Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: What are the most common adverse reactions to covid vaccines in women over 65?

Checked on October 15, 2025

Executive Summary

The evidence provided shows that the most common adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in women over 65 are local reactions and generally lower overall adverse-event incidence compared with younger adults, while rare but serious cardiovascular and hematologic signals were detected during surveillance and reviewed further. Recent analyses and surveillance reports (2023–2024) conclude that common local and systemic side effects are usually mild and transient, and that the vaccines’ benefits in reducing COVID-19 deaths outweigh the risk of rare serious events [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

1. What the studies actually claim about common reactions — straightforward readout

A cohort study of long-term care residents reported that local adverse effects after the first dose were more frequent in female residents, with 13.3% of females versus 10.2% of males reporting local side effects; the difference reached statistical significance in that dataset [1]. A systematic review and meta-analysis focused on older adults found that overall incidence of adverse events in the elderly was lower than in younger people (odds ratio 0.35), concluding that vaccination is safe and elicits a significant immune response after multiple doses [3]. These findings point to injection-site pain and local reactions as the most common complaints in older women, while systemic events are reported less frequently than in younger cohorts [1] [3].

2. Signals of rare but serious events — surveillance didn’t ignore them

Active surveillance identified statistical signals after BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccination in elderly populations for four outcomes: pulmonary embolism (PE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP); however, the signals for AMI, DIC and ITP lost statistical significance on further evaluation, leaving PE as a highlighted outcome for continued scrutiny in that analysis [4]. A separate national review [6] established a causal relationship between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis but rejected causal links for Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s palsy, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome in its assessment framework, underscoring heterogeneous findings across surveillance systems [5].

3. Reconciling prevalence and rarity — common versus consequential

Reviews focused on older adults emphasize that cardiologic, immunologic, neurologic, and ocular side effects are rare, while vaccine efficacy in preventing excess COVID-19 deaths is pronounced; thus the balance of evidence frames common side effects as mild, transient, and local, and serious adverse outcomes as uncommon but monitored closely [2]. The meta-analysis indicating lower overall adverse event rates in the elderly suggests that older adults may report fewer reactogenic events than younger adults, possibly owing to immunosenescence, reporting differences, or study design factors — each of which could bias observed rates [3] [1].

4. Sex differences: an unresolved but suggestive pattern

Multiple analyses show higher reporting of local adverse events among older female residents in long-term care after the first dose, with the GeroCovid Vax study explicitly finding a statistically significant difference (13.3% vs 10.2%) [1]. This pattern could reflect biologic sex differences in reactogenicity, differential reporting behavior, or demographic confounders in long-term care settings. The datasets provided do not fully disentangle these possibilities; therefore, the sex disparity should be treated as a plausible signal that warrants targeted follow-up rather than definitive proof of a sex-specific safety profile [1].

5. Conflicts, follow-up, and why conclusions shifted for some signals

Surveillance systems frequently generate preliminary statistical signals that require further evaluation; the surveillance study recorded initial signals for AMI, DIC, and ITP that vanished after secondary analyses, illustrating how temporal coincidence and confounding in elderly populations can produce false positives [4]. The National Academies’ report [6] applied causal-framework review and upheld myocarditis as causally linked to mRNA vaccines while dismissing several other associations, demonstrating divergent conclusions across methodologies and the importance of rigorous causality assessment [5]. These divergent outcomes reflect differences in outcome definitions, comparator baselines, and analytical thresholds across studies.

6. Putting risks into a practical risk–benefit frame for women over 65

Across reviews and surveillance, the consistent message is that mild local reactions are the commonest adverse events, and serious adverse events are rare but subject to ongoing monitoring; systematic reviewers conclude that vaccine benefits in older adults—most critically prevention of severe COVID-19 and death—outweigh the risk of rare side effects [2] [3]. For women over 65, the evidence therefore supports expecting local pain and transient systemic symptoms as the typical experience, while rare cardiac or hematologic events remain low-probability outcomes flagged for continued surveillance [1] [4].

7. Bottom line and what’s still missing — where to watch next

The analyzed literature provides a consistent picture: expect common local reactions and low overall adverse-event rates in elderly women, but continue monitoring for rare cardiovascular or hematologic signals that have appeared in surveillance and, in one case, myocarditis was judged causally related to mRNA vaccines [1] [3] [4] [5]. Gaps include granular stratification by vaccine product in elderly women, longer-term follow-up, and causal inference that accounts for comorbidities common in long-term care. Continued active surveillance and focused studies on older women are essential to refine absolute risk estimates and guide individualized decisions [4] [5] [2].

Want to dive deeper?
What are the most frequently reported covid vaccine side effects in women over 65 according to the CDC?
How do covid vaccine adverse reactions in women over 65 compare to those in younger women?
Can women over 65 with a history of autoimmune disorders safely receive covid vaccines?
What is the risk of anaphylaxis or other severe allergic reactions to covid vaccines in women over 65?
Do covid vaccine side effects in women over 65 vary by vaccine type, such as mRNA or adenovirus vector?