Vaccine Outcomes
Two Vaccines, Two Protective Signals
New observational data suggest mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may lower myocarditis risk in adolescents and young adults, while the shingles vaccine appears tied to fewer heart attacks and strokes. Both findings challenge earlier safety narratives and invite cautious interpretation.

Two large observational studies released this week add nuance to the ongoing conversation about vaccine side effects and unexpected benefits. One links mRNA COVID-19 vaccination to a reduced—not increased—risk of myocarditis among teens and young adults. The other finds that the shingles vaccine is associated with meaningfully lower rates of heart attack and stroke.
Re-examining myocarditis risk
The CIDRAP-reported analysis, drawn from comprehensive health records, indicates that adolescents and young adults who received mRNA COVID vaccines had a lower incidence of myocarditis compared with unvaccinated peers in the same age groups. This runs counter to the well-publicized signal of rare post-vaccination myocarditis that emerged in 2021, particularly among males after the second dose. The new data do not erase that earlier safety signal; they suggest the overall balance of risk may tilt differently when longer-term or population-level outcomes are examined.
Shingles vaccine and cardiovascular events
Separately, researchers found that recipients of the shingles vaccine had a statistically significant reduction in subsequent heart attacks and strokes, according to a study covered by The Guardian. The magnitude of the apparent protective effect was large enough to prompt calls for further mechanistic investigation—possibly involving reduced chronic inflammation or immune modulation after herpes zoster prevention.
Both findings illustrate how vaccines can have effects that extend beyond their primary target.
The Guardian
Shared limitations and clinical meaning
Neither study is randomized. Confounding by health-seeking behavior, socioeconomic status, or unmeasured comorbidities remains possible. Still, the consistency of the signals across large datasets merits attention from cardiologists, pediatricians, and public-health planners. Families weighing vaccination decisions now have additional data points: the mRNA platform’s myocarditis risk, once headline-dominant, may be accompanied by a net protective association in some age groups; the shingles shot, already recommended for older adults, may carry cardiovascular upside.
- COVID mRNA vaccines — earlier focus on rare myocarditis cases; newer data suggest lower overall myocarditis incidence in vaccinated teens and young adults.
- Shingles vaccine — primary goal is preventing shingles; secondary analysis shows reduced major cardiovascular events.
Clinicians should continue to discuss absolute risks transparently. Myocarditis after mRNA vaccination remains rare and usually mild; the new study does not change the recommendation to vaccinate those at genuine risk of severe COVID-19. Likewise, the cardiovascular benefit observed with the shingles vaccine should not be the sole reason to vaccinate but can be part of shared decision-making for eligible adults.
The two reports arrive at a time when public trust in vaccine safety science is uneven. Observational findings like these require replication and, where feasible, mechanistic confirmation. They also underscore the value of long-term follow-up studies that look beyond the immediate post-vaccination window. For now, the prudent stance is to acknowledge both the known rare harms and the emerging signals of broader benefit—without overstating either.
What readers ask
- Does the new study mean mRNA COVID vaccines prevent myocarditis?
- No. It reports an association with lower incidence compared with unvaccinated individuals in the studied population. The known rare risk of post-vaccination myocarditis is not eliminated by these findings.
- Should older adults get the shingles vaccine for heart protection?
- The primary reason remains prevention of shingles and post-herpetic neuralgia. Any cardiovascular benefit is an secondary observation that needs confirmation before changing clinical recommendations.
- Are these randomized controlled trials?
- No. Both are observational studies, which can show associations but cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.