Vaccines: Heart Issues Risk vs. What We Know

COVID's Real Casualty? Trust in the Numbers

The Numbers Game: Infection vs. Vaccination

A new study involving nearly 14 million children in England has dropped, and it’s reigniting the debate about COVID-19 vaccines and their potential side effects. The headline? The risk of heart and blood vessel issues is higher after a COVID infection than after vaccination. But as always, the devil's in the details.

The study, which looked at data from the National Health Service (NHS) from January 2020 to December 2021, found some pretty stark differences. For kids aged 5-18, there were 17 extra cases of inflammatory conditions like Kawasaki disease per 100,000 after a first infection. Compare that to nearly 2 fewer cases per 100,000 after the first Pfizer/BioNTech shot. Myocarditis? Two extra cases per 100,000 post-infection, versus less than one extra case after vaccination.

Now, let's be clear: both infection and vaccination carry risks. But the scale seems to be different. During the study, 3.9 million kids got the Pfizer jab, and 3.4 million were diagnosed with COVID for the first time. The infection rate is high, and the risks associated with it appear higher still.

The study also claims that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes for at least six months after vaccination. It's a bold claim, and I'd want to dig into the specifics of that data before giving it my full endorsement (specifically, what age groups are we talking about, and what were the pre-existing conditions?).

The Myocarditis Narrative: A Case Study in Perception

The problem is, numbers alone don't always win the day. Remember the myocarditis concerns? Reports of vaccine-triggered myocarditis, even though usually mild, caused enough concern to delay the UK's rollout of vaccines to younger kids until April 2022. Perception, fueled by anecdotal reports and amplified by social media, can outweigh statistical realities.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: Why did reports of vaccine-related myocarditis gain so much traction, while the higher risks associated with actual infection seemed to fade into the background? Was it a matter of timing? (Reports of COVID-19 infections causing myocarditis were published as early as April 2020, vaccinations began in December 2020, after which reports of vaccines triggering myocarditis emerged.) Or was there something else at play – a pre-existing skepticism about vaccines that made people more receptive to negative news?

It's like the old saying: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." In this case, the "lie" wasn't necessarily a deliberate falsehood, but rather a disproportionate focus on one particular risk, obscuring the broader picture.

I've looked at hundreds of these reports, and this particular focus on myocarditis is unusual. It's not that the concern is unwarranted, it's that the concern is disproportionate relative to the actual data. Covid raises risk of heart issues in children more than vaccination - New Scientist

The real casualty here isn't necessarily public health – the vaccines still seem to be doing their job, on balance. The real casualty is trust. Trust in the numbers, trust in the institutions that generate those numbers, and trust in the experts who interpret them.

A Crisis of Confidence, Not Just Contagion

The data is clear: COVID-19 infection poses a greater risk to children's cardiovascular health than vaccination. But if people feel the opposite is true, then the numbers are almost irrelevant.