Moderna CEO Defends Pricing Plans for Covid-19 Shot (wsj.com) 128
Moderna Chief Executive Stephane Bancel pushed back against criticism of the company's pricing plans for its Covid-19 vaccine at Wall Street Journal Health Forum. From the report: U.S. politicians including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Peter Welch (D., Vt.) have questioned the company's strategy around commercial pricing, which could be unveiled in the coming months. Moderna received funding from the U.S. government related to development of its Covid-19 vaccine. The chief executive said the company's mRNA platform was funded by investors, not the government, and the public funding accelerated development of the vaccine. "We didn't get a penny,â Mr. Bancel said of Moderna's fundraising efforts, adding that the company unsuccessfully sought funding in the first half of 2020 from countries and foundations to help with manufacturing. He said a company plant was built before the pandemic by private funding.
Moderna has said it is considering pricing its Covid-19 vaccine in a range of $110 to $130 a dose in the U.S. when it shifts from government contracting to commercial distribution of the shots. Mr. Bancel on Monday declined to say what the price will be. He said the company has plans so that the vaccine won't cost anything to individuals. After promising early-stage data of the shot came out, Moderna raised money, which it put toward manufacturing doses of the vaccine, still without knowing whether it would work, Mr. Bancel said. The company worked with suppliers to increase manufacturing, he said.
Moderna has said it is considering pricing its Covid-19 vaccine in a range of $110 to $130 a dose in the U.S. when it shifts from government contracting to commercial distribution of the shots. Mr. Bancel on Monday declined to say what the price will be. He said the company has plans so that the vaccine won't cost anything to individuals. After promising early-stage data of the shot came out, Moderna raised money, which it put toward manufacturing doses of the vaccine, still without knowing whether it would work, Mr. Bancel said. The company worked with suppliers to increase manufacturing, he said.
La révolution française (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to consider the French solution to these Oligarchs.
There won't be a single stink raised over this. A substantial portion of the US population didn't even want the Covid shots when they were free. Of the folks who do want booster #... uh... what number are we up to now anyway? Yeah, those people who have insurance won't notice a difference, and those who don't have insurance are used to getting fucked in the ass by the for-profit healthcare industry anyway at this point.
Re: La révolution française (Score:2)
Isn't this a shot that has a limited shelf life, has very particular temperature requirements, and is a bit more complex than simply pouring compounds into a vat, stirring it up and putting it in a tablet?
Seriously, they are talking LIST PRICE, insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmacies will pay significantly less than that, and the vast, VAST majority of Americans will pay $0 out of pocket as their insurance company picks up the (reduced) bill. The poor/uninsured can go to gov't funded clinics, or go t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Tragedy of the Commons", I believe they call it. Every CEO wants the OTHER CEOs to pay their workers enough to have purchasing power. History is repeating its self.
Re: (Score:3)
Henry Ford also got sued, by the Dodge brothers, for paying his workers instead of paying a large dividend, and lost with the court ruling that the interests of share holders came before the workers.
Subsequently he took his company private so he could pay enough to avoid the unions and stay on track to have a monopoly.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.ed... [harvard.edu]
Re: The French already are (Score:1)
Did the King need to make money? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: The French already are (Score:2)
Re:The French already are (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the 1% an inch they'll take everything. They won't stop at 64 any more than they stopped at 67 in America. They're already talking 70 here. 75 will be next. Then 80. All the while they'll take about privatizing Social Security while slashing your wages so you can't save a dime.
It's interesting how the few people (the 1%) that, let's be honest, don't actually really work, are so intent on keeping the rest of us (the 99%) working until we die. I wonder how'd they fare if all the people working for them, doing all the things they don't themselves, stopped? Probably why the rich want to keep the poor(er), poor and dependent.
Re:The French already are (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the 1%. It's more like the .01%, or the ~10,000 families that own half of everything just in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how'd they fare if all the people working for them, doing all the things they don't themselves, stopped?
The oligarchs thought of that quite awhile ago. This is why we have a credit score system. Get uppity, fall behind on your bills, and you get a 7 year time-out from participating in a significant portion of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how'd they fare if all the people working for them, doing all the things they don't themselves, stopped?
The oligarchs thought of that quite awhile ago. This is why we have a credit score system. Get uppity, fall behind on your bills, and you get a 7 year time-out from participating in a significant portion of the economy.
