> Myocarditis is rare

In absolute terms, yes. But relative to other vaccines, it's much more common.

I also read that the chances are like 1 in a million per dose (not the right number, you get the point) but since its per dose your chances are actually like 1 in 40,000 after 3-4 doses.

The vaccines were and still are mandated for people not at risk of severe disease, and myocarditis has been framed as a side effect not worth worrying about despite the fact that it literally can kill you. Not to mention without understanding the mechanism of action, we cannot estimate the number of true deaths that occurred without a myocarditis diagnosis.

Anything that gets your immune system going can trigger an autoimmune crisis, including, you guessed it viruses - which also use RNA to cause your cells to produce spike proteins, by the way.

Very true. And it's probably impossible to get an accurate count of the young people who fall into the following groups.

unvaccinated and got COVID-induced myocarditis

vaccinated and got COVID-induced myocarditis

vaccinated and got vaccine-induced myocarditis

vaccinated and no myocarditis

unvaccinated and no myocarditis

Am I missing any groups?

We can estimate from excess death statistics that this is basically a non-risk for most people. Unlike getting ill with COVID, which we can also estimate from excess death statistics is a notable risk factor for most people.

I agree with my sibling here is that your confidence is misplaced that we did not kill many teenagers unnecessarily.

Young people were at extremely low risk from covid. It is entirely possible that the vaccine killed more people than it saved under a certain age. It is not certain but it is plausible as the covid deaths for young people were so low.

I know of a few people who have opted to not get the vaccine. One lost his wife. Still not vaccinated. You might need some more qualifiers for the word "mandated."

Myocarditis is a side effect not worrying about because you have the same or greater chance of getting it if you get infected with COVID: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA....

It's also really really rare in both cases.

The US executive branch attempted to make it so that your unvaccinated friend had to choose between taking the vaccine or being able to work at most companies.

> Besides pneumonia, myocarditis is another manifestation reported during SARS-CoV-2-infection [24].

I mean, your point only makes sense if you ignore that COVID causes the same myocarditis and ignore that the vaccine has been proven to reduce severity and duration of symptoms. This study was of 5 autopsies, unless you can prove this was incredibly widespread concern I don't understand why you think it would be better people get COVID.

On a slightly different note I find it incredibly funny how the refrain was "they died with COVID, not from", but now it's "they died because of the vaccine, not with".

The data on myocarditis has been clear and significant for quite some time: 1 in approximately 5000 young men under 40 by shot two. Without a full understanding of the underlying mechanism of action, we can’t be that confident of number of deaths due to the vaccine, but given the size of the deployed population and the recurrent nature of the shots it’s not unreasonable to think we killed tens of thousands of people with them.

> it’s not unreasonable to think we killed tens of thousands of people with them.

It's not unreasonable to think otherwise as well given that it was a rare occurrence and typically mild. Also, there were no young men in this study. "Median age at death was 58 years (range 46–75 years)", so you're drawing your own conclusions without data here.

I’m not drawing conclusions - you invented that claim. The data I’m referring to is available in several other studies, with regards to estimated myocarditis rates in young men. But if you agree with me that it’s not unreasonable to think that is the scope of fatalities, I would urge you to integrate that new prior into things like the ethics of mandating this drug for college.

> it’s not unreasonable to think we killed tens of thousands of people with them.

I mean, what is this if not a conclusion you're trying to draw?

Saying it’s not unreasonable means there is some significant probability that we may ultimately determine this to be the case. The conclusion is about the range of probabilities, not the actual state of reality. But probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to college.

> there is some significant probability that we may ultimately determine this to be the case

I still don't see proof of that.

> But probabilities matter when you are deploying policies like mandating kids take this drug to go to college.

Again, this study doesn't involve "kids".

You already implies you agree with my claim about it not being unreasonable when you said “as well.” I guess you retract that?

And again: this study is just one of many studies that have lead to my prior. The rate of myocarditis is well established, the population size is well established, the open question is the fatality rate. The unreasonable part comes from putting a lower bound on the death rate based on some assumptions around these studies which have done autopsies and the estimates on subclinical heart interactions from the drug. There are several studies on all of these things. The back of the napkin math to me is on the order of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

> You already implies you agree with my claim about it not being unreasonable when you said “as well.” I guess you retract that?

Yes, I was trying to show polite respect for your point and not actually endorse it, but to be clear, I don't believe there is enough evidence to assume that tens of thousands of young people died, especially not with this article, and especially when you consider that the acknowledged gap in your knowledge is the fatality rate.

> about despite the fact that it literally can kill you.

There are many many things that can literally kill you. Heck, even anosmia can literally kill you under the right circumstances.

What matters is the total number of vaccine-related myocarditis cases, and the total number of vaccine-related myocarditis death balanced with the number of covid related-death (including Covid-induced fatal myocarditis, because the virus itself has this effect), that's how you get a cost-benefit analysis.

False, the idea that pure net deaths is the only way to think about all that happened is the common thread that people have been clinging to for far too long. It is time to wake up, and remember principles of bioethics, the risk of authoritarian coercive forces, and the nature of dehumanization campaigns. You do not mandate rapidly formulated, under-tested, frontier technology emergency drugs for all humans to work and live especially once there is evidence they may have a consistent mechanism of action that can cause sudden death, and especially once you learn the risk from the disease is highly dependent upon demographics and other comorbitities in a way risk from this side effect isn’t.

Sorry to annoy you with the basics of public health policy.

And the cost-benefit analysis being different for different age classes and comorbidity is exactly the reason why the vaccines was slowly expanded to larger demographics after starting with the most vulnerable people.

In fact, the side effects of the vaccine have been much more thoroughly tracked than many pollutants that are routinely introduced in everybody's life and which somehow never trigger such a reaction from you others who care so much about all this when it comes to vaccines. The amount of hazardous material that are being put in everything from food to cosmetics or kids' toys is appalling, but all you guys have to complain about is vaccines… You claim to care about under-tested frontier technology, but somehow aren't bothered with sunscreen or bisphenol S, why is that?

I'm not part of any "guys", I'm not part of a tribe that you are imagining. I'm just someone who is vaccinated and thinks the mandates violate all traditional bioethical norms given what we have known for a while: the drug is experimental, under studied (no long term phase IV data), does not lead to herd immunity, has a novel mechanism, has a known serious side effect in 1 in 5k or so young men, and the risk of COVID is low in children, and there is a very real danger we are causing large scale subclinical heart damage to children by administering this drug so widely.

In other words, it should not be mandatory.

Public health policy is not entirely about risk vs reward - it's also a branch of medicine, and people who practice medicine have a code of ethics. Everyone acknowledges the risk vs reward choice is in favor of getting vaccinated for almost everyone. But it's a canard at this point, and is being used to gloss over an immense amount of truly horrible stuff that happened during the vaccination campaign of 2021.

> I'm not part of any "guys", I'm not part of a tribe that you are imagining.

Your comment history says otherwise.

> thinks the mandates violate all traditional bioethical norms

Mandatory vaccination has been the norm in many developed countries since at least the polio vaccine…

> there is a very real danger we are causing large scale subclinical heart damage to children by administering this drug so widely. In other words, it should not be mandatory.

But in what country is the vaccine mandatory for children again?

> and is being used to gloss over an immense amount of truly horrible stuff that happened during the vaccination campaign of 2021.

But you won't tell what this very «truly horrible stuff» is, will you? And what was the purpose of the conspiracy according to you? Big pharma making money? (why give vaccines then, when remdesivir is 3 orders of magnitude more expensive than the vaccine?) Or more fancy hypothesis like 5G tracking chips or masse sterilization of white population to replace them with immigrants?