Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

The doctor wasn't breaking it all down into various groups, he was talking in general, and in general what he said was true.

But how mycarditis affects people "in general" is not helpful to understand. What benefit is there in averaging rates of myocarditis from 85-year old grandmas with myocarditis rates from 20-year old college athletes?

I'm unconvinced that young males get worse myocarditis from the vaccine than the disease itself. I have not seen any reports to suggest this.

I'd go find the studies and post the links to them, but I am fully convinced you wouldn't read them anyway.

Not according to the CDC table.

I've already addressed the CDC table and why it overstates the efficacy. You haven't addressed any of those points. Start with healthy vaccinee bias to understand why vaccine efficacy is overstated in most of those studies.

I don't know all of what went on in places in USA. In NZ if you had symptoms of Covid, you weren't to just walk into the clinic and potentially get everyone there sick. You were to call in advance and wait outside and a nurse would come to you.

There was a brief period of time where doctors considered not treating patients at all if they refused the COVID vaccine. This carries immense ethical concerns and thankfully was a short-lived phenomenon as it became clear that the vaccine didn't prevent you from getting COVID anyway.

I've never heard of people going to jail or being held down and forced by police etc to receive a vaccine.

This is a disingenuous argument. People were told "get vaccinated or lose your job". That's not a "choice" and anyone who contends it was is not being intellectually honest.

Doctors are people too. Some doctors have personal views which differ from the generally accepted practice.
If you have 1,000 Doctors saying X and 1 doctor saying not X, it would be good to know that one doctor is an outlier.

That's true. But when the government colludes with social media to censor any "contrarian" viewpoints and punishes doctors who hold different viewpoints, it's easy to manufacture the appearance of consensus. That is what happened with COVID.

I don't like junk added to my evidence based medicine advice.

Nor do I. That's why I remain skeptical of any doctor that still advocates for masking. It is apparent to me that such doctors do not deal in evidence-based measures and, as you so succinctly put it, prefer "junk" instead.

I'm sure there are many USA right wing doctors that listen to the right wing opinion shows that call masks face diapers and fight against social distancing and vaccines. Doctors aren't immune to that stuff.

Why do you always qualify these statements with "right-wing"? You're trying to tell me medicine shouldn't be political, but you undermine your point every time you insert politics into this discussion.

And I say kudos to any doctor that stands against foolhardy measures like masking and social distancing which have no scientific basis.

I would certainly complain to the clinic if a Doctor there was advising me not get an approved vaccine.

Why? Remember that both of my parents had already had COVID and recovered, just a few months prior. It was known, even then, that protection conferred by natural immunity was as good, if not better, than immunity from vaccination. So why on earth would you complain about a doctor acknowledging the medical truth that my parents had already had COVID and acquired immunity from the infection and therefore did not need the vaccine?

Doctors are susceptible to misinformation and politics, just like everyone else.

Yes. Pause to really think about that for a minute.

I would expect doctors to follow the approved guidelines of their practice rather than inject their own politics, beliefs etc into their work.

But what that doctor recommended to my parents was not political in nature. It was an evidence-based recommendation that because they had acquired natural immunity from prior infection that a vaccine would confer no additional benefit. That is absolutely true.

Consider that I've never had a chickenpox vaccine. Do you know why? Because when I was six, I had chickenpox, and therefore I do not require a chickenpox vaccine. It would provide no additional protection to me since I've already acquired immunity from that childhood infection.

I'm not sure when the world went completely wonky into vaxx-zealotry, but I'm pretty sure it was right around the same time governments and public health authorities started mandating a vaccine of questionable efficacy to people who did not need it.

Drs should be very careful about doing that. Sure if a doctor is out with his or her friends he can grumble and say he doesn't believe in using the Covid vaccine. But when on the job he should just be giving the vaccine to people who want it.

Listen to yourself. We're not talking about what doctors "believe in". You've made science into nothing more than a religion. Dr. Mike spoke of this in the video. Science is a process by which we prove and disprove hypotheses. It's not about whether you "believe in" COVID vaccines. It's about whether or not the evidence shows that vaccination after an infection confers any additional benefit (spoiler alert: it doesn't). So if the vaccine provides those people no benefit, you are simply introducing them to unnecessary risks.

