"The risk of myocarditis, which is considered to be the most potentially serious vaccine-associated adverse event, was increased after both vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection. After vaccination, the risk was increased mostly among young male adolescents and adults (16 to 39 years of age), with 8.62 excess events per 100,000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.82 to 14.35). After infection, the risk was increased in both age categories (<40 and ≥40 years) and in both male and female adolescents and adults, with 11.54 excess events per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 2.48 to 22.55) in young male adolescents and adults. "
I understand why you posted this, but it doesn’t belong in the discussion.
Here’s why. If the vaccine stopped a person from getting Covid I would agree. The logic would go something like this. If you take the vaccine you have x chance of getting myocartiditis. But the vaccine prevents you from getting Covid, which would give you an x+y chance of getting myocartiditis. Since x (chancws with vaccine) is less than x+y it should be an easy logical decision to get the vaccine.
But the risk is that the vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting Covid. It was approved by the fdA only to prevent serious illness, not to stop you from getting thedisease.
Given that the vaccine doesn’t stopyou from getting Covid. You are committing yourself to the risk (x), while you still face the risk of myocartiditis from Covid (x+y).
So the choices are vaccine (2x+y) or no vaccine (x+y). If we’re making a decision solely based on myocartiditis risk, you should always chose no vaccine.