> and even this miniscule risk is divided by 10 after primary vaccination (a 90% risk reduction in serious illness).
This risk doesn't get reduced by 10. Which is why the booster is required. If you have followed any of the research the 95% efficacy starts waning dramatically 6 months in, as Israel found out. So this is a false argument.
> So yeah, now you're in the 10-per-million realm, where risk of myocarditis starts to matter.
Let me get this straight -
1. 100 deaths in a million is a "minuscule risk"
2. Non statistically significant 1-5 in a million incremental risk of myocarditis, NOT DEATH is a cause for grave concern. I repeat non statistically significant increase in NON FATAL MYOCARDITIS is a cause of grave concern. Irrespective of the increased protection from spreading infections to elderly or deaths.
100 deaths with no vaccine protection === whatever.
1-5 non stat sig incremental myocarditis for the same population vaccinated - GRAVELY CONCERNING
I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument.