Even if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for society you cannot make that calculation. You cannot administer a vaccine to a healthy person just because it doesn't increase their risk of dying as much as it decreases someone else's risk of surviving. Young healthy men should not be coerced into accepting an elevated risk because getting to herd immunity or whatever might save old and at risk persons.

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.

I don't think that's the right question or comparison.

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

It doesn't matter if the virus is worse than the vaccine since the vaccine is intentionally administered. Someone who is cautious might attempt to avoid the virus altogether thus their risk might be much lower than the average.

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.

Good luck with avoiding it. Scotland had no restrictions and when they opened schools, about 8% of 12-15 children got infected within first 5 weeks. Delta variant is so infectious that it will not disappear until about 90% of all the people are immune to it. For seasonal flu only 25% is required.

More precisely shouldn't we be comparing the number of life years lost. If for every young healthy person that develops myocarditis or increases his lifetime cancer risk by 1%, how many 84 year old getting to live another year, is worth the risk to the young healthy person.

There are additional questions here. How long does vaccine immunity last? How many shots do you need? Does the risk of side effects add up or is an absence of side effects indicative of further shots being safe?

With an endemic Covid, how often will people get an infection on average?

It isn't a too trivial calculation at all.

Can't make what calculation? The one you just conceded I could make?

There is a surprising lack of mention of long covid. Good stats from a competent public health agency like NHS would be welcome.

your source is about people <18, not <30.

But the vast majority of covid fatalities under 30, would be in people with comorbidities.

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.

Vaccinations are not stopping. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.

It's not necessarily the same here in the Nordics.

The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.

That number for under 30’s is full of people who are extremely fat or otherwise have preexisting health problems. If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.

40% of Americans are obese. States with the highest level of obesity also have the lowest rate of vaccination.

An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.

To make matters worse "Only 22.2% of obese women and 6.7% of obese men correctly classified themselves as obese"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234679/

Except the risk is not 0 if you don't have comorbidities.

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.

I literally wrote, “If you’re under 30 and seemingly healthy your fatality rate is much lower.”

If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.

>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

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.

This is true and if it was flu kind of virus with very low reproduction number, it would be right but Delta variant has very high reproduction number and it is guaranteed to infect eventually almost everyone who is without immune response against it.

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.