While interesting, the article you linked to doesn't really corroborate much of what you're claiming, though obviously I didn't post any sources at all in my claims.
It's also worth mentioning that many of these symptoms are caused by immune response and not the compounds of the vaccine itself.
It still sounds like you're over-inflating the risks of vaccines and deflating the risks of COVID-19.
You're still proposing herd immunity (of which we're not there yet) as a solution while ignoring the deaths and suffering that will occur until or if we reach that point. I find the ethics of that proposition questionable at best. It also ignores the higher lethality of COVID-19 compared to the flu: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
The more I hear people respond to or ignore the numbers, the more I'm convinced that most people just don't have a good number sense or sense of risk assessment.
1% chance of death from COVID-19? That fine. ~0.009% of myocarditis after receiving the vaccine which is close to the normal rate of incidence without the vaccine? Unacceptable.
You aren't clear about things, but are you really saying can't begin to consider exceptions to the rule? If so, there's not much more to say because we aren't connecting at all. Chance of death is not a precise nor often-calculated figure. Whatever you were talking about, you likely overstated it by 5-10 times. You could look at IFR, mortality rate, or excess deaths, but none tell the full story when you consider the chaos and disruption of 2020.
To list a few other things: We don't have reliable numbers for adverse effects, so clinical trials will have to be done. It was just one example, but it was about teenage boys that you have the numbers backwards for if you account for age of an individual. The immune response is cited as a major factor that leads to more serious and fatal cases of COVID, so I am not sure why you are treating that as an important distinction with the vaccine.
When the death count of children reached 300, there was a mainstream MD that questioned why researchers had, thus far, failed to contact the attending physicians to find out the circumstances of these unusual deaths. That should have been pretty important, but it wasn't. England may have dug a bit deeper to verify that 25 children had died from COVID in their country. If teenage boys are the highest risk group for myocarditis as a side effect, and their risk of death is infinitesimal, what kind of math are you offering? Teenage boys and young men generally were not being warned about the relative risk to themselves. That's seems like a problem. I guess heart damage could be considered _no big deal_, but it's substantial and much more visible than often-exaggerated long COVID, at least for the young and healthy. Maybe you prefer to speak about society at large, but there's not an automatic justification for that. If that's what we are actually doing, it should be acknowledged that we are asking children to make sacrifices for adults because I think many people see that as backwards, unethical, and completely unacceptable.
Herd immunity is not how you summarize any strategy, but it's kind of important just like food, money, and a functioning society. Spoiler Alert: We did technically pursue focused protection for the wealthy in wealthy countries. That's one hell of a game plan. If the vaccine worked as advertised, we would be rounding the corner on herd immunity. We are not, and that may be the least of what's gone wrong. Lastly, Bill Maher exposed his fellow liberals for getting the numbers on COVID wildly wrong, and this is consistent in survey data. The liberal media failed to inform when it's much more profitable to fearmonger and create clickbait with junk science. You aren't doing much better in my opinion, and it's probably not your grasp of stats but your bias that is the problem.
Teenage boys are at a slightly higher than normal rate for myocarditis after the vaccine, but this is still far lower than the risks associated with COVID-19 itself: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/17/1007447...
It's also worth mentioning that many of these symptoms are caused by immune response and not the compounds of the vaccine itself.
It still sounds like you're over-inflating the risks of vaccines and deflating the risks of COVID-19.
You're still proposing herd immunity (of which we're not there yet) as a solution while ignoring the deaths and suffering that will occur until or if we reach that point. I find the ethics of that proposition questionable at best. It also ignores the higher lethality of COVID-19 compared to the flu: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
The more I hear people respond to or ignore the numbers, the more I'm convinced that most people just don't have a good number sense or sense of risk assessment.
1% chance of death from COVID-19? That fine. ~0.009% of myocarditis after receiving the vaccine which is close to the normal rate of incidence without the vaccine? Unacceptable.