Nah, in the science world people are encourage to debunk claims. Some get famous for doing that.

Can you point me to one study conducted by the CDC where they debunked their own recommendations?

A doctor isn't a scientist.

That's true.

It is inappropriate for them to be doing the opposite of what is recommended for the practice.

If all a doctor is going to do is tell people what the practice or the health authorities say, then why do you even need to go see that doctor? Do you not think that treating patients as individuals is important? Do you not think that there are different risk/benefit ratios for different groups of people? Do you not think that what may be the best treatment for one may be different for another?

But a researcher, or a medical scientist, they should be studying and testing claims, even trying to debunk claims,

Agreed. That's why when I see studies with "unexpected findings" (such as the Cleveland Clinic study that showed a perfect correlation between increased vaccine doses and increased infections) I pay particular attention to those. Why? Because when a study finds something different than the original hypothesis, it's a sign that their intent in the research wasn't simply to arrive at a predefined conclusion, but to objectively analyze their findings and report them honestly, even if it was contrary to what they expected to find.

 

[stevil]

This is a disingenuous argument. People were told "get vaccinated or lose your job". That's not a "choice" and anyone who contends it was is not being intellectually honest.

Does help to be clear when you are arguing against "mandates". What mandates, mandates by whom?

If you are upset that your employer set some rules/conditions on coming into the workplace, such as, you either need to be vaccinated or show a health certificate or whatever. Well, that is upto your employer.

Are you complaining about the government and law, or various employers?

I'm sure employers want a safe and healthy working environment, for employees and customers.

 

[stevil]

But how mycarditis affects people "in general" is not helpful to understand. What benefit is there in averaging rates of myocarditis from 85-year old grandmas with myocarditis rates from 20-year old college athletes?

Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis - PMC

There have been recent reports of myocarditis (including myocarditis, pericarditis or myopericarditis) as a side-effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in young males. Less information is available regarding the risk of myocarditis ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.

 

[stevil]

But what that doctor recommended to my parents was not political in nature. It was an evidence-based recommendation that because they had acquired natural immunity from prior infection that a vaccine would confer no additional benefit. That is absolutely true.

Well, actually, that's not true.
Studies show that even though someone has already had Covid and survived, they do recieve benefits from having the vaccine as well.

Do I still need to get vaccinated if I’ve already had COVID-19?

Dr. Andrew Badley discusses if you still need to get vaccinated if you've already had COVID-19.

www.mayoclinic.org

If you've already had COVID-19 should you still get vaccinated
The answer is YES.

COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions

Get answers to frequently asked question about COVID-19 vaccines.

www.cdc.gov

Yes, vaccination remains the best available protection against the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death, even if you have previously been infected. If you recently had COVID-19, you may consider delaying a COVID-19 vaccine dose by 3 months from when your symptoms started or from a positive test. Studies show:

• A longer time between infection and vaccination might give you a better immune response to vaccination.
• A low risk or reinfection has generally been seen in the first few months following infection.

Do I need a vaccine if I’ve already had COVID-19? - UChicago Medicine

Still trying to decide if and when to get your COVID-19 vaccine? Infectious diseases expert Jennifer Pisano, MD, is here to answer your lingering questions.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

Do I still need the vaccine if I’ve already had COVID-19?

Absolutely. While we know recovering from a COVID-19 infection means you will have circulating antibodies in your system, we are still learning about how the immune system handles the antibody response after a natural infection. We’re not sure how protective the antibodies are from different kinds of infections — such as an asymptomatic infection versus a symptomatic infection. With vaccination, we know that people with healthy immune systems are getting a great antibody response. So I would recommend vaccination even after a COVID-19 infection to get the best protection.

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/featured-topic/common-questions-about-covid-19-vaccinations-answered

Should I get the COVID-19 vaccine even if I've already had COVID-19?​

Getting COVID-19 might offer some natural protection or immunity from reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19. It’s estimated that getting COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination both result in a low risk of another infection with a similar variant for at least 6 months.

But because reinfection is possible and COVID-19 can cause severe medical complications, it’s recommended that people who have already had COVID-19 get a COVID-19 vaccine.

