Later
Another thing to consider is that the myocarditis rate from C19 itself may exceed that of the vaccine, which would basically refute the argument against vaccination.
(By all means, pick vaccines strategically.)
For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
If this young person below 30 gets a side effect from the vaccine, is that side effect worse than what they'd get by having the virus?
It should be clear that we aren't going to suppress or eradicate covid, so you shouldn't be comparing getting the vaccine or nothing happening, but getting covid with or without the vaccine
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Covid won't mutate so that you will have to refill your vaccination every year to stay immune like with vaccines against the flu. If so, mass vaccinations probably won't be employed again and we'll only vaccinate at risk groups.
With an endemic Covid, how often will people get an infection on average?
It isn't a too trivial calculation at all.
You could easily argue for vaccinating everyone with comorbidities <30, without arguing for vaccinating everyone.
Also, even in apparently benign myocarditis, there may be heart damage which will not become apparent for many years.
The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
People keep throwing this statement out as though somehow the risk of vaccination is higher then the risks due to viral infection. It is not.
The risks of adverse reactions to COVID infection is reduced across the board if you are fully vaccinated regardless of your health status.
Also worth noting: plenty of young people have comorbidities they don't know about yet, because they haven't found them. It is actually quite difficult to exclude yourself from the "has comorbidities" risk group apriori. A common one is in fact undiscovered heart conditions for people in their 30s, since they usually only become an issue later in life when symptoms are more likely to present.
If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.
No, because you need to consider not just the odds of getting myocarditis from covid vs vaccine (Pc:Pv), but the bayesian probabilities of getting infected (Pi) or vaccinated (1) and then getting myocarditis, such that the full risk analysis would look more like Pi*Pc:Pv[1]. Point being when you are talking about vaccinating the entire population, you can easily end up in a position where there are more cases of heart inflammation from fully vaccinating the population than simply letting the virus run its course. I believe the term is relative risk reduction but don't quote me.
1. This isn't quite right, there should be a 1-x term or two in there somewhere to account for the probabilities of getting vaccinated/infected and not developing myocarditis, but its been a few years since my probability course...In any case the point still stands, that the vaccine may be less likely to cause heart inflammation does not imply that it would produce fewer cases overall if a sizeable proportion is vaccinated. To properly estimate that you need an accurate estimate for the myocarditis rate from both covid and vaccine, which I don't think anyone has.
There is also this fact that myocarditis has high prevalence among teenage boys (even CDC might underestimate it) and it looks like it is caused by some form of immune reaction and its occurrence is immune reaction size dependent (Moderna causes more myocarditis than Pfizer that causes more than AstraZeneca). It allows to postulate that it might be that the people who get myocarditis after vaccination have high risk of getting it after infection.