[fabian2k]

We have high-quality data on the vaccines and their side effects. We don't have RCTs with billions of people, but that is data we never had for anything and can't reasonably get.

Judging the risk/benefit ratio is the primary purpose of the regulatory agencies that approve vaccines. I don't see any reason to believe the claim that the vaccines are harmful for everyone below 50, that sounds quite outrageous to me. There have been adjustments based on new data for the vaccines a few times, e.g. younger people are generally recommended to be vaccinated with Biontech and not Moderna or AZ based on the side effects of these vaccines. That doesn't mean the risk/benefit ratio is bad there, it only means that we have vaccines with a more favorable profile for those age groups.

[jeromegv]

Exactly. They DID make adjustments to not give Moderna/AstraZeneca to younger people because they had the side effect data and compared it to the risk of getting COVID and realized that Pfizer was probably better at mitigating those risks

Another clear case of someone implying totally crazy things (younger folks without the vaccine would have been better without the vaccine) with absolutely NOTHING to support it.

[mandmandam]

.. If only we had clear data to make such a decision.

However, collecting and analyzing that data would likely have eaten a percent or two into the eighty billion dollars Pfizer made last year, so I guess there's nothing we can do but trust the same authorities that brought us 'natural origin for sure', 'masks don't work', 'NNVTs don't mean anything any more', and 'Covid isn't airborne'.