[s1artibartfast]

Im sorry, but that is missing the point.Any benefit doesn't equal cost/benefit.

For some with naturally acquired immunity, Both costs and benefits are amazingly small!

If you are a healthy 18 year old (infection fatality 1/100,000)[1] w/o vaccine, plus have previously acquired immunity 13X better[2] than a vaccine 90+% effective, you are talking about about 1/ 10s of millions of chance of death or severe complications IF you are infected. This easily puts it in competition with the more serious vaccine complications.

Looking at just two aspects for this hypothetical individual, you could weigh

1/10 million chance of death with no booster vaccine shot VS 17/100,000 chance of bells palsy[3] and a 60% chance of fever, chills and headache.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0 https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download

[ImPostingOnHN]

I checked your link regarding Bell's palsy, as an example, and the study said:

  >Currently available information is insufficient to determine a causal relationship with the vaccine

so where are you getting the evidence for the claim that 17/100,000 people will get Bell's palsy?

is all your evidence for a non-negligible cost this flimsy?

[s1artibartfast]

17/100k It is straight from the prescribing information.

Similar nonzero observations have been made in other national studies with sufficiently large samples.[1]

Some countries have added additional content around it to the prescribing info [2].

Scientific consensus is that the risk is clearly is lower than covid.

Another rare but acknowledged side effect is mycarditis.

We can quibble about the rates but they do exist.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-s...

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/06/10/covid-vaccin...

[s1artibartfast]

Numbers differ by study and vaccine. The prescribing info for phizer mentions bells palsy, but not the calculated rate.

An analysis looking at the trial data puts it at 14-18/100k higher than the expected baseline

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

A analsys from the previously linked lancet study had a muck larger sample ~500k, but different collection methods and found smaller but nonzero results

>The age-standardised difference for the incidence compared with the background population was 41·5 (95% CI 11·7 to 71·4) for CoronaVac and 17·0 (−6·6 to 40·6) for BNT162b2, equivalent to an additional 4·8 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for CoronaVac and 2·0 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for BNT162b2.

Most if not all the vaccine trials saw small increases <1% in serious adverse events in the treatment arm