> Det här är väldigt osäkra data från en preliminär studie, så vi har inte pekat på någon särskild nivå. Vi har fått ta del av den här studien från Läkemedelsverket och ser att det finns en skillnad mellan de vaccin som finns tillgängliga och då menar vi att det i nuläget är bättre att vi använder det vaccin där man inte ser de här signalerna, säger statsepidemiolog Anders Tegnell till TT.
Translation (my own): These are highly insecure measurements from a preliminary study – there is no established certainty. This study was recieved from Läkemedelsverket [translation: Medical Products Agency] which acknowledges there is a difference between available vaccines. Our opinion is that we currently should use a vaccine where we cannot correlate these types of indications [personal remark: relations to myocarditis], says Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell to TT [ref: media]
Apparently there's like two millions of cases of myocarditis globally, so on average you'd probably expect tens of thousands of cases among 177M people. In what way would 145 cases be embarrassing for "normal figures"? I'd expect that a medical miracle would be praised at that point.
Quite a lot of health impacts globally are unevenly distributed locally. I don’t know the local numbers either, but I’d caution against extrapolating from global numbers.
You're comparing yearly numbers to a one/two shot event. A relevant timeframe needs to be selected, otherwise you may as well use cases/people/hour (0.2 .. 2 case per 177Mp·h) or cases/people/decade (18k..180k cases per (177Mp·decayear)).
Article says most cases happen within a few days from second shot. Guesstimating at 5 days, we get 1800..1800/365*5 => 25..250 cases per 177Mp·5d.
145 cases would be around the number of otherwise expected cases, if measured on a population level. Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences (EDIT: during the relevant 5 days after 2nd shot).
Still likely less than those expected from covid infection (didn't do math).
I'm not quite sure how this is relevant here. The vaccination is not going to be repeating with a larger than annual frequency. And the vaccinations themselves happen throughout the year anyway, so how does it matter how much the side effect is delayed? The side effect is also going to be happening throughout the year; it's not like 177M people are going to be vaccinated on the same day, which is what you seem to be assuming for some reason.
> Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences.
No, absolutely not. Definitely not according to your flawed reasoning.
Why a year? Why not daily? The vaccinations happen throughout the day. Why not per lifetime? You can only get the second dose once. I could pick any interval, either customary (hourly, daily, monthly) or completely arbitrary (per 47 seconds) and get any number as a result. If you can't argue why a per-year incidence is the proper number and not any other, then that by itself disproves the validity of the approach. You can't just pick an arbitrary number for what is effectively a scaling factor and say works for me.
I wanted to compare vaccination occurrences with regular ones. Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days. I.e. how likely is one to get vaccine carditis vs. background carditis during the same or equivalent time.
Sorry about the last paragraph. I meant vaccine carditis vs. non-vaccine for young males during the same time one would be at risk from vaccine carditis. Mainly as a sanity check for the signal-to-noise ratio.
> Why a year? Why not daily? The vaccinations happen throughout the day.
Because vaccinations take months, perhaps up to a year. In my country it's been at least half a year by now and we're at something like 55-60% of the population.
> Why not per lifetime? You can only get the second dose once.
Lifetime makes it an even worse comparison for natural myocarditis since you can get that in any year of your life. (But if need arises in the future for annual boosters against new strains or something like that, chances are that annual risks will again be the number to look for.)
> I could pick any interval, either customary (hourly, daily, monthly) or completely arbitrary (per 47 seconds) and get any number as a result.
You can pick garbage methodology and get garbage results, agreed. You can do pretty much what you want.
> Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days.
Which is a complete red herring since how do you know that other kinds of myocarditis don't happen a few days after the initial viral infection as well? Either delay is completely irrelevant since shifting infections of individuals in time does nothing to overall statistics of incidence.
..which links to https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/sv/nyheter/covid-19-mrna-vac...
..which in turn seems to point here: https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/4a0b25/globalassets/dokument...
..which references EMA & EES which are European that states "145 cases of myocarditis out of 177M dosis of Comirnaty".
Have anyone else found a better source?