You should also take all the benefits and complications into account when looking at vaccines. The complication rate of infection for those under 40 is far from zero and assumed to be significantly higher than the complication rate of the vaccines. Discussion is good but your argument sounds less like a discussion and more like a statement.

Your first study does not show what you claim it does, or at least it is a gross simplification. These statistics are at the 10 per million scale i.e 0.001%, which is smaller than fatality rates for unvaccinated under-40s.

That is to say that there is a selection bias for people who did not die, and this is a significant oversight in your interpretation.

The argument he/she's making is that specific findings are being suppressed, so nobody has a full and accurate picture. Thus you cannot refute it with a statistical argument that assumes you do have the full picture.

That is the argument you are making, and I struggle to see in what world being published in Nature is "being suppressed".

They make the claim "vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection", and this is a misleading claim.

The risk to an individual of taking the vaccine is more sensibly measured against what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated, not what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated and also didn't die.

This is like comparing injuries in people who survive jumping out of a plane with and without a parachute. How important is it if people without a parachute break their arms less often?

Their study isn't an attempt to answer the holistic question of whether vaccines are saving lives or ending them in aggregate, and they never claimed it was, so I don't see what's misleading about it. The claim dannyw is making is about the studies and discussion that isn't being published in Nature, or at all.

Your counter-claim is that this alternative question is what they should have been discussing, and if they had been, it'd be misleading to focus on the risk of myocarditis alone. Which is correct, but then they'd also have to take into account injuries and deaths from other non-myocarditis vaccine side effects, the costs of medical care not given due to the spending of resources on vaccines instead, QALYs and so on. But the sort of institutions that fund such research don't want to know about vaccine downsides, so don't fund any research into it, and moreover expend considerable effort to suppress whatever little research does get done.

> We're also living in the world where certain governments are mandating vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection[1].

If everybody else takes a vaccine it is almost always far safer for you not to take it. Vaccines help society by stopping illnesses spreading, they just need enough people to collectively accept the personal risk for the good of everyone else - the same was true for Polio, TB, measles.

This is also a simplification.

If the vaccines are creating sterilizing immunity, this might be true. For example the measles vaccine does that.

But for all current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines we have we don't get sterilizing immunity.

So it can still make sense to get vaccinated even if society at large is vaccinated.

What is sterilizing immunity?

It's when you get immune to getting infected by a virus - antibodies neutralize the virus particles before they can do any harm or meaningfully replicate. All current (and probably future) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines don't do this. Through a combination of several vaccinations and infections the hope is that you get close to sterilizing immunity.