Honest question: is myocarditis and "heart disease" exactly equivalent for purposes of that assertion? In any case, you would have to subtract the percentage of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine itself, before deciding on the net benefit.

> The article says that the vaccine greatly reduces the rate of heart disease amongst people that eventually get covid.

It does?? Where does it say this?

> Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.

We're trying to isolate just one single claim. A claim about myocarditis alone. An article saying that the vaccine reduces complications overall, and is therefore a good choice, does not address the question of myocarditis in particular, and if it is reduced in the vaccinated population.

I don't believe anyone is claiming the vaccine reduces myocarditis on its own, other than by reducing the severity of a future covid infection.

You've found the only sentence in the entire article about vaccination and attached you own meaning to it. If Ardheli wished to convey that severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease Ardheli could have and should have stated so.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, I'm just saying it's not addressed in the article in question. Please be more careful. It's OK to just admit you we're wrong. It's not OK to twist quotations to support your position not matter how valid or righteous you believe it to be.