[bryanlarsen]

If it was detected, would it or should it have changed anything? On the one hand we have a disease causing millions of deaths, on the other hand we have this rare risk.

No trial can detect rare long term risk. It can only bound that risk. And we shouldn't ask for anything more. Everything is risky, but the risk bounds are acceptable.

[freediddy]

What are you talking about? This isn't talking about long term risk at all. This is within 28 days of the 2nd dose. That is well within the reach of a clinical trial. The clinical trial should have detected this, but it was rushed. Plain and simple.

The narrative was that everyone should be vaccinated. The data and science showed that not only did young people have an incredibly low, almost non-existent risk from COVID, there was a material risk to all young men from myocarditis from the vaccine.

The reason why there is so much distrust about the medical establishment and the media is because what they were telling us didn't make sense and it was obvious they were lying to us just to get us to take the vaccine. Why were they so desperate for us all to get the vaccine when science proved that it didn't work by end of 2021?

[bulbar]

> The clinical trial should have detected this, but it was rushed. Plain and simple.

No, that is wrong. Trials generally don't detect very rare side effect that only occur for some special subgroups. They would have to have tested 100.000 males <40 to detect that. That's generally not feasible for any medication or vaccine.

That's also only talking about one particular side effect, more interesting would be a comparison of all-cause mortality, because that's more likely what you are interested in: Does the vaccine increase or decrease my chance of dying soon?

For example I calculated back then that getting unvaccinated Covid-19 would increase my (very low, male of age <40 living in central Europe) likelihood of dying within the same year by the factor 7.

There's also a problem with the study - there's always a problem, that's why a singular study is never sufficient. Within a big data set - and tens of millions is huge in this context, you can always find significant results if you just test enough subgroups. That's called alpha error accumulation, because the more hypothesis you test, the more likely you will have 'significant' results by pure coincidence. That's why reporting significant results on (hypothetical example) "elderly people between 60 and 70 that don't own a TV" are always met with caution. It seems to me they tested at least around 50 hypothesis from what data they gathered (sex, age in 10 years bins, ethnicity etc), but they might effectively have tested more and from a first look it seems they didn't account for that.

PS:

> Why were they so desperate for us all to get the vaccine when science proved that it didn't work by end of 2021?

You talking about one vaccine in particular? Or some combination in particular? But only covid vaccines, I guess? Anyway, what you wrote is wrong. Every single one of them helped in the sense that people would be less contagious and would have less severe symptoms.

[bryanlarsen]

> The narrative was that everyone should be vaccinated

And that's still true for everyone that lives in human society. The disease killed ~7 million people and would have killed far more without the vaccine. Almost all of the deaths were in the vulnerable, like is the case for most diseases. Vaccinating the entire population protects the vulnerable. The moral choice as one of the not-vulnerable is to either get vaccinated or be a hermit.