It's good to be the King(s). Maybe we should all be oligarchs -- oh, wait...
Re: The French already are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When people stop working, important things stop happening. People, including the entirety of the working class, need these important things to keep happening. Or, you know, they starve. Or don't get necessary medical services. Or go without power. Or whatever.
So the drive to keep people working isn't some sort of control-for-the-sake-of-control psychopathy, its the grim reality that civilized life requires quite a lot of labor. So, any economic system that endures longer than a week is going to have s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eliminate the tax break given to the wealthy ~ the cap of $160,200 ~ and all Medicare funding issues vanish instantly. Again, another problem is created because the wealthy are gifted tax breaks, which shifts the burden on the lower and ever shrinking middle class.
Same thing with Social Security. Right now only the first $160K is taxed to contribute. If all income was taxed there wouldn't be any issue with funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Eliminate the tax break given to the wealthy ~ the cap of $160,200 ~ and all Medicare funding issues vanish instantly. Again, another problem is created because the wealthy are gifted tax breaks, which shifts the burden on the lower and ever shrinking middle class.
Same thing with Social Security. Right now only the first $160K is taxed to contribute. If all income was taxed there wouldn't be any issue with funding.
Social Security would be financially solvent right now if certain senators around 1980 hadn't converted all of that Social Security cash into government bonds that need to be paid off. That is how we paid for Star Wars, taking all of the money that the "boomers" paid into Social Security and converting it into the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ever since that moment, every single fucking cent I have paid to Social Security went to paying the boomers back their money... now who will pay me back? Fucking thie
Re:The French already are (Score:4, Informative)
Eliminate the tax break given to the wealthy ~ the cap of $160,200 ~ and all Medicare funding issues vanish instantly. Again, another problem is created because the wealthy are gifted tax breaks, which shifts the burden on the lower and ever shrinking middle class.
There isn't a cap on Medicare taxes like there is for Social Security. From https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/... [irs.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
But it's based on wages, not income.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there is a capital gains Medicare component. Capital Gains are exempt from Social Security though.
Re:The French already are (Score:5, Informative)
The cap is on Social Security Wages. And it's quite simple why that exists: because social security pays out relative to what you contribute. Therefore the wealthy would in fact get much more than the poor from social security because they'd contribute more. So the criticism of Social Security would simply shift too "it's a program for the wealthy" rather than "it's underfunded because of the wealthy".
Medicare tax is in fact not capped at all, as someone below me pointed out. So your conclusion of "wealthy tax breaks cause funding issues in Medicare" isn't supported by facts.
And in fact, you can easily argue that the problems with Social Security and Medicare or any socialized welfare or healthcare system around the world can also be chalked up to A) people living longer and retiring at the same age, thus requiring more funding per person and B) fewer workers in their 20's, 30's and 40's contributing to the fund. Which goes to the core issue with Social Security and Medicare in general: it's a government perpetuated Ponzi Scheme, that takes in money from the current working class and gives it to the retired class. As designed, those programs work as long as there are fewer people taking out than those that are putting in. But when you look at the demographic changes in the developed world, it quite clearly shows that many countries with the exception of the US (because of immigration) have an inverted demographic (France [wikimedia.org], Japan [wikipedia.org], Germany [wikimedia.org], United States [wikipedia.org] to name a few); fewer workers are providing into the pool because fewer kids were born and older people are living longer and thus more people are drawing on the program.
In fact, to go back to the original point, it's no wonder what's going on in France. They can't support people retiring at 62 when less then half the country is under 40. You'll have 1 worker supporting 2+ retirees before you know it, let alone the cost of raising children. So I get why those people are demonstrating; but the French government is basically saying too bad, this is non-negotiable [france24.com]. As designed, pension programs like Social Security and Medicare for healthcare are effectively unsustainable without a growing population, which carries many issues of it's own. All of these programs are unsustainable in virtually all projections when you look at macroeconomic and demographic trends; it's only a question of when they fail, not if, and no amount of "tax the wealthy" is going to solve the inherent issues.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some parts right and some parts miss the mark.
The cap on the Social Security payout and the cap on the tax don't have to be directly tied together. It's generally assumed in these talks that we're only talking about increasing the cap on the tax.