In addition, COVID-19 vaccination might offer better protection than getting sick with COVID-19. A recent study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than twice as likely as fully vaccinated people to be reinfected with COVID-19.

 

[probinson]

Does help to be clear when you are arguing against "mandates". What mandates, mandates by whom?

In the US, there was a federal mandate for government workers and any employer with more than 100 employees. The Supreme Court had to intervene to strike down this overreaching mandate.

If you are upset that your employer set some rules/conditions on coming into the workplace, such as, you either need to be vaccinated or show a health certificate or whatever. Well, that is upto your employer.

No, the Biden Administration attempted to impose that mandate on all employers with more than 100 employees.

Are you complaining about the government and law, or various employers?

The government. But thankfully, the Supreme Court stopped their broad and overreaching mandates before too much damage had been done.

I'm sure employers want a safe and healthy working environment, for employees and customers.

Requiring employees to get a vaccine that doesn't prevent transmission of the disease does not achieve that goal.

 

[probinson]

Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis - PMC

There have been recent reports of myocarditis (including myocarditis, pericarditis or myopericarditis) as a side-effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in young males. Less information is available regarding the risk of myocarditis ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine.

Myocarditis is a rare but significant adverse event associated with COVID-19 vaccination, especially for men under 40. If the risk of myocarditis is not stratified by pertinent risk factors, it may be diluted for high-risk and inflated for low-risk groups. We sought to assess how the risk of myocarditis is reported in the literature.​

​

...​

​

Consistently, we found that men under the age of 40 who received a second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine had the highest incidence of myocarditis. Our review covered the time of the initial vaccine roll-out and the months that followed. During this period, adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination, such as myocarditis, were first being identified. Given that as high as 70% of studies reporting adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination did not stratify enough to calculate the incidence in the demographic at highest risk, public health officials may have overlooked or minimised this complication, delaying the opportunity for risk mitigation.​

​

...​

​

Furthermore, we found that for both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the risk of myocarditis is orders of magnitude greater after the second dose compared to the first dose, especially for age groups under 25. There are five studies reporting an incidence greater than 10 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in men aged 12–19 after dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine. The risk of myocarditis across those five studies ranges from 1/2562 to 1/9442 persons. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was approved later than Pfizer's; thus, there are less data on the incidence of myocarditis. However, we found that men aged <40 who receive the second dose are at highest risk.​

​

...​

​

Myocarditis is a serious adverse event that disproportionately affects men under 40, with highest risk among men aged 12–24 who receive a second dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. We show that when investigators present the risk of myocarditis stratified by sex, age, dose number and manufacturer, it is much larger than without stratification. An important safety signal may have been ignored or minimised by failure to stratify appropriately.​

​

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947

​

​

​

 

[probinson]

Well, actually, that's not true.

Sure it is.

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.​

​

Past Covid infection as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

www.nbcnews.com

​

Studies show that even though someone has already had Covid and survived, they do recieve benefits from having the vaccine as well.

They do not.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA advisory committee on vaccines, talking about protection from prior infection.

​

​

Interviewer: You could just say, "recovered immunity". More data coming out still kind of saying, it's actually pretty good, right? If you've been infected.​

​

Dr. Paul Offit: As you'd expect. It's true for every other virus. I mean, arguably except for the flu. If you've gotten measles, there's no reason for you to get a measles vaccine, or mumps or rubella or chickenpox. I mean, you've been vaccinated, essentially. Um, but here, and I think it was probably more bureaucratic than anything else. When you, it is not at all surprising that if you're naturally infected that you will develop high frequencies of memory B and T cells which should protect you against serious illness, ...​

Did you catch that? It's not surprising that people who had the infection have arguably better protection than those who got vaccinated. The reason they recommended vaccines for everyone, even after infection, was NOT scientific, NOT medical, NOT prevention-based, but purely bureaucratic.

My parents' doctor was simply providing them with his medical expertise, untainted by bureaucracy and politics.

Remember when you said, "Doctors are susceptible to misinformation and politics, just like everyone else"? So are the people who were making these decisions and recommendations. The decision to require vaccination after an infection was not a medical decision. It was a bureaucratic decision.

 

[stevil]

Did you catch that?

