EDIT: The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
> During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009% among patients without COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, the risk for myocarditis was higher among males (0.187%) than among females (0.109%) and was highest among adults aged ≥75 years (0.238%), 65–74 years (0.186%), and 50–64 years (0.155%) and among children aged <16 years (0.133%).
Later
Another thing to consider is that the myocarditis rate from C19 itself may exceed that of the vaccine, which would basically refute the argument against vaccination.
(By all means, pick vaccines strategically.)
For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
If this young person below 30 gets a side effect from the vaccine, is that side effect worse than what they'd get by having the virus?
It should be clear that we aren't going to suppress or eradicate covid, so you shouldn't be comparing getting the vaccine or nothing happening, but getting covid with or without the vaccine
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Covid won't mutate so that you will have to refill your vaccination every year to stay immune like with vaccines against the flu. If so, mass vaccinations probably won't be employed again and we'll only vaccinate at risk groups.
With an endemic Covid, how often will people get an infection on average?
It isn't a too trivial calculation at all.
You could easily argue for vaccinating everyone with comorbidities <30, without arguing for vaccinating everyone.
Also, even in apparently benign myocarditis, there may be heart damage which will not become apparent for many years.
The alternative is not stopping vaccinations. Men under 30 are given Pfizer.
An even higher number has a very poor idea of the state of their health. Never assume you're healthy.
People keep throwing this statement out as though somehow the risk of vaccination is higher then the risks due to viral infection. It is not.
The risks of adverse reactions to COVID infection is reduced across the board if you are fully vaccinated regardless of your health status.
Also worth noting: plenty of young people have comorbidities they don't know about yet, because they haven't found them. It is actually quite difficult to exclude yourself from the "has comorbidities" risk group apriori. A common one is in fact undiscovered heart conditions for people in their 30s, since they usually only become an issue later in life when symptoms are more likely to present.
If you’re going to disagree with me at least disagree with me.
No, because you need to consider not just the odds of getting myocarditis from covid vs vaccine (Pc:Pv), but the bayesian probabilities of getting infected (Pi) or vaccinated (1) and then getting myocarditis, such that the full risk analysis would look more like Pi*Pc:Pv[1]. Point being when you are talking about vaccinating the entire population, you can easily end up in a position where there are more cases of heart inflammation from fully vaccinating the population than simply letting the virus run its course. I believe the term is relative risk reduction but don't quote me.
1. This isn't quite right, there should be a 1-x term or two in there somewhere to account for the probabilities of getting vaccinated/infected and not developing myocarditis, but its been a few years since my probability course...In any case the point still stands, that the vaccine may be less likely to cause heart inflammation does not imply that it would produce fewer cases overall if a sizeable proportion is vaccinated. To properly estimate that you need an accurate estimate for the myocarditis rate from both covid and vaccine, which I don't think anyone has.
There is also this fact that myocarditis has high prevalence among teenage boys (even CDC might underestimate it) and it looks like it is caused by some form of immune reaction and its occurrence is immune reaction size dependent (Moderna causes more myocarditis than Pfizer that causes more than AstraZeneca). It allows to postulate that it might be that the people who get myocarditis after vaccination have high risk of getting it after infection.
Just make it so you can't use a hospital bed in that case. It's only fair to people who are actually forced to go to the hospital, as opposed to gambling for it.
"Heart and lung transplant candidates must be free of nicotine and tobacco use, including chewing tobacco, for six months prior to an initial listing."
https://www.osotc.org/resources/tobacco-abstinence-criteria/
Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by the Wright brothers during their experimental flights? Surely that's highly dangerous highly voluntary stuff. Should we refuse to rescue hikers if they become lost or trapped? Should the coast guard never help recreational sailors? Should we have to submit to a proscribed diet exactly to prove we deserve medical care? Should we forgo treatment for tendonitis if it can be shown we ignored known warnings about typing too much?
To me, people are precious, and they lead messy, imperfect lives. They make bad decisions and good ones, and decisions I don't understand. They'll take risks I never would in pursuit of goals I don't see as valuable. Sometimes, when you really get to know someone, a decision that didn't make sense from a distance really starts to. And sometimes people are being self-destructive and there's no more to the story, and sometimes it's something they go through and come out the other side of.
My conviction is to love and help them no matter what.
Sometimes I can't, and that's a different thing, but deciding that someone doesn't deserve help is a level of judgement I don't want and can't justify. Maybe what they were doing really was worth it. I don't know. Even if it's not, it's essential to let people try.
I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable. I am sure others feel the same way, about control in areas in which I wouldn't mind it because I happen to already be normal. So I am against it on principle. People need to be people, in all their messy glory. And we should help them if we can, regardless of how they got there. I think the only case in which I would act differently was if I thought letting someone suffer natural consequences was for their best - and I would have to be incredibly sure.
Leaving people to a fatal condition when we could help them is incomprehensible and inhumane to me, and represents a dangerous level of escalating disagreement into dehumanization.
> Should we refuse to treat any injury sustained by ...
You break it you buy it. Should the state and society in general be expected to shoulder the burdeon for people who chose to put themselves in danger, should 10 people be sent into danger to save the sailor who makes the choice to take on a hurricane?
Who do we save if we can only save 1 person, the heroin addict with a fatal condition we can probably save or the child that would be a flip of a coin?
> My conviction is to love and help them no matter what.
What of the children of the helicopter crew flying into the hurricane to save the lone sailor? No love and help for them? Or the person who doesnt get a bed because it is take up by others?
> I would find someone else trying to exert this degree of control over my life - requiring me to comply with their particular take on what risks were worth it - suffocating and unbearable?
Your choices are other peoples consequences. As a functioning member of society, philosophically you comply with these things on a constant basis, and no doubt demand it of others. It is not a matter of principle, it is simply a question of where the line is. If you have ever complained about anything you have exerted your control over someone elses life.
You cannot rely on "being right this time" to avoid participating in tragedy. The liars are too good. But you can refuse to hate and dehumanize those you are told to.
If you truly believe that medical care is a human right, then you should extend it to every human, regardless of how they wound up in the situation they're in. While you sometimes do have to choose, it is abhorrent to choose the rich over the poor, the socially well-adjusted over the outcasts, ideological friends over ideological foes. The standard we actually use is to do the absolute best you can for everyone you can.
You're right that it doesn't make sense to cause greater harm to avoid lesser, but rationing too quickly, especially from a place of moral judgement rather than medical triage, seems much more likely to be coming from a place of spite than a place of tragic necessity. We take care of enemy soldiers. We take care of people on death row. We take care of people who would see us dead, because this is what civilized and humane people do. If you are quick to deny care to people you perceive as not doing their part, you're coming from a perspective much, much darker than the general thought and ethics of this civilization.
I know everyone is angry and has suffered in the last couple years, and I know everyone wants to fight. There are people running around right now stirring up that anger and trying to direct it at their ideological enemies. By all means, fight for what you think is right. But if you find yourself indifferent to the death of your fellow man or even cheering for it, beware - it may make sense to you right now, but that will be no comfort in five or ten or twenty years if what you wish for comes to pass and you have to remember cheering for it.