What if you ask them, instead, "would you like a 1% chance of dying of covid (being a healthy male under 40) or an unknown chance at an unknown reaction that may include myocarditis from a new treatment?", then why do it?

For a while, this was what those around me were saying. It was much, much later that covid itself was associated with even more myocarditis than the vaccine.

> unknown chance

for values of "unknown chance" well under 1 in 100,000. you sound like the same kind of American who prefers the quarter pounder to the third pounder because 4 > 3.

I know four very negative covid vaccine reactions and zero covid anythings aside from two people saying it was the sickest they have ever felt. I don't know 100k people. Make up any stat that makes you feel smug to throw shade at my math skills. From my personal, lived experience, you can't say the sky ain't blue.

Yes, anecdotes trump population studies any day. You really are dumb.

Or perhaps the studies are flawed? (you know, what this whole thread is about?)

yes the studies are flawed, because you know four cases yourself. that's exactly how studies are proven to be flawed.

get your head out of your arse.

No, the question is, do you 'trust the science', the quote from the director of cdc:

> And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.

...and the visit grandma, who cannot get vaccinated (immunocompromised), because you're vaccinated, and don't carry the virus and don't get sick?

Or are you one of those 'conspiracy theorists' who say "the vaccinated are carrying the virus, even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get sick and kill grandma"?