> There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics.
This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects?
(edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)
Vaccine side effects are less frequent and less severe that. Unvaccinated COVID side effects in all age cohorts. By a significant margin.
Myocarditis in particular is 8x more likely to occur with COVID vs the vaccine.
So, while an argument could be made that the risk of adverse reaction or death from COVID is too small to matter one way or the other in young people, it is not correct to say that the vaccine is more risky.
There is one exception I have seen in some data that myocarditis risk was roughly equal or slightly higher for young men of a specific age group who received the second dose of the moderna vaccine. But one could of course avoid that particular vaccine and still be better of vaccinated because that of course is only for myocarditis and the absolute risk is very tiny.
This article breaks it down, and references a newer, larger N Oxford study using data from the British NHS. Agreed on it being certain age cohorts. My dad would be a lunatic to not be vaxxed. But a 20 year old who is healthy?
I have not gone through that study or article in depth yet, but the thing that jumps out at me initially is that it is using seroprevelance data from Battacharia and I am yet to understand how he is so confident in his numbers. All of his surveys from my understanding rely on data gathered from people who came in looking to be tested. Which would obviously taint the randomness as people who think they might have had COVID are much more likely to take the time to come in and be tested.
Also, if his data is to be believed, then the protection offered by having had COVID in the past has been far overstated.
This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects?
(edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)