Medicare's problems are because our general policies are that we should do a little to help the poor, but not too much, and we should always complain about how much we do. We intentionally underfund Medicare. The parties only differ in how drastically the
Re: The French already are (Score:1)
Privatized benefits donâ(TM)t have the drawback of arbitrary government control. If you want to raid your 401k, you can do that at any time, if youâ(TM)re in a midlife crisis, you can retire tomorrow and if youâ(TM)re really careful you may even be able to survive with a few minimal side jobs. Social security benefits currently returns at an annual rate between -2 and 2%, given inflation is 10%, itâ(TM)s going to be losing money. Your 401k gives at least 5-8% or well over 15% if you inve
In other news, Moderna folds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My annual flu shot is at no cost to me.
If your annual flu shot is free to you, it means your insurance company is paying for you. Otherwise you would have paid $25-$110 for the vaccine depending on which of the nine flu vaccines approved for the 2022/23 season you took. If you have insurance, your Covid vaccine is likely to be no additional cost over your insurance premiums as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am up to date on my shots but will wait and see when fall rolls around. My annual flu shot is at no cost to me.
Just guessing, but if the COVID booster is considered "preventative", like the Flu shot is, then it will probably be covered by insurance, like the Flu shot is.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how can they make a case for that pricing when so many won't take them when offered for free? I am up to date on my shots but will wait and see when fall rolls around. My annual flu shot is at no cost to me.
They're charging your insurance company about the same price for the flu shot as they're proposing for the COVID shot. Your pharmacist will give you the COVID shot for free and bill your insurance company for it, just like they do for flu shot.
This is how for profit healthcare with a private insurance system works. The cost of everything is massively inflated because there are many layers of people in the chain that all need to make a profit. There's a reason most countries don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
have you seen how much money United Healthcare has made last few years? It dwarfs the Oil companies big time.
United Healthcare made $324 billion in 2022. Exxon Mobile made $399 billion and Shell made $381 billion in the same year. Some state run oil companies like Saudi Aramco made much more than that. United Healthcare had a 5.75% net profit margin (NPM), while Exxon Mobile had a 13.32% NPM and Shell had a 10.28% NPM.
So United Healthcare is huge, but it doesn't dwarf the oil companies. It has lower top line revenue and less than half of the profit of the two largest oil companies.
Coveniently ignoring.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we've had all those mRNA vaccines since then right? Oh wait no, because the government funding 23 years ago did not provide a 20 year long R&D fund.
There's a lot to be angry about, e.g. that if they are pricing the vaccine at over $100 in the US you know the real price is closer to $10, because that's US medicine for you, but the reality is if you want socialised development of medicine then you should do that, and actively run with it, not rely on a for profit company who mixes investments
Re: (Score:2)
This is an inherent problem with the way the US government doles out "help" in the way of funding for special problems. Thus far it's all pretty much been, "Big business screams, US government sucks its dick, hands it billions, kowtows a bit, then backs away groveling." At some point, there should probably be a step added in there. "hands in billions if it signs contracts to guarantee either complete payback, or profit sharing on results, legally binding, in perpetuity." You wanna see lower taxes? Have thes
Re: (Score:2)
SARS-CoV-1 sparked the research into coronaviruses. We spent years on that and that's how we figured out to focus on the spike protein. By the time we figured it out, SARS-CoV-1 died out on its own. mRNA research has been going on for a while too, but not necessarily directly related to the coronavirus work. We've been fairly confident in the mRNA approach for a while, but didn't have a good test case until SARS-CoV-2 hit. Building the production facilities costs billions, so you needed a really good case t
Re: Coveniently ignoring.... (Score:1)
mRNA funding was started by Fauci around the HIV crisis in the 80s. It hasnâ(TM)t been proven effective to find a vaccine for HIV or any other evolving diseases it has been tried against (including H1N1 and COVID).
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA vaccine research started in the 70's, not in the 2000's (even before modern internet!). However, it took a global pandemic to get the massive influx of cash needed to make it a viable option.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2... [jhu.edu]
The Truth Is Out There (Score:2)
But the actual truth might be a combination of facts ending in "All of The Above"
When the factory was build should be a clear matter found in public records. That should clearly decide some facts.
That Moderna chose to use that factory to manufacture mRNA vaccines for Covid-19 is their choice, not the government, unless the Feds mandated the use of that factory for that purpose.
