>>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 because there's almost no published data for jabbing 2-12 year olds; under 5y isn't even eligible yet in many jurisdictions. That didn't stop you making a pronouncement that "myocarditis is also a symptom of COVID infection in children at rates far higher than vaccine reaction" yet you go all censorious and issue grave warnings when somebody else dares to "suspect" something different from your certainty. I'm not alone: for months, other doctors have expressed unease at rising reports of myocarditis in younger people- e.g. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340 - and the NZ authorities have just issued a warning for medics to watch out for myocarditis symptoms in younger people. So when I say I "suspect" liability for authorities if it turns out their certainty is misplaced; what do you think will happen? As I observed, when it happens to you the incidence is 100% and the US is notoriously litigious.

>> 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".

I made the point that pediatric myocarditis had been rare until now, also that myocarditis risk is not a complete picture, since C19 has other effects. Now you claim those observations as your own, instead assigning me a "Covid doesn't affect children" straw man/false rubric against which you can rail. If asked, I'd refer to CDC's comparative risk calculations for kids versus adults so now I'm disappointed: when you posted the earlier citation I thought you wanted scientific discussion rather than ad hominem sophistry.

>>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.

As of 30 December I see reports of "upticks" in C19 pediatric admissions, with latest CDC data suggesting highest admissions in the ineligible <5y group. You refer to testimony from doctors but do you have actual citations to support the allegation of pediatric ICUs "overflowing with unvaccinated children suffering needlessly" who would have been kept out of the ER if bad people like me hadn't prevented their vaccination?

As an aside, the authors of your earlier citation say protection against the dominating omicron strain drops to 45% within 10 weeks, even after booster; they also suggest that C19 is only a mutation or two away from full resistance to current antibodies, meaning zero protection. Does that change the risk assessment?