1(“the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection”);
The quote is incomplete, you omitted an important part. This is the full quote: “Associations were stronger in younger men <40 years for all vaccines and after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, where the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection.” You also ignore the overall conclusion of the paper which says “Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination”.
2(“In boys with prior infection and no comorbidities, even one dose carried more risk than benefit”).
The second study you link there is also only about male adolescents. This study has a general conclusion as well: “Our findings strongly support individualized paediatric COVID-19 vaccination strategies which weigh protection against severe disease vs. risks of vaccine-associated myo/pericarditis.” I don’t know about the other study, but this one uses VAERS data, which has been abused due to its unverifiability.
Indeed, as did Belgium. Important to note here is that these restrictions were only for a specific subset of the population, and only for non-mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines are fine. This is not a reason to not get vaccinated at all.
It doesn’t have to in order to be effective. It slows down transmission and reduces the number of hospitalized people and deaths. It also reduces severity of symptoms for those who are vaccinated and go get the virus.
Have you read even the abstract of this paper? You are purposely framing it in such a way that supports your argument. The paper talks specifically about mandates, not recommendations, as EAG does. The study also mentions in its limitations that many adverse effects may be due to the nocebo effect or anxiety. The data from this study comes in part from the Wellcome Trust, which is known for having financial stakes in pharmaceutical companies which remains unreported in its conflict of interest and that it gains financially from the pandemic. The WHO has recommended the vaccine anyway.
The reason for your downvotes is that you seem to believe vaccines, at least at this point in the pandemic, are harmful, but most of your evidence supports the opposite of what you say.
I agree with you, that it may be, that the benefits of vaccination outweigh risks, for population as a whole.
Please also narrow in to my actual point, which is that for large demographics, it’s not a good idea to now get double-vaccinated. Whereas, EAG recommends all attendees to get double vaccinated. (Or at least they did; they seem to have changed their wording just now as a result of this post.)
You want to talk about other demographics, or even the population as a whole? Let’s do it, as an additional topic. As I don’t see good risk-benefit analysis, with general background of natural immunity, etc, for other age groups. And am curious to know more. Although, again, this would be a separate topic from what I am stating above.
The countries that have advised against double-vaccination, in my link, were advising against Moderna, which indeed is an mrna vaccine. Think you need to click that link.
″ It slows down transmission ”—this was definitely true in the past. I’m not sure if someone with natural immunity (almost everyone), who now gets double-vaccinated, will be substantially slowing down transmission, over what they were already doing. Source needed.
“It also reduces severity of symptoms for those who are vaccinated and go get the virus”—even for the 90% of people who have natural immunity… the oldish formula, double-vaccination will do this today? I don’t disbelieve you. But again, source needed.
The booster article: I understand your point on mandate vs. recommendation. Mandates would certainly be much worse. The main point here is just that it’s probably wise to NOT mandate OR recommend, for all demographics.
At the risk of wasting my time on this.
The quote is incomplete, you omitted an important part. This is the full quote: “Associations were stronger in younger men <40 years for all vaccines and after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, where the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection.” You also ignore the overall conclusion of the paper which says “Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination”.
The second study you link there is also only about male adolescents. This study has a general conclusion as well: “Our findings strongly support individualized paediatric COVID-19 vaccination strategies which weigh protection against severe disease vs. risks of vaccine-associated myo/pericarditis.” I don’t know about the other study, but this one uses VAERS data, which has been abused due to its unverifiability.
Indeed, as did Belgium. Important to note here is that these restrictions were only for a specific subset of the population, and only for non-mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines are fine. This is not a reason to not get vaccinated at all.
It doesn’t have to in order to be effective. It slows down transmission and reduces the number of hospitalized people and deaths. It also reduces severity of symptoms for those who are vaccinated and go get the virus.
Have you read even the abstract of this paper? You are purposely framing it in such a way that supports your argument. The paper talks specifically about mandates, not recommendations, as EAG does. The study also mentions in its limitations that many adverse effects may be due to the nocebo effect or anxiety. The data from this study comes in part from the Wellcome Trust, which is known for having financial stakes in pharmaceutical companies which remains unreported in its conflict of interest and that it gains financially from the pandemic. The WHO has recommended the vaccine anyway.
The reason for your downvotes is that you seem to believe vaccines, at least at this point in the pandemic, are harmful, but most of your evidence supports the opposite of what you say.
I agree with you, that it may be, that the benefits of vaccination outweigh risks, for population as a whole.
Please also narrow in to my actual point, which is that for large demographics, it’s not a good idea to now get double-vaccinated. Whereas, EAG recommends all attendees to get double vaccinated. (Or at least they did; they seem to have changed their wording just now as a result of this post.)
You want to talk about other demographics, or even the population as a whole? Let’s do it, as an additional topic. As I don’t see good risk-benefit analysis, with general background of natural immunity, etc, for other age groups. And am curious to know more. Although, again, this would be a separate topic from what I am stating above.
The countries that have advised against double-vaccination, in my link, were advising against Moderna, which indeed is an mrna vaccine. Think you need to click that link.
″ It slows down transmission ”—this was definitely true in the past. I’m not sure if someone with natural immunity (almost everyone), who now gets double-vaccinated, will be substantially slowing down transmission, over what they were already doing. Source needed.
“It also reduces severity of symptoms for those who are vaccinated and go get the virus”—even for the 90% of people who have natural immunity… the oldish formula, double-vaccination will do this today? I don’t disbelieve you. But again, source needed.
The booster article: I understand your point on mandate vs. recommendation. Mandates would certainly be much worse. The main point here is just that it’s probably wise to NOT mandate OR recommend, for all demographics.