How and when Moderna developed it's own mRNA technologies could be a matter for litigation...in order to get the truth into the pub
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the only thing that matters legally or morally is the terms they accepted when they received the money. If the terms say they have to provide the vaccine free forever, then they have to. If the terms don't say that, they can charge whatever they want, legally and morally, even if the vaccine development was *entirely* publicly funded.
We don't ask SpaceX to give us free launches. NuScale is developing its small modular reactors with a combination of grants, loan guarantees, and public price guarant
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the only thing that matters legally or morally is the terms they accepted when they received the money. If the terms say they have to provide the vaccine free forever, then they have to. If the terms don't say that, they can charge whatever they want, legally and morally, even if the vaccine development was *entirely* publicly funded.
I agree on legality. Morality, however, is subjective. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. There is an argument to be had that something illegal is antimoral. However, there are arguments about that. It's ultimately up to everyone to decide if it's moral or not, and people don't have to agree. For large businesses, morality comes down to whatever is best for the company.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree morality and legality are two different things -- which is why after all I specified both -- that doesn't make morality subjective. At the very least, it depends on what you mean by that.
For large businesses, morality comes down to whatever is best for the company.
I doubt you believe that all the way through to all of its potential consequences. If it were advantageous for a corporation to murder someone in a way that couldn't be traced back to them, would that be moral *because it was useful*?
Ethics is an extremely complex subject, and there are multiple, fundamental
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree morality and legality are two different things -- which is why after all I specified both -- that doesn't make morality subjective. At the very least, it depends on what you mean by that.
I mean it quite literally. Morality is subjective. There is a social consensus to morality, but there is no truly objective morality. In the context of pricing for vaccines, there definitely isn't a firm consensus to the morality. Overpricing vaccines would be considered putting profit above public health and safety. While I'm not saying they should be obligated to put public health and safety first, I am saying it's generally considered amoral/antimoral to put profit well above public health and safety. No
Re: (Score:1)
Really, the only thing that matters legally or morally is the terms they accepted when they received the money. If the terms say they have to provide the vaccine free forever, then they have to.
Haha. Yeah, because "legality" has always been *so* prized in the pharma industry. :)
Here's what actually happens in the "they have to" scenario:
OG Covid now represents well under 1% of cases, quite possibly 0% at this point. The "new" vaccine is different, "because it is" [#1], so you either pay up or you get what might as well be water. Also, we can't provide the OG vaccine anyway, because we're not manufacturing any, and asking us to is unreasonable and a violation of our corporate free speech rights, et
Only if insurance pays for it (Score:1)
Bancel, Merieux and Wuhan (Score:1, Flamebait)
Heh, small world.
Re: (Score:2)
This is becoming total BS (Score:2)
It is time to change a few things on our R&D:
1) federal government and university gets part ownership in the tech.
2) all of the work needs to remain in America.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderna is an American company. It didn't "spring up" it's been around for 13 years and was founded by MIT and Harvard professors, plus some business types, to develop RNA treatments for various diseases.
Biotech researchers would *love* if governments funded translation of lab discoveries to actual treatments. Taxpayers would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Payback first ... (Score:2)
Pay back the funding given by the US Government, by Dolly Parton, by many others... when and only when you have repaid all this do you get to charge people
eli5 please (Score:2)
They plan on pricing it at 100-130 per shot.
They plan that "this won't cost anything to individuals."
I'm not asking for someone to eli5 that pair of statements, what I'd like to understand is if there are people in the world who read that and go "oh, ok then" as if that's not a blatant contradiction?
How is there not IMMEDIATE push back from anyone with a brain hearing it?
demand/supply (Score:2)
Let them make the shot $1000: a) the vaccine is no longer compulsory b) there are alternatives on the market.
Repeal their liability waiver (Score:2)
Unless the pricing is at government purchasing levels
Re: (Score:3)
$110-$130 per shot is in range with what a flu vaccine costs to an uninsured, although right at the top of the range. Insurance companies are likely to negotiate the price down significantly.
