The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid.

Essentially everyone that survives the next couple of years will catch covid.

Honest question: is myocarditis and "heart disease" exactly equivalent for purposes of that assertion? In any case, you would have to subtract the percentage of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine itself, before deciding on the net benefit.

> The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid.

It does?? Where does it say this?

> Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.

We're trying to isolate just one single claim. A claim about myocarditis alone. An article saying that the vaccine reduces complications overall, and is therefore a good choice, does not address the question of myocarditis in particular, and if it is reduced in the vaccinated population.

I don't believe anyone is claiming the vaccine reduces myocarditis on its own, other than by reducing the severity of a future covid infection.

You've found the only sentence in the entire article about vaccination and attached you own meaning to it. If Ardheli wished to convey that severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease Ardheli could have and should have stated so.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, I'm just saying it's not addressed in the article in question. Please be more careful. It's OK to just admit you we're wrong. It's not OK to twist quotations to support your position not matter how valid or righteous you believe it to be.

One has to be incredibly lucky to not get Covid at some point, now that it has become endemic.

That's the point. You're still going to get Covid, so the question is, does having the vaccine reduce the prevalence of myocarditis in Covid patients? If it's the same as in the unvaccinated population, then (ignoring other actual benefits for a moment) taking the vaccine may actually increase your risk of myocarditis, since there is the risk with the vaccine itself, plus the risk once you get Covid.

It makes no sense to only look at the risk of myocarditis. What you really want to know is how likely people in your age group and with similar predispositions are going to have serious health problems or die (i) if they are vaccinated and boostered and are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and (ii) if they are not vaccinated and are exposed to SARRS-CoV-2. The tricky part is the "exposed to" - if you interpret this as a symptomatic breakthrough infection, then you'll bias the study a little bit against vaccination because it seems likely that fully vaccinated people who get breakthrough cases of Covid have previously undiscovered health deficiencies in contrast to those who are vaccinated, exposed to the virus and do not show any symptoms. (I'm talking about a statistical tendency, of course, not all of those people.)

So in the end the most interesting data is still how many vaccinated get serious health problems or die versus how many unvaccinated get serious health problems or die in a time and place where both groups are likely to be exposed to the virus. If the group is large enough and randomly selected, then this should be fairly indicative. Of course, the meaning of "serious" needs to be defined and quantified.

AFAIK, myocarditis can be treated very well when its diagnosed, that alone makes the focus on it strange. Maybe the lesson to draw from the debate is that patients should be informed better so they can identify symptoms of myocarditis and seek medical help early. Just an idea...

Yeah, taking the vaccination reduces the chance of myocarditis. https://theconversation.com/myocarditis-covid-19-is-a-much-b...

I don't see anywhere in that article where it states that myocarditis is less prevalent in patients who subsequently get Covid. Would you mind quoting the relevant bit?

> Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population

Because the vaccinated are not immune to the virus, some of them must have gotten covid. The overall risk of this sample still falls with-in the normal range for myocarditis.

COVID is not endemic.

I see endemic used to mean different things.

I think most people just mean that it is now established and won't go away. That it will be a constant presence in our lives.

I believe epidemiologists also require that infection rates remain roughly constant and don't exhibit wild swings in infection numbers.

I guess we're still in an epidemic.

Epidemiologically, endemic is that the rates of disease are within expectation - for example, there's a statistical threshold for flu every year. There can still be swings - seasonal diseases for example.

There is no sane universe where COVID-19 is endemic from an epidemiological standpoint.

It also doesn't imply that we should stop doing things.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd add that endemic also doesn't mean mild.