Connect with us


The Everything Bubble And What It Means For Your Money

The Everything Bubble And What It Means For Your Money

Authored by Colin Lloyd via The American Institute for Economic Research,

In the aftermath of the Black Plague which swept across Europe between 1347 and 1353, wiping out between 30…



The Everything Bubble And What It Means For Your Money

Authored by Colin Lloyd via The American Institute for Economic Research,

In the aftermath of the Black Plague which swept across Europe between 1347 and 1353, wiping out between 30 and 60% of the population, the European economy changed dramatically.  

Source: Jeremy Norman –

The Black Plague had a lasting socioeconomic impact; for example, towns and cities emptied, and the sudden reduction in the labour force saw wages rise. Meanwhile attitudes towards death – and life – changed. The Latin phrase, carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero – seize the day, place no trust in tomorrow – epitomised this profound shift in attitudes.

The current pandemic, whilst utterly tragic, has been far less catastrophic, but due to the policy response it too appears destined to leave its mark in changing patterns of living and working. Unlike the 1350’s, however, where the changing price of goods and services signalled imbalances in supply and demand, the valiant monetary and fiscal actions of governments and institutions have distorted this price discovery mechanism. 

During the first months of the lockdown, economic growth declined and the price of many equities – and even bonds – fell rapidly. Central banks responded, as they had during the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008/2009, by cutting interest rates, or, where interest rates could be cut no further, by increasing their purchases of government bonds and other high grade securities. As a result of these purchases, major central banks balance sheets have swollen to $29trln:

Source: Yardeni, Haver Analytics

The effect of central bank actions has spilled over into a ballooning of global money supply: –

Source: Yardeni, Federal Reserve

Governments, cognizant of the limitations of their central banks, also reacted, providing loan guarantees, supporting the furloughing of employees and sending direct payments to the rising ranks of the unemployed. The chart below, which is from July 2020 and therefore does not account for the recent US $1.9trln spending package, nor the $2trln infrastructure proposal, shows the scale of these endeavours in comparison to the fiscal largesse of the GFC: –

Source: McKinsey 

The impact of lower interest rates, buying of bonds and increased fiscal spending might be expected to have inflationary consequences but it has been leaning against the headwind of sharply rising global unemployment: –

Source: World Bank

The rise in unemployment was itself a response to a dramatic decline in economic growth: –

Source: Yardeni

US unemployment data is beginning to improve but, as the IMF WEO April 2021 reveals, Europe may take much longer to respond. Euro area unemployment is expected to rise from 7.9% in 2020 to 8.3% in 2022. Forecasting unemployment, however, together with many other economic variables, has become much more challenging since the variance between estimates has expanded: –

Source: Federal Reserve

Savings Surge

A natural side effect of rising unemployment, furloughing of staff, together with reduced mobility and economic activity, during the waves of pandemic lockdowns, has been a rise in household savings: –

Source: S&P Global, ONS, Eurostat, Federal Reserve

The initial recipients of this spring tide of excess savings were the banks: –

Source: Federal Reserve, BEA, Eurostat, Japan Cabinet Office, Statistics Canada

Oxford Economics estimates that US savings rose $1.6trln, Eurozone households added Euro470bln and those of the UK, £170bln. Estimates from Moody’s put the figure even higher, suggesting that the global pool of excess savings may now have reached $5.4trln – roughly 6% of global GDP. Since we are only interested in the impact of ‘excess savings’ rather than ‘all savings,’ the next chart is informative. It shows the monthly change in US savings: –

Source: Federal Reserve, BEA

What will be done with these pools of saving? They may remain in bank accounts, be used to pay down debt, spent on goods and services or invested. In a recent article – What Is behind the Global Jump in Personal Saving during the Pandemic? The Federal Reserve reveals the impact during Q1-Q3 last year: –

Source: Federal Reserve, BEA, Eurostat, Japanese Cabinet office, Statistics Canada

Debt Binge

The next chart shows global debt and the debt to GDP ratio: –

Source: IIF, BIS, IMF, National sources

Such estimates probably underestimate financial sector debt and do not account for OTC derivatives, which, according to the Bank for International Settlements have a net value of $609trln.

