High School Boys Should Not Get Vaccinated

A fair assessment of the direct risks, yes, but you must also consider the direct effects.

Getting a vaccine can't harm anyone around you, and will maybe lead to you missing a day of school/work/training. Getting COVID may harm those around you, perpetuates the pandemic, and would likely lead to you missing a significant amount of school/work/training.

* also consider the indirect effects.

I don't think you're totally "wrong" and your concerns are valid. My understanding is that, from a deep delve into the research on myocarditis and pericarditis risk, it appears to be higher in young people (age 18-24), particularly young males, who have been double vaccinated with Moderna (1/3,800). It is also a risk in those who have been double vaccinated with Pfizer (1/26,000). This is a risk of 0.02% and 0.0038%, respectively, so not even that high. However the risk of developing myocarditis is even SMALLER if only one dose of either vaccine is given. This discrepancy between Moderna and Pfizer could reflect the fact that Moderna is over 3x as potent as Pfizer, which makes sense if you consider this a dose-response relationship.

Why younger males? There's some speculation that vaccine administration techniques may be involved, and that an intravascular injection is far more likely to produce heart inflammation and blood clotting than an intramuscular one. Therefore, some doctors are recommending aspiration before injecting, to ensure the needle is not placed in a small blood vessel. Young males are more likely to have larger and more robust superficial collateral vessels.

I posted links to studies below, which support some of the comments I made above.

Overall I think that the dose should probably be decreased for younger and smaller people, and that we should modify our vaccination technique as described above. It can't hurt to do the latter, and the former will likely get us to a better place, population-wise, faster, while helping to curb ongoing mutations.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475?query=featured_home

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-myocarditis-pericarditis-vaccines-epi.pdf?sc_lang=en

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25784149/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.29.450356v1.full.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927

How are we even still debating this? We are almost two years in and excess deaths and hospitalizations among those 25 and under are still at or below historic averages for this demographic. It hasn't mattered which variant has come and gone, it hasn't matter whether kids were masked, unmasked, or otherwise. I talked to my doctor about this the other day. Basically he felt there was no compelling medical evidence that supported kids getting vaccinated. They should run titers on kids before they vaccinate them, because many likely already have antibodies, which are more effective than vaccination anyhow. The kids with antibodies are the ones most likely to have an adverse reaction to the shot. School districts mandating these vaccines in kids are putting kids at risk, more so than COVID itself.

Read the report. So what? It's just a report of one "expert".

Get the vaccine. That's everyone, including HS boys.

Oh, and you're wrong.

Heart problems?? I suggest the teenage boys get off the "high caffeine" ( Red Bull) drinks for a 30 days before the vaccine !

Yep Pfizer vaccine for males in a younger age bracket has been proven to cause heart issues. So the news says, those people, get Moderna. How convenient of a plug for Moderna amd why is the lying, manipulating news telling g people what to do again?

Remember, they were calling these vaccines safe all along and when problems come up, guess what, these big pharma companies can't be sued for adverse health effects--which proves they don't actually care about your health!!! The fact that children (who aren't affected by covid in general) are being mandated in some areas to get double vaccinated or they can't attend school (AKA they don't actually are about kids) just proves there's ulterior motives in play. Time to wake up.

You are dead wrong. Kids under the age of 18 have died from covid19. Also. kids are already vaccinated for numerous viruses. Also Einstein....you are vaccinated for not only Covid19 but plenty of viruses'. Immunizations work!

347893 wrote:

You are dead wrong. Kids under the age of 18 have died from covid19. Also. kids are already vaccinated for numerous viruses. Also Einstein....you are vaccinated for not only Covid19 but plenty of viruses'. Immunizations work!

It feels like you didn't read OP's post. For example, saying "Immunizations work!" is pointless. OP mentioned getting vaccinated, so not sure what the objective of that statement is.

The point about being vaccinated for other viruses also doesn't address anything in OP's post. I would venture to assume that OP is ok with all of the other vaccines; the post was specifically about the Covid-19 vaccine for adolescent males. If one of those other vaccinations poses a risk of myocarditis to adolescent males, then please provide evidence and explain why the risk isn't something to be concerned about.

These are the types of posts that are just parroting things that have already been said millions of times by other people on social media and forums without addressing any points of debate in a rational way.

GuestUser2017 wrote:

[quote]347893 wrote:

The point about being vaccinated for other viruses also doesn't address anything in OP's post. I would venture to assume that OP is ok with all of the other vaccines; the post was specifically about the Covid-19 vaccine for adolescent males. If one of those other vaccinations poses a risk of myocarditis to adolescent males, then please provide evidence and explain why the risk isn't something to be concerned about.

It really isn't complicated. And comparison to childhood vaccines is relevant, since there are noted risks with everything, and recommendations/requirements take those into account—and the benefits far outweigh risks for childhood vaccines (which nearly everyone accepts) and the covid vaccines. If you really think the risks of the vaccine are anywhere near the risks of the illness, even for high school kids, you are suffering under severe bias or irrational fear or biased, misinformed news consumption.

"CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis."

