That’s literally the whole point of trials for vaccines, to determine if they work and what the side effects there are if any. Public health officials then use that data to determine if, how and when to distribute the vaccines based on of those risks of the vaccine outweigh the public health risks of the continued diseas spread
In a global pandemic when millions of people are dying, a 1/10000 risk of reduced quality of life that helps 10/10000 people not die of the pandemic disease and another 100/10000 not experience reduced quality of life from the pandemic disease is pretty easy numbers to say “yes roll it out” because the benefits far outweigh the risks
I did not mention the value of vaccination
And in no way did I say that. I said young men should not be boosted, I.e. second dose.
That’s literally the whole point of trials for vaccines, to determine if they work and what the side effects there are if any. Public health officials then use that data to determine if, how and when to distribute the vaccines based on of those risks of the vaccine outweigh the public health risks of the continued diseas spread
In a global pandemic when millions of people are dying, a 1/10000 risk of reduced quality of life that helps 10/10000 people not die of the pandemic disease and another 100/10000 not experience reduced quality of life from the pandemic disease is pretty easy numbers to say “yes roll it out” because the benefits far outweigh the risks
Right. And the paper I linked to shows that for men <40 the side effects of a second dose outweigh the risks of skipping the booster.
This is likely why Sweden, Denmark paused Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups
No, you said there was “concrete evidence” that “young men should not have been boosted”.
That is opinion, and the study makes no corroborating claim to not vaccinate or boost.
Ironically you are having a failure of comprehension in a thread about failure of comprehension.
I suggest you carefully reread the claim made and the evidence provided.