Setting aside derivatives, here is a breakdown by debt type for a selection of larger countries: –

Source: IIF, Deutsche bank, Visual Capitalist

During 2020, relative to GDP, government debt rose from 89% to 105%, and financial sector debt to a more moderate 81%. Meanwhile, non-financial private sector debt swelled to 165% and non-financial corporate debt to 100%, helped by debt moratoria and loan guarantee programs. Many large firms, particularly in the U.S. and Japan, increased borrowing simply to bolster their cash holdings. Despite rising savings, household debt even managed to increase, from 61% to 65% of GDP, encouraged by cheap mortgages and the resilience of residential real estate: –

Source: The Economist, OECD, Land Registry, S&P CoreLogic

Elected government officials will be afraid to stem these price rises, as they hope that homeowners will feel wealthier which should feed through, eventually, to consumption. A belated exception is New Zealand, which extended its ‘bright-line test’ to reign in price increases which hit 23% annualised in March. This smacks of window dressing, as increasing the time an investment property must be held in order to gain tax breaks, from 5 years to 10, is hardly aggressive. Meanwhile, to avoid political censure, they have also introduced incentives for first-time buyers, desperate to get on the first rung of the property ladder. The UK government response to rising residential property prices has been more predictable, allowing the maximum loan to value to rise to 95%, creating an even more leveraged residential market. 

Of course the price of housing also responds to changes in supply. This is the picture in the US, where, despite feverish building activity, the supply of existing homes remains severely constrained: –

Source: Goldman Sachs, NAR, III Capital Management

The purchasers of this dwindling supply of residential real estate look increasingly like the ‘haves’ rather than ‘have nots’ – 14% of all US mortgage applications made in February were for second homes, compared to just 7% in April 2020. Similar patterns are evident in other countries. Little wonder, then, that household debt has risen.

If household savings are not being used to pay down debt, that leaves three choices; continued saving (in other words lending to the banks at near zero interest), consumption or investment. The rising price of stocks and resilience of bonds suggests savings are flowing into liquid asset markets: –

Source: CNBC, BoA, EPFR Global

Bond markets are more difficult to gauge, as they are not the retail investors’ first port of call. However, central banks continue to expand their balance sheets and the majority of the assets they purchase remain government and agency bonds. Meanwhile, many institutions are required to maintain liquidity in their portfolios, making them reluctant buyers of fixed income securities despite negligible or negative real yields. 

Other assets have also increased in price, including an array of commodities and cryptocurrencies. Some of this price appreciation is due to supply constraints but in many instances demand is driving prices higher. This may be because investors fear that the combination of fiscal and monetary expansion, combined with supply chain constraints and trade tensions, will awaken the slumbering giant inflation. This picture must be tempered, for as money supply has expanded dramatically, its velocity has continued to decline. The chart below shows US M2 but similar patterns are evident in other developed markets: –

Source: Federal Reserve

The US Treasury Bond market, led by the eponymous bond vigilantes, took flight in February and March: –

Source: Trading Economics

The bond market regained composure thanks to the palliative tone of the Federal Reserve, elegantly expressed in a recent speech by Governor Lael Brainard – Remaining Patient as the Outlook Brightens (emphasis mine): –

…The emphasis on outcomes rather than the outlook corresponds to the shift in our monetary policy approach that suggests policy should be patient rather than preemptive at this stage in the recovery.

Many developed market government bonds remain close to the zero bound, yet yields have risen from their nadir at the end of 2020. As of 2nd March a mere 17% of sovereign issuance enticed investors with a negative yield to maturity: –

Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg

The quest for yield, which has driven investors into riskier assets for more than a decade, continues to provide an alternative to low or negative-yielding government paper. The dark blue line on the chart below shows the narrowing of the credit spread of BBB corporate bonds even as US 10-year yields rose: –

Source: Amundi, Bloomberg

This yield compression is seen even more starkly in the spread between US 10-year and 30-year US mortgages: –

Source: Federal Reserve

Household Wealth

Considering the constrained nature of the US residential housing market and the fact that the 30-year Mortgage to 10-year Treasury spread is at its narrowest since July 2011 one can hardly be surprised at the appreciation of residential real estate prices. In fact the inflation of The Everything Bubble means that, unlike previous recent recessions, during the recent pandemic household net worth has actually risen: –

Source: Gavekal, 3 Fourteen Research 

The Great Reopening

Looking back over the last year, it is unsurprising that asset markets have risen. As lockdowns end and life returns towards the new normal, the key question is, what percentage of excess savings and recent investments will be redirected towards consumption and how quickly?

