This study was done at a single hospital. And these guys were smarter than those Brits, because they compared COVID arresters to non-COVID arresters, albeit historically.
In all fairness, it is hard to find too many contemporaneous non-COVID arresters during the pandemic.
So, what was the comparison group to the single-hospital COVID arrester cohort?
Working as a scientist in industry, it took me a long time to understand the differences between the research I do now & the research I did as an academic.
Too many of my colleagues, facing the reality of vaccine-associated myocarditis, are either burying their heads in the sand or throwing up their hands.
In an effort to promote vaccination, they are making what I believe are misguided actions.
I believe vaccination for COVID is our best way back to a normal life. And we need to be honest with people about what we know.
We also need to acknowledge that there is a great deal we can do to minimize the harms of our interventions.
Regarding what we know—we need to be honest about who is affected, and how frequently. We shouldn’t try to make marginally valid comparisons to COVID. The folks you want to persuade won’t believe you anyway. Most people think differently about an active interventions & disease.
Let’s be clear: 2 months of safety data for a new drug or vaccine is at best marginally better than 1 month for identifying acute AEs. And it has almost no power in identifying chronic/long term AEs.
A 2-month cutoff is not a routine cutoff for evaluating AEs in drug or vaccine development.
Of course, all cutoffs are arbitrary to some degree, but there are typical timeframes that are routinely used: eg 1 month, 1 year.
In the setting of a pandemic, we have to weigh potential risks with benefits. Every day we wait to accumulate more data is a day we are not immunizing.