum up some advertising revenue from their social media pages or some speaking engagements.
Of course not. And the studies so far show that when triggered by covid the risk of getting seriously injured is vanishingly small when compared to the risk of injury from covid.
http://www.bcchildrens.ca/about/news-stories/stories/myocarditis-pericarditis-and-the-covid-19-vaccine
https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/health-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-following-covid.pdf
In comment 6 he reports that the 2nd CDC study "also did not compare the risk of myocarditis from infection vs vaccination." He is ignoring the fact that the AAP article is about the risk to children of myocarditis from covid, not the comparison of the risk of myocarditis from infection vs vaccination. The second study was referenced to show how small the risk of myocarditis from vaccination was. That's all.
In comment 4 Jeremy R. Hammond claims CDC researchers were being dishonest and says in comment 5 that "the 1st CDC study found an increased risk of myocarditis among children in the hospital with a COVID-19 diagnosis compared to hospitalized children without COVID-19.
It did not compare the risk of myocarditis with infection vs vaccination."
But if you read the CDC he is referring to it says quite clearly "A recent study from Israel reported that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with an elevated risk for myocarditis (risk ratio = 3.24; 95% CI = 1.55–12.44); in the same study, a separate analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection was a strong risk factor for myocarditis (risk ratio = 18.28, 95% CI = 3.95–25.12)" https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm?s_cid=mm7035e5_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM64772&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%2031%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM64772
So, it did compare the risk of myocarditis with infection vs vaccination. Did he not read that far? Is it possible that he's quibbling about the fact that it was a study from Israel and not the CDC? Link to the Israeli study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Claiming dishonesty is a stretch, and the difference in risk ratio is considerable.
From comment 7 on he continues to ignore the Israeli study and produces some tweets that contradict it. I am unable to find his qualifications for doing this kind of analysis - or relevant credentials of any kind, for that matter - so I'm going to assume that the results from Tel Aviv and Harvard, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine, carry more weight. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475