The Conference Board Global Consumer Confidence Index hit an all-time high of 108 in Q1, 2021, up from 98 the previous quarter – this is the highest reading since the survey began in 2005. Confidence rose in 49 out of 65 markets. When the UK reopened retail outlets, after four months, on April 12th, year-on-year footfall surged +516%, but it was still down -15.9% on the equivalent day in 2019. According to a Mintel Survey, 34% of UK consumers still feel unsafe visiting stores. Full lockdown restrictions in the UK will not end until June 21st. The road to reopening will be gradual.

The US Morning Consult Consumer Confidence Index reveals a similar picture: –

Source: Morning Consult

Morning Consult indices of 15 other economies show the same pattern, yet in each case a larger share of lower income households reported a deterioration in their financial position over the past year.

Goldman Sachs estimates that nearly two-thirds of excess savings in the US are held by the richest 40%, and they predict that the majority of these savings will be saved rather than spent. As of Q3, 2020 the top 20% of households by wealth held $10.2trln in liquid assets, the next 20% owned $2.3trln, whilst the balances of the remaining 60% amounted to just $2.7trln. As of end Q4, 2020 the top 20% garnered an additional $1.5trln of savings, and the remaining 80% accumulated just $0.7trln. 

This breakdown between richer and poorer households is important. A recent Federal Reserve study revealed that, under normal circumstances, households in the bottom quintile spend $0.97 of every dollar earned, while those in the top quintile spend just $0.48. A February Bank of America survey, asking more than 3,000 people how they would use another stimulus check, reveals a similar result – only 36% said they would spend the money.

If only $570bln out of $5.4trln of excess savings has been invested in stocks so far this year, there would appear to be a powerful put option under the stock market, but is this the correct conclusion? Without consumption spending, corporate profits will disappoint. Without consumption, demand-pull inflation will melt away, leaving only supply-chain bottlenecks to prop up inflation forecasts. Unemployment is still elevated, union membership continues to decline and new private capital expenditure will arrive cautiously. The bond vigilantes may have come to their inflationary senses, for government bond yields have already started to decline.

Lower bond yields, however, will support the stock market, as they have done for the last decade, and so too will excess savings. Add in cheap finance and The Everything Bubble looks set to continue. The melt-up from here will be gradual and there is room for some sharp corrections as the base effect of last year’s disinflation spooks the inflation bears. 

As for what is really happening? The Everything Bubble is a grand illusion, money is growing more plentiful, credit more available. Asset prices are not really rising; it is the value of money which is being systematically undermined.

I wonder whether the motto for this pandemic will be carpe diem, quam minimum credula pecunia – seize the day, place no trust in money?

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/30/2021 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Middle-aged Americans in US are stressed and struggle with physical and mental health – other nations do better

Adults in Germany, South Korea and Mexico reported improvements in health, well-being and memory.

Middle age was often a time to enjoy life. Now, it brings stress and bad health to many Americans, especially those with lower education levels. Mike Harrington/Getty Images

Midlife was once considered a time to enjoy the fruits of one’s years of work and parenting. That is no longer true in the U.S.

Deaths of despair and chronic pain among middle-aged adults have been increasing for the past decade. Today’s middle-aged adults – ages 40 to 65 – report more daily stress and poorer physical health and psychological well-being, compared to middle-aged adults during the 1990s. These trends are most pronounced for people who attained fewer years of education.

Although these trends preclude the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19’s imprint promises to further exacerbate the suffering. Historical declines in the health and well-being of U.S. middle-aged adults raises two important questions: To what extent is this confined to the U.S., and will COVID-19 impact future trends?

My colleagues and I recently published a cross-national study, which is currently in press, that provides insights into how U.S. middle-aged adults are currently faring in relation to their counterparts in other nations, and what future generations can expect in the post-COVID-19 world. Our study examined cohort differences in the health, well-being and memory of U.S. middle-aged adults and whether they differed from middle-aged adults in Australia, Germany, South Korea and Mexico.

