>>>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. 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 .
>

Yes, it appears I was mistaken specifically about myocarditis. Since I hadn't yet read the pre-print of that study that I was unaware of, I was relying on the earlier statistics that showed significantly more myocarditis for covid positive but didn't account for age differences.

> 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.

We both agree that this "liability" scenario is entirely made up and based on nothing more than outdated stereotypes and your ridiculous prior assumptions.

>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?

Unvaccinated children with COVID are generating an "uptick" in pediatric emergency room visits. What are we even arguing about?

>
>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?

Any "risk assessment" on my part would be, as you have demonstrated, based on very limited knowledge of subjects that are well beyond my expertise. If I were alone in the world, I would be at risk of making terrible mistakes through sheer ignorance. As it stands, though, I am fortunate to be a member of a nation that has one of the most well developed public health and medical science communities the world has ever seen. People that are legitimately experts to mull these questions. They have direct access not only to the latest reports, but to the scientists and labs that are generating them around the world.

So with this incredible good fortune to have these people to advise me, I am going to second guess their well supported conclusions because... why?