No, that video didn't address the point.

The question isn't "does having caught the disease AND surviving give you a level of immediate immunity from catching it again?"

The question is "does having the vaccine after having caught the disease at some point in your past, provide any benefit?"
We can both agree that the answer to question 1 is yes, so please stop trying to prove that one to me.
The second question is the one that I'm interested in, and for that one, the reports I have seen is yes you should get vaccinated.

 

[stevil]

Myocarditis is a rare but significant adverse event associated with COVID-19 vaccination, especially for men under 40. If the risk of myocarditis is not stratified by pertinent risk factors, it may be diluted for high-risk and inflated for low-risk groups. We sought to assess how the risk of myocarditis is reported in the literature.​

​

...​

​

Consistently, we found that men under the age of 40 who received a second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine had the highest incidence of myocarditis. Our review covered the time of the initial vaccine roll-out and the months that followed. During this period, adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination, such as myocarditis, were first being identified. Given that as high as 70% of studies reporting adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination did not stratify enough to calculate the incidence in the demographic at highest risk, public health officials may have overlooked or minimised this complication, delaying the opportunity for risk mitigation.​

​

...​

​

Furthermore, we found that for both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the risk of myocarditis is orders of magnitude greater after the second dose compared to the first dose, especially for age groups under 25. There are five studies reporting an incidence greater than 10 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in men aged 12–19 after dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine. The risk of myocarditis across those five studies ranges from 1/2562 to 1/9442 persons. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was approved later than Pfizer's; thus, there are less data on the incidence of myocarditis. However, we found that men aged <40 who receive the second dose are at highest risk.​

​

...​

​

Myocarditis is a serious adverse event that disproportionately affects men under 40, with highest risk among men aged 12–24 who receive a second dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. We show that when investigators present the risk of myocarditis stratified by sex, age, dose number and manufacturer, it is much larger than without stratification. An important safety signal may have been ignored or minimised by failure to stratify appropriately.​

​

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947

​

​

​

None of this addresses the actual point.

We both agree that the vaccine can give Myocarditis to people, especially young males.
So please stop wasting time trying to prove to me something I already agree with.

The actual question is:
Does catching Covid while unvaccinated give you a higher chance of getting myocarditis or a more severe case of myocarditis than what the vaccine might give you?

And reports that I have seen say yes, you are better off with the vaccine even just on this myocarditis point alone.

 

[stevil]

In the US, there was a federal mandate for government workers and any employer with more than 100 employees. The Supreme Court had to intervene to strike down this overreaching mandate.



No, the Biden Administration attempted to impose that mandate on all employers with more than 100 employees.

Yeah, so the concern is about keeping the work place as safe as possible, it isn't about forcing people to have the vaccine.

The government. But thankfully, the Supreme Court stopped their broad and overreaching mandates before too much damage had been done.

Unfortunately the SC isn't pro life. Anyway, it is what it is.

Requiring employees to get a vaccine that doesn't prevent transmission of the disease does not achieve that goal.

No it doesn't prevent transmission but it does slow it down, makes transmission less likely

 

[stevil]

Dr Mike did a post Jubilee video on his Jubilee experience.

 

[probinson]

No, that video didn't address the point.

Yes,it absolutely does.

The point is that prior infection confers immunity that is as good, if not better, than the vaccine. And as Dr. Offit stated, that is "not at all surprising".

The question isn't "does having caught the disease AND surviving give you a level of immediate immunity from catching it again?"

You're right. It's not just "some level". It gives you the same or better immunity".

The question is "does having the vaccine after having caught the disease at some point in your past, provide any benefit?"

And the answer is, no. But for bureaucratic reasons, they recommended it anyway.

We can both agree that the answer to question 1 is yes,

No, we can't.

so please stop trying to prove that one to me.

FTR, I'm not trying to "prove" anything to you. I'm simply responding to the misleading claims you're making.

The second question is the one that I'm interested in, and for that one, the reports I have seen is yes you should get vaccinated.

Why? If the immunity you have acquired from a prior infection is the same or better than a vaccine and one of the vaccine advisory committee members is now on record stating that you after a prior infection you are "vaccinated, essentially", what benefit do you think exists?