But that doesn't mean the price for flu shots are reasonable either. We are talking about $5-10 billion per year in revenue in the US only for vaccines which only cost a few hundred million to manufacture (if you believe numbers claimed by Bernie Sanders). A 95%+ gross profit for the vaccines seems obscene, but I don't
Re: (Score:3)
Vaccines tend to be a marginal or money losing business, unless there's something like a pandemic and a lot of people get it. The worry is not that things like the annual flu vaccine cost too much, it's that companies will stop making it because it's a capital intensive money loser.
Prices in the US get inflated because of the layers of middlemen and marketing that have to get paid. Not to mention you have to have some padding so you can give your big customers their customary discount.
Re: (Score:2)
The worry is not that things like the annual flu vaccine cost too much, it's that companies will stop making it because it's a capital intensive money loser.
Which is why things like this should be developed, owned and sold by public entities entirely. Yes, I am saying we should nationalize vaccine development. Antibiotics too.
This whole dance to get private companies to make enough money to maybe make stuff that we really, really need is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with publicly owned is eventually someone/group will get in power who doesn't believe in public ownership or through bribery, and will sabotage it, point out that it doesn't work and give it away to a private company.
Re: (Score:2)
See also: pretty much anything done by a Tory government in the UK in the last 40-50 years.
Rail system? "Sold" to party donors for pennies on the dollar. *Water* infrastructure? Likewise. Gas, oil, and electricity? Yes, yes, and yes.
National healthcare is next: they've been actively sabotaging it for at least 20 years now, and it's well past the tipping point where it's been degraded enough that the privatization plans won't cause much of uproar (other than among the poors, who don't count). I'd give 50-50
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like it should be part of our constitution that any technology developed with public funding can not be sold to private companies except via a super-majority vote, and then only to non-profits corporations. Likewise, no exclusive access licensing agreements can be made that would prevent access to those technologies by the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is a problem with how you run your government, not with whether publicly owned or privately owned is fundamentally better for these things.
It is defeatist and irrational to distrust government, throw up your hands and say: "Well, I guess we'll just have to let greedy corporations run everything. There is nothing else we can do."
Re: $110 to $130 a dose... That's obscene! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Moderna is an American company though, and the US believes private enterprise is the best way. It's dishonest to insist that private companies develop, test and manufacture something then bitch about how much they charge. If you don't like it, create some other options. And yes, I think governments' funding of some research into things like vaccines and then abandoning them to the whims of the private sector as soon as they look promising is especially shortsighted.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU and US should get together than just buy out vaccine development. Nationalize it, make vaccines available at cost to everyone. In Europe most vaccines are free to citizens anyway.
Treat it like infrastructure. Vaccines are vital for our economies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I think drug development in general would be something that could be done by an international body, but vaccines are especially appropriate.
Since H1N1 a bunch of vaccine makers are already supported as national security infrastructure in case of a pandemic. A public vaccine organization could put that just-in-case capability to work making new vaccines in the meantime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've had two shots of Moderna and one of Pfizer. I couldn't even feel the needles going in. Then mild, expected, side-effects for a few days, and that was it. This is the experience of most people. 90% of people in Victoria double-vaxxed. We haven't #DiedSuddenly.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't even feel the needles going in.
I had the J&J shot. My arm was sore like a bitch after that, and I had a wicked headache over the next 24h that I ended up having to just say "screw it" and take some ibuprofen for.
Still beats potentially dying of Covid, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Still don't regret taking it though; getting another booster next week. Covid being a mild head cold once is not guarantee it would be again, especially with how much it's mutated since 2020.
Re: (Score:1)
If that was your reaction to the vaccine then you would likely have died from actual covid.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was your reaction to the vaccine then you would likely have died from actual covid.
Source? That seems rather unlikely to me and I can't think how you would have collected the clinical evidence to support it. The effects inducing mortality are obviously different or you would also have to claim that anyone who dies of COVID would have died of receiving a vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the lucky people for whom the vaccine was much worse than covid (which I got before the vaccine came out), most of it due to the 105 degree fever, although it only lasted 16 hours vs 4 days of stuffiness from covid.
Yours is not the first time I've heard of that happening. On of my friends caught Covid right near the beginning of the pandemic from a woman he was seeing at the time, and he ended up with a completely asymptomatic infection. I can't recall if he got the Pfizer or Moderna shot, but he had a rough go of things (fever/chills and headache) from the vaccine and had to call out from work for a day (and the ironic thing was, he was doing WFH at the time so he was feeling too ill to work even at home).