*reads one sentence of the original post*

"YOU'RE WRONG!!!"

You in no way addressed a single point that OP brought up. Idiot.

Good article about this in the NYT today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/covid-vaccine-hybrid-natural-immunity.html

One of the conclusions is that maybe boys should get one shot instead of two. Especially if they have had COVID. Research is ongoing, and will be for years, so you just have to make your best educated guess about what to do.

This article has a clear anti-vax bias, and it cites one (1) preprint article. LOL. Even so, the rate of hospitalization they cite for covid comorbids is 2x that for vaccine myocarditis. Also, deaths or *permanent damage* from vaccine myocarditis compared with death/permanent damage from illness—where's this comparison?

Yeah, you are wrong.

COVID can wreck a person's body, even young people, even if they don't die. All of the very rare possibilities with regard to the vaccine are MUCH more common to happen if you actually are infected with COVID while unvaccinated. If you are a teenage athlete, or even just a person who wants to be fit and active the rest of your life, you really don't want to get COVID.

This^ is enough right there to get vaccinated, but when then you just make yourself a carrier to others who are vulnerable -- younger children who still can't get vaccinated, immunocompromised people, people who are allergic to ingredients of the vaccines -- we just add another layer. And YES a vaccinated person can contract and pass on the coronavirus, but it is MUCH less likely.

This is going to sound bad but I could not care less:

I am not risking my young son's life to prolong the lives of the elderly. It is not his responsibility to risk a heart attack in order to not "make himself a carrier." Any elderly and/or immunocompromised person who thinks little kids and teenagers have a responsibility to risk heart attacks for them can go pound sand. I seriously do not care about the elderly at all, and the idea that I should is offensive to me. I care about KIDS and YOUNG PEOPLE. Any civilized society would prioritize the young.

Vax Romana wrote:

It really isn't complicated. And comparison to childhood vaccines is relevant, since there are noted risks with everything, and recommendations/requirements take those into account—and the benefits far outweigh risks for childhood vaccines (which nearly everyone accepts) and the covid vaccines. If you really think the risks of the vaccine are anywhere near the risks of the illness, even for high school kids, you are suffering under severe bias or irrational fear or biased, misinformed news consumption.

You probably suspect I'm anti-vax or something. I'm not. Neither is OP based on the post. I am anti-dogma and pro-reasoning through things even if we don't agree. You imply that there are noted risks to other vaccines. That is a reasonable claim (a family member of mine had a very severe adverse reaction to a flu vaccine that resulted in hospitalization). However, I would appreciate you listing a few examples of these vaccines with noted risks if you're going to use that point. I'm sincerely not aware of similar discussion surrounding other popular vaccines for children and teens; maybe, I'm too young to recall if/when those discussions happened.

"If you really think the risks of the vaccine are anywhere near the risks of the illness, even for high school kids, you are suffering under severe bias or irrational fear or biased, misinformed news consumption"

I don't know how to respond to this... I am suffering from looking at the preprint referenced in the article that OP linked. Why is it bad to discuss cost-risk of vaccinating a group of people (male adolescents) that are suggested to be at greater risk of severe effects of vaccination than of covid? That's not the same as being biased, misinformed by news, or being anti-vax. (Article is a prepint, sure. For those who aren't acquainted with academic research, that's becoming a trendy thing to do for covid literature, i.e. posting prepints, since review processes typically take a while, and people want their work to get high exposure. This very well could be approved for publication in the near future.)

If we can say that the vaccine is generally safe for male teenagers, then there is an argument to be made that covid is generally not a threat for teenagers. I understand the concern is that they could pass it on to someone else who is more vulnerable to covid complications. I've also understood that to be the reason why the focus has been on vaccinating the vulnerable, and that has shown to be generally effective. Anyway, the paper is just making the point some discussion on this topic--specifically vaccinating male teenagers--could be warranted.

Flagpole wrote:

COVID can wreck a person's body, even young people, even if they don't die. All of the very rare possibilities with regard to the vaccine are MUCH more common to happen if you actually are infected with COVID while unvaccinated. If you are a teenage athlete, or even just a person who wants to be fit and active the rest of your life, you really don't want to get COVID.

Generally, that's probably right. Severe covid complications are a bigger risk than severe vaccine complications for most groups. The referenced study suggests that is not the case specifically for male adolescents though. That was the point being made by OP.

nearest hippie wrote:

This is going to sound bad but I could not care less:

I am not risking my young son's life to prolong the lives of the elderly. It is not his responsibility to risk a heart attack in order to not "make himself a carrier." Any elderly and/or immunocompromised person who thinks little kids and teenagers have a responsibility to risk heart attacks for them can go pound sand. I seriously do not care about the elderly at all, and the idea that I should is offensive to me. I care about KIDS and YOUNG PEOPLE. Any civilized society would prioritize the young.

"Risk your sons life"

Oh please.

If your son inherits 1/10th of your shortsightedness and penchant for drama he is f**king screwed anyway.

Liberal male logic: I let another man do me in the butt and didn't get AIDS so it was worth doing.

They use the same logic when it comes to vaccines.