This is very interesting to me if true, both because

- I thought the risk from getting an infection would be much higher than any vaccine combination (but here multiple Moderna doses seems to increase the risk even more)

- again, if this is true it still validates the rest of my reasoning: except for multiple doses of Moderna any other combination of mainstream vaccines seems to be safer than actually getting the infection

(I note that there is a lot of uncertainty which is why I use "seems to be" instead of "is".)

The "risk from getting an infection" includes many other side effects besides myocarditis, I would not evaluate the risks from an unvaccinated viral infection (which can cause 100 other things besides myocarditis) vs the risk from vaccination (or vaccination + viral infection, which the most likely long term outcome) on the myocarditis axis alone.

Yes that's fair, but the risk profile from the vaccine is also not just relegated to myocarditis, that's just what's been getting attention. It will probably be years before we have an accurate risk assessment of both infection and vaccines. Given the availability of vaccines, it still makes sense to be choosier if you're in a potentially vulnerable population, which is what the paper suggests.

Myocarditis isn't that dangerous, it's acute and can be managed. Infection is much more risky.

> I expect two COVID infections would increase the risk like it seems to do with the vaccines.

Then the relevant metric should be infection vs vaccine+infection, given that natural immunity is better than vaccine-conferred immunity (which seems very bad with Omicron)

I think you got the order wrong, two Astra doses seems to have zero risk of myocarditis according to the graph in the post.

There are two graphs, the second one is broken out by age and gender and seems to show a higher risk for second dose of ChadOx1 (Astra vaccine).