My partne
Re: (Score:2)
By any chance did you get one of the adenovirus based vaccines?
The adenovirus based shots are basically the covid spike protein grafted onto a benign virus usually only found in chimps. Recent research is showing that some small percent of people have been previously exposed to those adenoviruses, and sometimes their immune systems overreact when they see it again.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Money shot:
Our data suggest that there is no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls. Further longer-term studies will be needed to estimate the incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one full of shit.
There's no Suddenitis. Are you really that stupid that you'd fall for a crappy "documentary" that uses footage of people before 2020?
Re: (Score:1)
Facts are irrelevant, only the narrative and fealty to the tribe matters.
It's simultaneously hilarious and horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
You are more at risk from myocarditis and clots from getting COVID itself, and at greater severity, as unvaxxed people and people with breakthrough infections are finding out, dumbass.
Factually incorrect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
I've had two shots of Moderna and one of Pfizer. I couldn't even feel the needles going in.
Anecdotes are worthless regardless of which narrative they support.
Re:Myocarditis (Score:4, Interesting)
You are more at risk from myocarditis and clots from getting COVID itself, and at greater severity, as unvaxxed people and people with breakthrough infections are finding out, dumbass.
Factually incorrect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
You are good at finding the outlier studies. There's been a LOT of studies showing COVID infections to increase your risk of heart problems. Here's 3 to start.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
https://academic.oup.com/cardi... [oup.com]
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
One of the more interesting ones is this study using data from March 2020-January 2021 (read: essentially no one was vaccinated) showing that myocarditis rates were 16x higher in people who got infected with COVID than people who didn't.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are good at finding the outlier studies. There's been a LOT of studies showing COVID infections to increase your risk of heart problems. Here's 3 to start.
The specific claim made is Myocarditis from covid infection is worse than vaccination.
Here is another involving tens of millions of people.
https://www.ahajournals.org/do... [ahajournals.org]
~90 excess myocarditis events per million in men under 40 after second dose.
~16 excess myocarditis events per million in men under 40 with a positive covid test prior to vaccination.
A population study of school children.
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
One of the more interesting ones is this study using data from March 2020-January 2021 (read: essentially no one was vaccinated) showing that myocarditis rates were 16x higher in people who got infected with COVID than people who didn't.
I don't have much faith in CDC studies. Especially after their series knocking natura
Re: (Score:2)
You are good at finding the outlier studies. There's been a LOT of studies showing COVID infections to increase your risk of heart problems. Here's 3 to start.
The specific claim made is Myocarditis from covid infection is worse than vaccination.
And you responded with a study claiming their is no increase in myocarditis after COVID infections. It's a fluke outlier. There's been many many studies showing a huge increase in mycarditis in general starting in March 2020, and that tie it to COVID infections. I trivially found 4 studies that contradicted it. More come out on a regular basis nowadays since it's such a hot topic of discussion.
I don't have much faith in CDC studies. Especially after their series knocking natural immunity only for the CDC to contradict itself two months later. Their products are not peer reviewed and "early release" appears to be an excuse for sloppiness. They don't even bother adjusting for confounding variables other than age. There is a selection bias in the use of patient databases and people being hospitalized /w covid being obese, diabetic and other pre-existing health issues. They didn't even try and they admit it.
"Fourth, underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded. . Fifth, the obtained measures of association could be biased because of the choice of the comparison group (all patients without COVID-19) and if physicians were more likely to suspect or diagnose myocarditis among patients with COVID-19."
It's one of many that come to the same conclusions. The 16x multiplier is higher than most, but not completely out
Re: (Score:2)
And you responded with a study claiming their is no increase in myocarditis after COVID infections. It's a fluke outlier. There's been many many studies showing a huge increase in mycarditis in general starting in March 2020, and that tie it to COVID infections. I trivially found 4 studies that contradicted it. More come out on a regular basis nowadays since it's such a hot topic of discussion.
I provided three studies not just one. You of course are free to disregard whatever does not comport to your assumptions.
Something everyone should keep in mind it is no longer 2020. Today virtually everyone has acquired immunity and has almost certainly been (repeatedly) exposed to an inherently less severe variant of the virus whether they realize it or not. What was true in 2020 is not applicable to todays world.
