If population immunity was 50%, it would still be worth the myocarditis risk, since half the numbers are still vast and terrible. I imagine the inflection is up around 70-80% immunity, and there's the "no more deaths from corona" point to consider as well. But we don't know what the end of crowd development and transmission of variants is yet, so it's hard to predict the earliest point in time we might usefully reevaluate the balance of risk-of-covid versus risk-of-myocarditis. That sounds like an excellent problem to have, relative to today.

You haven’t factored in how much immunity improvement is conferred by vaccine over infection. If Covid infection + vaccine is 0% improvement over Covid infection, then no matter the population immunity, any risk outweighs the benefit.

You are assuming testing before vaccination, your parent is assuming no testing before vaccination.

There is not data that compares effectiveness of immunity so this is probably pure speculation.

> If population immunity was 50%, it would still be worth the myocarditis risk, since half the numbers are still vast and terrible.

Would you believe me if I said you are essentially using the same argument a eugenicist would make?

Would you believe me if I said you are essentially using the same argument an anti-vaxxer would make?

Get over yourself haha.

No, because it's not. You're saying that word "eugenicist" -- it does not mean what you think it means.

Is the mRNA vaccine not a gene therapy drug which essentially carries instructions on how to make the spike protein?