A middle-aged woman looking sad sitting in front of artwork.
Susan Stevens poses for a photograph in her daughter Toria’s room with artwork Toria left behind at their home in Lewisville, N.C. Toria died from an overdose. Eamon Queeney/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

US is an outlier among rich nations

We compared people who were born in the 1930s through the 1960s in terms of their health and well-being – such as depressive symptoms and life satisfaction – and memory in midlife.

Differences between nations were stark. For the U.S., we found a general pattern of decline. Americans born in the 1950s and 1960s experienced overall declines in well-being and memory in middle age compared to those born in the 1930s and 1940s. A similar pattern was found for Australian middle-aged adults.

In contrast, each successive cohort in Germany, South Korea and Mexico reported improvements in well-being and memory. Improvements were observed in health for each nation across cohorts, but were slowed for Americans born in the 1950s and 1960s, suggesting they improved less rapidly than their counterparts in the countries examined.

Our study finds that middle-aged Americans are experiencing overall declines in key outcomes, whereas other nations are showing general improvements. Our cross-national approach points to policies that could could help alleviate the long-term effects arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Will COVID-19 exacerbate troubling trends?

Initial research on the short-term effects of COVID-19 is telling.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the fragility of life. Seismic shifts have been experienced in every sphere of existence. In the U.S., job loss and instability rose, household financial fragility and lack of emergency savings have been spotlighted, and children fell behind in school.

At the start of the pandemic the focus was rightly on the safety of older adults. Older adults were most vulnerable to the risks posed by COVID-19, which included mortality, social isolation and loneliness. Indeed, older adults were at higher risk, but an overlooked component has been how the mental health risks and long-haul effects will likely differ across age groups.

Yet, young adults and middle-aged adults are showing the most vulnerabilities in their well-being. Studies are documenting that they are currently reporting more psychological distress and stressors and poorer well-being, compared to older adults. COVID-19 has been exacerbating inequalities across race, gender and socioeconomic status. Women are more likely to leave the workforce, which could further strain their well-being.

A older women hugs her daughter.
Middle-aged people often have parents to take care of as well as children. Ron Levine/Getty Images

Changing views and experiences of midlife

The very nature and expectations surrounding midlife are shifting. U.S. middle-aged adults are confronting more parenting pressures than ever before, in the form of engagement in extracurricular activities and pressures for their children to succeed in school. Record numbers of young adults are moving back home with their middle-aged parents due to student loan debt and a historically challenging labor and housing market.

A direct effect of gains in life expectancy is that middle-aged adults are needing to take on more caregiving-related duties for their aging parents and other relatives, while continuing with full-time work and taking care of school-aged children. This is complicated by the fact that there is no federally mandated program for paid family leave that could cover instances of caregiving, or the birth or adoption of a child. A recent AARP report estimated that in 2020, there were 53 million caregivers whose unpaid labor was valued at US$470 billion.

The restructuring of corporate America has led to less investment in employee development and destabilization of unions. Employees now have less power and input than ever before. Although health care coverage has risen since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, notable gaps exist. High numbers of people are underinsured, which leads to more out-of-pocket expenses that eat up monthly budgets and financially strain households. President Biden’s executive order for providing a special enrollment period of the health care marketplace exchange until Aug. 15, 2021 promises to bring some relief to those in need.

Promoting a prosperous midlife

Our cross-national approach provides ample opportunities to explore ways to reverse the U.S. disadvantage and promote resilience for middle-aged adults.

The nations we studied vastly differ in their family and work policies. Paid parental leave and subsidized child care help relieve the stress and financial strain of parenting in countries such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Research documents how well-being is higher in both parents and nonparents in nations with more generous family leave policies.

Countries with ample paid sick and vacation days ensure that employees can take time off to care for an ailing family member. Stronger safety nets protect laid-off employees by ensuring that they have the resources available to stay on their feet.

In the U.S., health insurance is typically tied to one’s employment. Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic over 5 million people in the U.S. lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs.