It's one of many that come to the same conclusions. The 16x multiplier is higher than most, but not completely out of line. The difference might be due to some of the reasons you suggested. It might be because the data they used is limited to the earliest strains of the virus, whereas most studies used larger time frames with more variants in play. It might be because myocarditis is extremely rare and it doesn't take many cases to make a large multiplier.
I provided multiple large studies showing the opposite is true involving hundreds of thousa
Re: (Score:2)
I provided three studies not just one. You of course are free to disregard whatever does not comport to your assumptions.
Something everyone should keep in mind it is no longer 2020. Today virtually everyone has acquired immunity and has almost certainly been (repeatedly) exposed to an inherently less severe variant of the virus whether they realize it or not. What was true in 2020 is not applicable to todays world.
Your studies don't say what you think they done. One straight out concludes in the introduction that myocarditis risk is higher after COVID infection than after vaccination. The other limited the study to mostly male high school students, which is known to be more or less the peak of risk, and found one case of very mild myocarditis that went away on its own. The cases they detected were all only noticed because the study ran ECG tests on all participants. None of these cases were bad enough that the people
Re: (Score:2)
Your studies don't say what you think they done. One straight out concludes in the introduction that myocarditis risk is higher after COVID infection than after vaccination.
I know what it says. I was originally made aware of it by someone who had cited it to refute one of my earlier claims on this topic. I cite it here for two reasons.
1. Massive numbers of people.
2. Clear signal of much larger heart inflammation vaccine injury beyond covid infection in males under 40. A group widely known to be at highest risk of heart inflammation due to vaccine cause.
The other limited the study to mostly male high school students, which is known to be more or less the peak of risk, and found one case of very mild myocarditis that went away on its own. The cases they detected were all only noticed because the study ran ECG tests on all participants.
None of these cases were bad enough that the people would have sought treatment on their own. It's proving that vaccine side effects are so minimal that you won't notice them unless you're trying really hard to find them.
"Abnormal ECGs were obtained in 51 (1.0%) of the students, of which 1 was diagnosed with mild myocarditis and another 4 wer
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ahajournals.org/do... [ahajournals.org]
Conclusions:
Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh... you may want to read your own link again:
https://www.ahajournals.org/do... [ahajournals.org]
The numbers I cited come from table 4 of the study.
Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses
Not if you happen to be male and 40 years of age or younger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what the word "overall" means?
It means medical malpractice.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
You are more at risk from myocarditis and clots from getting COVID itself, and at greater severity, as unvaxxed people and people with breakthrough infections are finding out
That may be contingently true - depending on age, gender, type of shot, and comorbidies. If the person you are replying to is a young male getting Moderna, it is not:
In men younger than 40 years, we estimate an additional 4 (95% CI, 2–6) and 14 (95% CI, 5–17) myocarditis events per million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 14 (95% CI, 8–17), 11 (95% CI, 9–13) and 97 (95% CI, 91–99) myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively. These estimates compare with an additional 16 (95% CI, 12–18) myocarditis events per million men younger than 40 years in the 1 to 28 days after a SARS-CoV-2–positive test before vaccination (Table 4; Figure).
-- Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex [ahajournals.org]
mRNA-1273 here refers to Moderna. That's 111 events/million at 95% confidence if you get both shots of Moderna compared to 16 if you get COVID. Pfizer is also ~2x the incidence of COVID.
In another Nordic study 23 million residents publis [jamanetwork.com]
Re: Myocarditis (Score:2)
That claim has since been disproven by science. The shot for people under 55 is linked to a 30% increase in death from myocarditis. COVID does not link to higher cases of myocarditis or death in people under 40.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine.
Re: (Score:1)
Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
https://www.ahajournals.org/do... [ahajournals.org]
There are newer studies as well now that we have longer data, the risk remains high and in children even grows with each booster shot. You get COVID
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Myocarditis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I had the boosters, it was still the going hypothesis that having a mix was alright, and in some cases gave stronger immunity. Certainly, the official advice in Australia is that it's okay to have a mix of Moderna and Pfizer.
In my case, only Pfizer was available for my third shot.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Covid causes that too but you know.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't seem to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
I love how everyone is suddenly a statistician when it comes to covid.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sequitor much?
Re: (Score:2)
Cram “woke” in there and my card gets punched.