 

[probinson]

Yeah, so the concern is about keeping the work place as safe as possible, it isn't about forcing people to have the vaccine.

No, you're mistaken. The goal was getting vaccine uptake to a certain percentage, because the government foolishly made vaccine uptake percentage a political promise. When it became clear they were not going to meet that number, they decided illegal mandates (as per the Supreme Court) was the answer to achieve that misguided goal.

Unfortunately the SC isn't pro life. Anyway, it is what it is.

The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the federal government mandating a vaccine for private employers.

No it doesn't prevent transmission but it does slow it down, makes transmission less likely

It really doesn't. And I think you know that. You've already agreed that everyone is going to get COVID. That is an admission that vaccinated or not, everyone is going to get infected.

Also, did you know the NNV for the COVID vaccine was well over 100? That means that over 100 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent ONE case of COVID. That's like slowing down from going 100MPH to 99MPH and pretending like it makes a difference.

 

[probinson]

None of this addresses the actual point.

We both agree that the vaccine can give Myocarditis to people, especially young males.
So please stop wasting time trying to prove to me something I already agree with.

I'm glad you realize that young males are at elevated risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine.

The actual question is:
Does catching Covid while unvaccinated give you a higher chance of getting myocarditis or a more severe case of myocarditis than what the vaccine might give you?

No, that's not the question. The question is when we age-stratify the results of studies, do we see an increased rate of myocarditis in young males. And as you've already agreed, the answer to that question is yes. Further, the rates are SUBSTANTIALLY higher after the second and subsequent doses of the COVID vaccine.

And reports that I have seen say yes, you are better off with the vaccine even just on this myocarditis point alone.

I just showed you a study that explained why that was the case. Here it is again.

If the risk of myocarditis is not stratified by pertinent risk factors, it may be diluted for high-risk and inflated for low-risk groups​

That is why the "reports that [you] have seen" say yes, you are better off with the vaccine, because they fail to stratify by pertinent risk factors.

 

[probinson]

Dr Mike did a post Jubilee video on his Jubilee experience.

The video opens with a clip of Dr. Mike asking one of the vaccine-skeptics, "Is there anything I could say today that would change your mind?"

This is a great question. But it should not be directed only at vaccine-skeptics. Is there anything I could post in this thread that would change your mind? I suspect not. I've posted all sorts of studies and data that you are just ignoring. You're not addressing them in any way, other than with an appeal to authority, that says, "The CDC says this", or "This hospital recommends that". But that's not addressing the data points I'm raising and what they show.

Then Dr. Mike goes on to take about causation and correlation, and to illustrate that point, he shows an image of a sea gull sitting on a badly deformed metal fence. Obviously, the bird sitting on the fence didn't cause the metal to deform, but this is shockingly similar to my "No elephants in my yard sign" analogy earlier in the thread. If we vaccinate a mostly healthy population, and then those people don't get sick, was it that the vaccine caused them to avoid infection, or was it simply that they were healthy people that weren't going to get infected regardless of whether they got the vaccine or not? IOW, vaccine studies can also fall victim to the correlation != causation argument. We call this "healthy vaccinee bias", and I've posted multiple articles about this in this thread, and how it causes studies to overstate the efficacy of vaccination.

The weird thing is, no one ever addresses these issues from the other side. It's always that "we can't convince anti-vaxxers no matter what we say", or "they don't understand that correlation != causation. But they seem blissfully unaware that many of their same arguments suffer from the same fallacies.

 

[stevil]

I'm glad you realize that young males are at elevated risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine.



No, that's not the question. The question is when we age-stratify the results of studies, do we see an increased rate of myocarditis in young males. And as you've already agreed, the answer to that question is yes. Further, the rates are SUBSTANTIALLY higher after the second and subsequent doses of the COVID vaccine.



I just showed you a study that explained why that was the case. Here it is again.

If the risk of myocarditis is not stratified by pertinent risk factors, it may be diluted for high-risk and inflated for low-risk groups​

That is why the "reports that [you] have seen" say yes, you are better off with the vaccine, because they fail to stratify by pertinent risk factors.

