[nwienert]

So they did stop recommending it? Tbh I’m not tracking every countries exact status and don’t need to to make the point, in fact your citations only strengthen it.

There’s are a whole list of countries that have backed off recommending vaccines for the young and that alone is enough to disprove your attempt to dismiss a very, very important topic.

By doing so you potentially have moral responsibility to men who may be missing out on critical info that could save their lives. The data supports it and the fact that many very pro vaccine countries are now stepping back their recommendation is a massive positive indicator that it’s worth discussing.

I don’t have to prove beyond a doubt it’s unsafe, just that there’s gray area. You meanwhile called any gray area dumb, and therefore need to prove beyond a doubt that it has clear benefit to young men. It doesn’t.

And yes the banning of Moderna is a huge, massive piece data because we know it’s much worse re: Myocarditis. So we basically know for a fact it’s a bad trade off for young men. Pfizer would require your own research but again it’s not clear it’s even neutral. So why argue it’s dumb to even discus? This is the sort of weird argumentation I’ve seen throughout the pandemic where it’s like a religion that can’t ever admit faults lest it all come apart. You can admit there were mistakes and are flaws, it’s ok, it doesn’t ruin your belief system at all.

[mlyle]

Denmark suggests 2 doses for all over 18.

Finland and Sweden suggest 3 doses for everybody over 18; Finland recommends vaccine for everyone.

None recommend against vaccine in children.

This is very, very, very far from "recommend against getting vaccination for young men" which is simply wrong (uninformed or bad faith?) They all recommend young men get vaccinated.

[nwienert]

First off, over 18 isn't really youth anymore so changing goalposts.

Why are you saying false things? They categorically don't recommend young anyone to be vaccinated.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-limit-childrens...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

I was very careful to say they withdrew recommending it, which is true.

Now the interesting convo is why they did that, which you seem to be keen to avoid.

---

Not to mention its easy to bring in tons more data to show it's worth a discussion. Whether countries recommend for/against is weak, but still here a strong signal because these countries have been very pro-vaccine and naturally will avoid admitting things to protect themselves, so any admission is big.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccin...

---

The realest question here is why? Why try and cordon this scientific discussion away as off-limits when it's clearly an evolving and unsettled story. I'm so curious to figure out exactly what's going on and follow the research. Just feels strange to come in blasting saying you know the truth and this topic is settled when it clearly isn't. Why?

[mikeyouse]

> I was very careful to say they withdrew recommending it, which is true.

You know we can all see the chain of comments here, right?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34886149

> Finland, Denmark and Sweden recommend against getting vaccination for young men

"Withdrew recommending" is them reverting to a neutral stance -- "recommended against" is very much not neutral - and it's still wrong in either case because 2/3 countries you listed still recommend for vaccinating all young men.

It's so tiringly frustrating to discuss any of this with antivaxxers. Your language is so imprecise and sloppy that it's impossible to have anything resembling a productive conversation. I provided links to the actual policies published by the actual countries here and your response is just spamming with vaguely related news articles and insinuations instead of a moment's reflection that maybe, just maybe, your confidence in your understanding of any of this is misplaced.

[nwienert]

Avoid using "anti-vaxx" to describe everyone that disagrees with exactly your opinions, it really hurts your argument.

Try defending your point rather than name calling.

I will agree my "against" wording was a bit strong but I corrected it in the last reply anyway, so again this isn't a gotcha. But I'm very much closer to truth than saying they are still recommending it, you changed the denominator to over-18.

Withdrawing a recommendation is recommending against of course - if someone says they recommend to do something, they say they DON'T recommend to do it, and I told you "the government is no longer recommending youth take it based on efficacy and Myocarditis risks" who would you think that statement more supports in this thread? My arguments or yours? It's very clear.

It's also the strongest we could reasonably expect as governments are very conservative and self-interested.

Every article linked is relevant.

Meanwhile you are doing exactly what you want to do - distract from the fact that this is a real issue by trying to bury the conversation behind a bunch of sequiturs about pedantism, language, name calling, exasperation, etc.

[mlyle]

“Men” implies age of adulthood, or close, to me. Young men are dudes from, say, 16 to 27.