The probability a child is dead given they were diagnosed with covid is an order of magnitutde lower than the probability a child is dead given they took a covid vaccine. It's the implicit assumption that probability theory is invalid which produces the divide between the dogmatists and the anti-vaxxers. It should be noted that is the anti-vaxxers who want to use math and the dogmatists who want to use assertion while dismissing any estimation of risks. Heart failure is cased by heart inflamation. That's a fact. Basic probability of theory of A|B applies. The side opposite the anti-vaxx crowd claims, even though it is implicitly, that probability theory in invalid and thus not useful for making decisions about what happens to one's body and children. The transitive property says that if A = B and then B = C then A = C. If clots cause heart attacks and a vaccine causes clots then of course it causes heart attacks. Its deliberately obtuse to claim otherwise unless one wants some farcial 'special vaccine clots that won't cause heart attacks'. Thanks for your response. That line about not chasing every new discovery is a very good one. It's the dominant effect I care about. It's about raising my childs absolute risk of a negative event to something stupidly higher that it already is, which is clearly the case with COVID vaccines and people like Linus are doing a disservice with the dogma. Even the American Economic Association is arguing against the insane push to give it to children.
They make it about vaxx vs anti-vaxx and they should instead make it about how many 40 year olds will neard heart transplants who wouldn't even experience anything bad if their vaccinated teacher's had kept their demands to experiment on children out of the arena.