We can also stop harping on about the "stratification"

We both agree already that the "problem" is with young males.
When I said "Does catching Covid while unvaccinated give you a higher chance of getting myocarditis or a more severe case of myocarditis than what the vaccine might give you?" It was within the context of young males. I don't want to have to keep typing "within young males" on every sentence, that gets very tiresome We need to follow the context and the flow of the conversation.

Now I have already provided a reference where they are saying young males are 6 times more likely to get myocarditis from Covid than they are to get it from the vaccine.

 

[stevil]

No, you're mistaken. The goal was getting vaccine uptake to a certain percentage,

If that was the goal then the government would have made it illegal not to get vaccinated.
But instead, they told people that if they are coming into the work environment they need to be vaccinated.
Those people can choose not to work there. It is a horrible choice, but if they choose that, the government will stop telling them to get vaccinated.

It really doesn't. And I think you know that. You've already agreed that everyone is going to get COVID.

I've said many times that it is important to slow the rate of infection down. Or at least it was important earlier on, when not everyone was vaccinated and when the virus was novel and was overwhelming the health system.

It's much more complicated and nuanced than you make out. You are trying to oversimplify it.

 

[stevil]

And the answer is, no. But for bureaucratic reasons, they recommended it anyway.

From everything I've read, the answer is yes, people who have had Covid infection, should still get vaccinated. I've provided links on this.

FTR, I'm not trying to "prove" anything to you. I'm simply responding to the misleading claims you're making.

I haven't made any misleading claims.

Why? If the immunity you have acquired from a prior infection is the same or better than a vaccine and one of the vaccine advisory committee members is now on record stating that you after a prior infection you are "vaccinated, essentially", what benefit do you think exists?

Read up on it, do some research, the answers are out there. I have provided some links but it seems you haven't read them.
There is no point me telling you what I think, you don't respect what I think, and that is fair enough, I'm not an expert on contagious diseases and vaccines. But do the research.

You seem to keep coming back on things that we already agree on, but you don't zero in on the things of contention, or the claims that I have made with supporting links that you don't agree to. You keep responding with points that aren't on track.
E.g I tell you that young males are more likely to get myocarditis from the disease than they are from the vaccine and you keep coming back with stuff about young males being more likely to get myocarditis than females from the vaccine, While we both already agree this is true, we are actually trying to work out if young males should take the vaccine or not. so we should be asking, are young males more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine or from the disease without having been vaccinated.

 

[probinson]

We can also stop harping on about the "stratification"

We really can't. The risks of vaccination for 20-year old males is vastly different than 85-year old grandmas. So while you may call this "harping", it's simply acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all recommendation is imprudent.

We both agree already that the "problem" is with young males.

We do.

Now I have already provided a reference where they are saying young males are 6 times more likely to get myocarditis from Covid than they are to get it from the vaccine.

And I posted a study that showed why that analysis was flawed.

 

[probinson]

If that was the goal then the government would have made it illegal not to get vaccinated.

They tried that with their illegal vaccine mandate. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and pout a stop to it.

But instead, they told people that if they are coming into the work environment they need to be vaccinated.

Perhaps you are unaware of the vast amount of remote work that happened during COVID. Until March 2020, I used to work in an office. Since then and to this day, I now work at home. This mandate would have applied to remote workers. How on earth is me sitting in my basement alone on a computer a risk to anyone? But since I work for an employer that employs more than 100 people, that mandate would have applied to me.

The goal was to achieve a percentage of vaccine uptake to have a political talking point.

Those people can choose not to work there. It is a horrible choice, but if they choose that, the government will stop telling them to get vaccinated.

They would not. Vaccine mandates were a horribly discriminatory practice for no good public health reason.

I've said many times that it is important to slow the rate of infection down. Or at least it was important earlier on, when not everyone was vaccinated and when the virus was novel and was overwhelming the health system.

It was not. If you look at historical hospital data, aside from a very few instances, hospitals were not overwhelmed during COVID. In fact, I just posted an article the other day that said that hospital utilization is HIGHER now than it was during COVID.

It's much more complicated and nuanced than you make out. You are trying to oversimplify it.

It's really not. The COVID vaccine should never have been mandated. It was a foolish, evidnce-poor decision that led to a devastating collapse in trust in our public health systems.