Pediatric COVID hospitalizations reports thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

I wasn't trying to say that I thought they were incidental findings. Based on the available data, it certainly looks like it was caused by the vaccine (or COVID infections, in other cases).

What I'm saying is that you're going to find a lot more of these cases depending how hard you look. If you look harder, which includes using more sensitive instruments (like cardiac MRIs), you're going to diagnose a larger percentage of true cases. This was part of the concern about using this data. Studies that looked at myocarditis rates diagnosed using cardiac MRIs brought this up, since it found many more cases than other methods would have. And the VRBPAC brought it up, too. It just means take the data with a grain of salt, particularly when comparing the observed frequency in young boys to the frequency in older adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

there’s zero way I’m giving my 9 yr old boy the adult dosage.

Because you know so much more than those who determine dosing guidelines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

"Concern" can be vastly different things.

I'm sure you could find plenty of scientists that were "concerned" by the NTP study finding an potential association between cancer and exposure to high level of RFR in rats. And they would say it warrants further research. What most credible scientists wouldn't say, however, is that in the interim it would be reasonable to shut down wifi or cell towers, or stop the deployment of 5G.

So sure, if that's what you mean by concerned, then absolutely. We should definitely follow cases of myocarditis to see what happens over time. But for now, there's no reason to think there will be a lasting impact in the vast majority of cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

there’s zero way I’m giving my 9 yr old boy the adult dosage.

Because you know so much more than those who determine dosing guidelines?

There was a meme about how parents who complain about how 5th grade math is too complicated for them suddenly becoming experts in infectious disease and virology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

there’s zero way I’m giving my 9 yr old boy the adult dosage.

Because you know so much more than those who determine dosing guidelines?

I know enough to know that I don't always have to follow the established recommendations. I often discuss with my own doctors to make an informed choice (it's called shared decisionmaking.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

I wasn't trying to say that I thought they were incidental findings. Based on the available data, it certainly looks like it was caused by the vaccine (or COVID infections, in other cases).

What I'm saying is that you're going to find a lot more of these cases depending how hard you look. If you look harder, which includes using more sensitive instruments (like cardiac MRIs), you're going to diagnose a larger percentage of true cases. This was part of the concern about using this data. Studies that looked at myocarditis rates diagnosed using cardiac MRIs brought this up, since it found many more cases than other methods would have. And the VRBPAC brought it up, too. It just means take the data with a grain of salt, particularly when comparing the observed frequency in young boys to the frequency in older adults.

No, you're still misrepresenting this. You're making it sound like they gave cardiac MRIs to all study participants and found extremely minor cases. When what actually happened is that kids with serious symptoms showed up at the ER and were found to have myocarditis (unclear if even diagnosed with an MRI). What's much more likely is that mild cases of myocarditis went unrecorded; not that the cases on record were mild and would not normally have been diagnosed except for additional scrutiny of the vaccines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

"Concern" can be vastly different things.

I'm sure you could find plenty of scientists that were "concerned" by the NTP study finding an potential association between cancer and exposure to high level of RFR in rats. And they would say it warrants further research. What most credible scientists wouldn't say, however, is that in the interim it would be reasonable to shut down wifi or cell towers, or stop the deployment of 5G.

So sure, if that's what you mean by concerned, then absolutely. We should definitely follow cases of myocarditis to see what happens over time. But for now, there's no reason to think there will be a lasting impact in the vast majority of cases.

yeah ... no. you have zero basis to dismiss the concern of long-term impact. you HOPE there is no long-term impact. but you have no way of knowing that. because the trials were not designed to find it.

the 5G comparison seems like a red herring, so not interested in engaging with it.

[Anonymous]

I have not read through the entire thread. My almost 12y old boy is going to get vaccinated soon. He had costochondritis in the past. Is that a risk factor for myocarditis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the entire thread. My almost 12y old boy is going to get vaccinated soon. He had costochondritis in the past. Is that a risk factor for myocarditis?

don't get your medical advice from DCUM. ask your pediatrician

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

there’s zero way I’m giving my 9 yr old boy the adult dosage.

Because you know so much more than those who determine dosing guidelines?

