[WillPostForFood]

MRNA vaccine is highly effective at reducing symptoms and saving lives of those at high risk (e.g., over 65), but it was never effective at preventing infection or stopping transmission. People who were saying that were somewhere between being over optimistic, and spreading disinformation to try to increase uptake.

[javagram]

Studies showed it decreased infection and transmission against the original strain of Covid.[0]

It lost effectiveness against delta and then became nearly ineffective against Omicron (although still helping with reduction of hospitalizations and deaths).

Non-mRNA vaccine is available now (Novavax) and the effectiveness, or lack thereof, seems similar.

[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/07/vaccination-a...

[gadders]

It was also more dangerous to healthy young men than just getting COVID, due to myocarditis.

[llamaimperative]

Absolutely not true.

[gadders]

Looks like we have a science denier: https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-s...

"It is now clear for men <40, dose 2 and dose 3 of Pfizer have more myocarditis than sars-cov-2 infection, and this is true for dose 1 and dose 2 of Moderna."

[maxerickson]

You need to analyze the total risk of both options to state that getting vaccinated is more dangerous, not just the risk of myocarditis following each.

[gadders]

I need to state the risk of COVID in a healthy male under 40? That's self evident.

[maxerickson]

If you want to say you are doing science, then yes, you need to define what you mean by "healthy" and make the case that the harm from vaccination was greater in your group than the harm from infection.

If you want to say your subjective group is self evidently better off with some option, then don't say you are making a scientific argument.

[Marsymars]

This isn't generally true.

It does seem wise to preferentially get the Pfizer boosters over the Moderna boosters for lower dosage though, particularly if you're a young man.