When we’re talking about a pandemic and a vaccine, there are multiple kinds of risk. There’s the individual risk - e.g., if I’m not vaccinated, will I catch the disease? Will I be permanently disabled, or will I die, if I do? On the other hand, if I get the vaccine, will I suffer from the vaccine?
There’s also a community risk - e.g., if I don’t get vaccinated, will I become a vector/carrier, spreading the disease to others? To my loved ones? Will I incubate mutations to the disease organism (virus), putting even those who are vaccinated, at risk?
A serious discussion of a vaccine that carries something other than zero risk has to take all this into account.
That said… we can pull the risk factors apart, and look at them individually. This won’t, in and of itself, get us to a conclusion - but it can inform a conclusion, nonetheless.
So… round numbers here. If there are 30 million young males in this “high risk” group (there probably aren’t that many, but bear with me), and the likelihood of this potential risk (potential because data is preliminary, and causality hasn’t been established) is 1/18,000 (simple math from the most concerning line in the tables PC posted), then we’re looking at…1,667 cases, total. The whole presentation PC linked didn’t give numerical data, but said that most of the observed cases recovered fully. So how many might suffer permanent disability or death? 10%? Not likely. 1%? Perhaps. But 1% is… 17. Even if 10% of those who suffer myocardial/pericardial have long-term issues, we’re talking about 167 people.
OK, that’s a non-zero risk to an 18-year-old, from the vaccine. It’s not a large risk, but it’s non-zero. But… how does it compare to other risks that 18-year-old confronts? What I’m getting at here is, it this really a “large” risk, or is it pretty minimal? I don’t have the data handy (and I’m working on dinner, so I’m not about to go researching at the moment), but I’d want to see data on other equivalent risks run by all the boys in this cohort - things that they all confront, all the time. That does include auto accidents, and football injuries, and firearms accidents, assaults, etc., as well as all the simple “stupid” things that young men do that result in serious injury or death. If that population risk of 17 (or 167) serious injuries/deaths is going to double the risk these kids face… that’s a serious issue. But of course, it’s not going have that kind of impact. It’s simply not a big enough number.
But… is ANY risk “too much”? If there are no offsetting benefits, sure, that’s too much. I don’t want to trivialize the idea that 150 young men might suffer seriously from the vaccine. But there are offsetting benefits - huge ones. If andyb’s reference is correct, the vaccine will save more permanent injuries and lives than it will inflict. And that is before any consideration of community benefits - of curtailing the spread of disease, of curtailing the ability of the virus to mutate into something potentially worse.
I would love to see a serious discussion of all this in public - because I think if that were to happen, the conclusions are pretty obvious. But as I said above, I don’t expect that to happen. We do not live in a rational society.