During the pandemic, the U.S. government passed policy measures to aid people and businesses. The U.S. approved measures to stimulate the economy through stimulus checks, payroll protection for small businesses, expansion of unemployment benefits and health care enrollment, child tax credits, and individuals’ ability to claim forbearance for various forms of debt and housing payments. Some of these measures have been beneficial, with recent findings showing that material hardship declined and well-being improved during periods when the stimulus checks were distributed.

I believe these programs are a good start, but they need to be expanded if there is any hope of reversing these troubling trends and promoting resilience in middle-aged Americans. A recent report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concluded that paid family leave has a wide range of benefits, including, but not limited to, addressing health, racial and gender inequities; helping women stay in the workforce; and assisting businesses in recruiting skilled workers. Research from Germany and the United Kingdom shows how expansions in family leave policies have lasting effects on well-being, particularly for women.

Middle-aged adults form the backbone of society. They constitute large segments of the workforce while having to simultaneously bridge younger and older generations through caregiving-related duties. Ensuring their success, productivity, health and well-being through these various programs promises to have cascading effects on their families and society as a whole.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

Frank J. Infurna receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and previously from the John Templeton Foundation. The content is solely his responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

Read More

Continue Reading


Euro 2020 – a football tournament where the big players come from China and the US

Much of the money that pays for the competition is spent to build global brands.

Simon Lehmann / Alamy Stock Photo

With Euro 2020 now under way after a year of pandemic delay, football fans will be hoping for great performances from Europe’s finest players. Some of us will watch the tournament unfold on our Hisense televisions, and many will choose to order in some half time refreshments, maybe via the Just Eat delivery service, possibly sent using a Vivo mobile phone.

Sustained by cans of Heineken, as goals are scored, supporters will upload celebration clips on to TikTok. And after the final, what better way to recharge than by arranging a holiday on, perhaps flying on Qatar Airways.

For while fans will have their eyes firmly fixed on the efforts of players worth billions of pounds on the field, another big money game will be taking place off it. The Euros is one of the world’s biggest sport events, and a bonanza for corporate sponsors and partners (just a few of which are mentioned above).

In return for being exposed to the eyes of the world, Euros sponsors pay huge amounts of money. Just how much is difficult to say, as fees are commercially sensitive data. But in one case – that of Alipay (part of the Alibaba empire) – it is believed the Chinese company paid £176 million for an eight year deal.

UEFA has sold these deals in three ways: National Team Football Official Sponsors, Euro 2020 Official Sponsors, and Euro 2020 Official Licensees. And the origins of the companies and brands sponsoring this year’s event are a clear indication of how the beautiful game is valued by the corporate world.

Alongside UEFA partners such as FedEx and Konami, each of the national teams bring their own roster of sponsors, which makes for quite a cluttered selection of brands competing for attention. There’s England’s £50 million, five-year contract with BT, for example, while the Germans will bring Lufthansa to the tournament, Carlsberg will promote its association with Denmark and South Korea’s Hyundai will be represented by the Czech Republic.

The list goes on (and on). To capture the complex network of sponsors at Euro 2020 we created a network graphic of some of the most prominent and significant deals on show over the coming weeks. For reasons of clarity, we wern’t able to include every sponsor, but the range on display is revealing.

Graphic of Euro 2020 teams and sponsors.
Euro 2020 teams and associated sponsors. Paul Widdop and Simon Chadwick, Author provided

What becomes immediately clear is that although the UEFA European Championship is a continental tournament, its commercial reach is truly global. A significant number of sponsors are either not European or else have divisions that operate way beyond the borders of Europe.

At the same time, the sponsorship portfolio shows us that football is at the heart of the entertainment, lifestyle and digital economies. Gone are the days of motor-oil and office photocopier sponsorships. Instead we see a profusion of drinks brands, confectionery products and airlines.

In addition, the sponsorship of teams appears to go hand-in-hand with the promotion of national identity and national industry. “Brand Germany” for instance, is strongly represented by some of the country’s most important corporations, including Adidas and Volkswagen.

The appearance of Gazprom meanwhile, reflects the increasing use by nations of sponsorship as a geopolitical instrument. Indeed, the state owned Russian gas company has recently put its associations with UEFA and others to influential use.

