>>>myocarditis is also a symptom of COVID infection in children at rates far higher than vaccine reaction.
>
>Published 17 December: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf and already with a pre-print revision, because original data merged higher-risk male and female data:
>
>- For males < 40y, *any* dose of Moderna and second or booster Pfizer dose has HIGHER risk of myocarditis than C19 infection.
>
>- Myocarditis risk after infection is higher as you get older; whereas myocarditis risk after jab is higher the younger you are.
>
>Therefore, if (when) the risk is further stratified to (say) 16-24-year-old males or eventually 12-16y old males, the jab relative risk will be even worse.
>
>If (when) the risk is calculated for boys aged 2-12y, I suspect that authorities making the above claim should anticipate regular dealings with lawyers for decades to come.
>
>Is this a complete picture? No, because myocarditis is not the only risk of C19 infection; but it is a direct response to the myocarditis allegation. My concern would be that you (and I) should be able to trust these sorts of assertions made by authorities, but clearly we cannot. If this results in general downgrade in trust of scientific expertise or institutions, that's actually bad for society because as history shows repeatedly, the things that rush to fill the vacuum tend to be far worse.

Thanks for the link to the paper. I saw another earlier study that had basically similar numbers, but didn't stratify by age. This seems to be a larger, more detailed study. As to the conclusions you list above I would refer you to the authors of the paper (from the "Discussion" section)
"Fifth, in this study, we performed several comparisons, which may lead to some erroneous inferences. As a consequence, careful interpretation is needed, especially for the borderline associations found."

And I would warn you (and anyone reading) that you are making extremely borderline assertions that the researchers do not even hint at in their own paper. There's nothing in the paper to support this statement "If (when) the risk is calculated for boys aged 2-12y, I suspect that authorities making the above claim should anticipate regular dealings with lawyers for decades to come." That's just you wish-casting a reason for people to fear vaccination.

And that's to me, the most incongruous part of this. Blowing up incredibly rare cases of myocarditis in children as a bogeyman while sweeping away far more serious and prevalent effects of COVID infection for children under the completely false rubric of "COVID doesn't affect children".

We know that COVID absolutely does affect children and in numbers that completely dwarf the danger of myocarditis from vaccination.

But you wont accept the testimony of ER doctors, nurses and pediatricians who are seeing pediatric ICUs overflowing with unvaccinated children suffering needlessly from COVID. Instead you will scrounge the internet for prepublished papers of a rare (though important) side effect of the vaccination -- that would have kept those kids out of the ER.