There was a meme about how parents who complain about how 5th grade math is too complicated for them suddenly becoming experts in infectious disease and virology.

+1 There was another meme about people who drink and smoke and take tons of meds suddenly becoming purist about what's in their body when it comes to getting vaccines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

there’s zero way I’m giving my 9 yr old boy the adult dosage.

Because you know so much more than those who determine dosing guidelines?

There was a meme about how parents who complain about how 5th grade math is too complicated for them suddenly becoming experts in infectious disease and virology.

+1 There was another meme about people who drink and smoke and take tons of meds suddenly becoming purist about what's in their body when it comes to getting vaccines.

so now "trust science" means "do all your medical decisionmaking via meme." ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it absolutely certain that pfizer will give 5-11 yr olds 10 mcg? Or is it a good chance they will stick with the 30mcg dose like for everyone else so far? Because there is so much more data for that dose? Has there been any evidence that the 5-11 yr olds already in the trial who got the 30 mcg did poorly? I thought the myocarditis was just in older than 12yr old boys?

We don't have data for younger kids yet. But for older individuals, yes, the 12-17 year-old-boy demographic had the highest observed frequency of myocarditis and pericarditis, estimated at <70 cases per million second doses. Though, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt. When the VRBPAC discussed this, they noted that it doesn't take much to come back with a finding of myocarditis if you go out looking for one. So, if they looked harder for it in kids, of course they'd find a lot more there.

And yes, the Pfizer phase 2/3 trials used 10mcg in the 5-11 group, and 3mcg in the <5 group.

nobody was “looking” for the myocarditis - these kids were presenting with chest pain to the ER. And we have no idea what the long-term impacts are of it.

Really? I've gone to the doctor before with chest pain. Do you know how often I've gotten a cardiac MRI? Never. Most cases would never get diagnosed. But they started doing more cardiac MRIs when reports of myocarditis started coming out, and the cardiac MRI is a much more sensitive instrument than an ECG or echo, or just trying to diagnose off of symptoms.

And while it is technically true that we don't know what the long-term impacts are, that's a very different statement than saying we have reason to actually be worried about long-term impacts.

these were young kids presenting to the ER with unexplained chest pain. I’m not sure they were all dx’ed via an MRI but it absurd to argue that the myodcarditis was some kind of incidental finding.

and of course there’s reason to be concerned about long-term impact. you only have one heart!

I wasn't trying to say that I thought they were incidental findings. Based on the available data, it certainly looks like it was caused by the vaccine (or COVID infections, in other cases).

What I'm saying is that you're going to find a lot more of these cases depending how hard you look. If you look harder, which includes using more sensitive instruments (like cardiac MRIs), you're going to diagnose a larger percentage of true cases. This was part of the concern about using this data. Studies that looked at myocarditis rates diagnosed using cardiac MRIs brought this up, since it found many more cases than other methods would have. And the VRBPAC brought it up, too. It just means take the data with a grain of salt, particularly when comparing the observed frequency in young boys to the frequency in older adults.

No, you're still misrepresenting this. You're making it sound like they gave cardiac MRIs to all study participants and found extremely minor cases. When what actually happened is that kids with serious symptoms showed up at the ER and were found to have myocarditis (unclear if even diagnosed with an MRI). What's much more likely is that mild cases of myocarditis went unrecorded; not that the cases on record were mild and would not normally have been diagnosed except for additional scrutiny of the vaccines.

First, yes we do know many of these were diagnosed using cardiac MRIs. As I said before, the VRBPAC brought it up and you can see it in the journal articles referencing these cases.

I didn't say they gave cardiac MRIs to everyone. I'm suggesting doctors were more likely to order cardiac MRIs on these kids than that would have been earlier in the pandemic because of: 1) early reports of myocarditis in kids after vaccine or infection, and 2) recent journal articles recommending cardiac MRI as a more sensitive tool.

And at least one of those studies on myocarditis (in that case, after infection, rather than vaccination) was recommending cardiac MRIs specifically because it was catching cases that otherwise would have gone undetected.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here. I'm certainly not claiming these were false diagnoses, or that they were incidental to vaccination. I'm saying the true rate of myocarditis in other groups and situations is likely higher than previously observed.