Is it though? I may not be infected by covid and not be subjected to the risk, but if I get the vaccine then I'm definitely subjecting myself to the risk.
x * (1/25000) vs 1.0 * (1/100000)
If the probability of catching covid (x) is less than 25% then the risk of myocarditis would be greater from the vaccine, no?
Edit: what happens when you get the vaccine and then get covid? Do the current figures include that?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-covid-cases-re...
Assuming a world population of 7.75 billion, that puts the estimated prevalence at about 3.5%.
However, that's using confirmed cases. Estimates of actual cases would put it at 4-10 times higher (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... or https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/06/9645278...).
So that puts it at 14-35%, right around 25%.
Although that's over the last 21 months or so, it means you're more likely than not going to be infected with it in the next few years.
Anyways, I have no horse in this race, but I did notice some unusual chest tightness after my 3rd shot very recently - nothing serious though. I’m completely stress-free in life, so it’s not anxiety. Things have been great for me.
Eventually, most everyone will be exposed. Not everyone will become sick.
These are really anti-vax talking points, attempts to justify an anti-vax position. They're not imaginary concerns, but they also don't justify the former.
I always support talking about things transparently without censorship, period. But at the same time I acknowledge there's a lot of misinformation out there and most people are unable to distinguish what is important and relevant from what is not. Including myself.
And that is assuming the vaccine is highly effective. There do seem to be questions about that, given the ongoing mutation and variants. I'd still rather get vaccinated, but I do question whether people are being obstinate about seriously discussing the pro- and con- on this topic.
It's not a good assumption unless you are planning to die in about a year for some other reasons.
Seriously asking, its like the modern web has thrown such a question into a kakfaesque hole.
In conclusion, its not particularly hard to find this data with a few searches on your favourite search engine.
0. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-1 1. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...
In the data you linked to, the age group 0-59 15 people died, lets say the 74% number which is from all ages, that makes 4 where healthy.
If you want to answer this question for your country look at the official government numbers, I assume the CDC has those numbers for the US, the RKI publishes these numbers for Germany, etc. A generic Google search will find the most attention seeking site claiming stuff mildly related to your question.
Below 40, the official stats say 43 males have died of which are 6 boys below 19 years old. The population is about 10 million. What if those dead had underlying genetic diseases or diabetes or hypertension?
Fully a third of Americans are obese, for instance. And why is 40 the cutoff anyway? That's half the population right there. So already you've excluded two thirds of Americans, right from the get-go.
And what percentage of "underlying health issues" are undiagnosed and asymptomatic until a severe challenge comes along - like a heart murmur? It's all very well saying "well I don't have any underlying conditions", but do you really know that?
That is 33-100 micromorts. You can use this unit to compare with other activities (higher value is more lethal).
Base jumping is 400 micromorts.
Especially considering that the current booster shots are proven to be quite ineffective against the Delta and even less against the current Omicron mutation. Seemingly all of the risk, with none of the benefit.
Quite the opposite. The study in South Africa showed a 70% protection against hospitalisation from Omicron, the level is even higher for Delta.
It seems that three doses can drop down your risk of infection below what being previously infected with covid, or even being infected and then vaccinated with two doses can provide.
I think we made a great mistake by not making this vaccine 3 doses from the start.
I hate this kind of advice. It is like nutritional advice. "eat less omega 6", etc. None of it applies to any one person. What if I don't interact with humans and live on an island? What if I am a certain age, etc.
Also that individuals have variable probability of exposure to and infection with the virus, which may be very low, while vaccination carries a 100% 'probability'.
Also that one may reasonably expect to commit to many vaccinations. Australia, where I am, has already financially committed to more than 9 per capita - if they're buying them, I expect they expect to be using them. That's a lot of rolls of the dice.
All of which are one or more orders of magnitude higher [edit s/than/with] with the virus according to the data, which is excellent now that there are over 6.3 billion vaccine doses administered worldwide.
> Also that individuals have variable probability of exposure to and infection with the virus, which may be very low, while vaccination carries a 100% 'probability'.
Covid is not going anywhere. Over time the probability of being exposed to it approaches 1. The only question is do you want to be vaccinated when that happens?
I assume you mean lower.
Looking at the sewage data around here, your low is about 100% as well. There is no place in my country without any exposure so it's just a matter of time.