Europe’s own goal

Equally, “Brand China” is now a major industrial and political power, and home to five of UEFA’s biggest tournament sponsors (Alipay, Antchain, Hisense, TikTok and Vivo).

Corporate America continues to endure too, represented by the likes of Coca Cola and IMG. The US has always been the home of contemporary sport sponsorship, and the country’s businesses continue to derive significant commercial value from it.

In fact, the underdogs in this big-money corporate competition appear to be the Europeans themselves. For an event being staged in countries including England, Italy, Spain and Romania, UEFA draws very few of its sponsors from the continent. Instead, it is clear that organisations from China and the US have both the financial muscle and the tactical brains to successfully dominate the tournament.

This reflects broader global trends which indicate the declining presence of European industry. European companies account for a falling percentage of global output. The market capitalisation of European firms is way behind that of American corporations and is fast being caught by Chinese firms. And the world’s technological hot spots are found in places such as Shenzhen and Silicon Valley, not in Europe.

Whether the footballing squad from France, Portugal or Switzerland lifts the trophy in July, there is no doubt that the UEFA tournament will be an on field triumph for Europe.

But the forces of globalisation, digitalisation and politico-economic change, reflected in the Euros’ portfolio of sponsors, will keep on playing long after the final whistle blows. And European industry could pay the penalty with a swift exit from the global industrial competition.

Simon Chadwick works with UEFA on its Certificate in Football Management programme.

Paul Widdop ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

Read More

Continue Reading


EU adds another rare blood condition as side effect of AstraZeneca shot

Europe’s drug regulator on June 11 identified another rare blood condition as a potential side effect of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine and said it was looking into cases of heart inflammation after inoculation with all coronavirus shots.



EU adds another rare blood condition as side effect of AstraZeneca shot

(Reuters; )

Europe’s drug regulator on Friday identified another rare blood condition as a potential side effect of AstraZeneca’s (AZN.L) COVID-19 vaccine and said it was looking into cases of heart inflammation after inoculation with all coronavirus shots.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) safety committee said that capillary leak syndrome must be added as a new side effect to labelling on AstraZeneca’s vaccine, known as Vaxzevria.

People who had previously sustained the condition, where fluids leak from the smallest blood vessels causing swelling and a drop in blood pressure, should not receive the shot, the EMA added.

The regulator first began looking into these cases in April and the recommendation adds to AstraZeneca’s woes after its vaccine was associated with very rare and potentially lethal cases of blood clotting that come with a low platelet count.

Last month, the EMA had advised against using the second AstraZeneca shot for people with that clotting condition, known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).

The committee reviewed six validated cases of capillary leak syndrome in people, mostly women, who had received Vaxzevria, including one death. Three had had a history of the condition.

A vial of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine is seen at a vaccination centre in Westfield Stratford City shopping centre, amid the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in London, Britain, February 18, 2021. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls/File Photo

AstraZeneca declined to immediately comment.

More than 78 million Vaxzevria doses have been administered in the European Union, Liechtenstein, Iceland & Norway and Britain.

Britain’s regulator, the MHRA said on Thursday it had received 8 reports of capillary leak syndrome in the context of more than 40 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine given, and currently does not see a causal link.

Separately, the EMA said it was continuing its probe into cases of heart inflammation known as myocarditis and pericarditis, primarily following inoculation with the Pfizer/BioNTech (PFE.N), (22UAy.DE) and Moderna mRNA shots, but also after the J&J (JNJ.N) and AstraZeneca vaccines.

U.S. health officials said on Thursday they had registered a higher-than-expected number of heart inflammation cases in young men who received a second dose of the mRNA shots, though a causal relationship could not be established. read more

Israel’s Health Ministry said this month it had found a likely link to the condition in young men who received the Pfizer/BioNTech shot. read more

Both Pfizer and Moderna have acknowldged the observations but said a causal association with their vaccines has not been established.

BioNTech said adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, are being regularly and thoroughly reviewed by the companies and regulatory authorities.

“More than 300 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine have been administered globally and the benefit risk profile of our vaccine remains positive.”

The United States and Israel have been months ahead of the EU in vaccinating men below 30, who are particularly prone to heart inflammation, giving them potentially more cases to analyse.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Reuters source:


Read More

Continue Reading