You continue to post falsehoods as if they are known facts. Just a few recent examples:
Rural areas with higher rates of severe illness or death cannot be compared to more suburban areas for several reasons without looking into a number of possible factors. Only one of them is different rates of vaccination among those populations. The quantity and quality of present & past medical care, both in or out of hospitals, are quite different. Unless you account for such varied differences, any conclusions are meaningless. You might as well be comparing apples to oranges. Some successful comparisons have been done, by others who actually made efforts to account for these differences. Why don't you look some of them up?
Again, such conclusions require good data. Do you have any? It is much easier to collect clinical data on severe illness (requiring hospitalization) or deaths than it is to collect data on rates of infection. If you had looked up some of this data (it does exist), you'd find that your conclusions are unwarranted and over simplified – perhaps over confident.
The misinformation was more than regrettable. It was deliberate and widely repeated falsehoods, meant to inflame the uninformed public who were regrettably inclined to let Faux News (and others) be their only source of news. These falsehoods have been intentionally repeated for years. I find your reaction to this, saying it's "regrettable", is no better than turning a blind eye to those who shout fire in a crowded theater.
That 'latest trend' is only a trend among the willfully misinformed. Such adverse events have been intensely studied by the medical world. They concluded that it is a possible risk, but it is so rare that there was no reason to remove approval of the vaccines.
The same goes for myocarditis. It is a known but very rare adverse event. It was carfully considered before it was ruled out as a reason to stop using the vaccines.
The continued mention of these rare adverse events is evidence that you and others like you are ignorant of the careful effort that goes into planning and evaluating clinical trials for medications like vaccines. You'd rather use such information as false reasons why the vaccines are not safe. That couldn't be further from the truth.
I understand all of that and agree with you. Another factor to consider is population density, which is much greater in big urban cities. But would you agree that, all other factors being accounted for, areas with a lower vaccination rate likely had a higher rate of severe illness and death than those with a higher vaccination rate? If you don't think that should be the case, then what does that say about the efficacy of the shots? Again, I am not anti-vax and have received three Moderna shots, as has my wife, in case you didn't see my previous post about that.
Yes, of course, myocarditis is a rare event post vaccination, but I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that, in the event of a sudden cardiac death in a young male, the question should not be asked as to whether the vaccine may have played a role? It seems that, since myocarditis is a known adverse reaction, you would want continuing follow up data to be collected.
And I worked in the pharmaceutical field for 30 years, so, yes, I do understand about clinical trial design and multi-variate analysis.
Also, your last comment demonstrates that you haven't really read my comments that well. I've stated repeatedly that I am not anti-vax. And I've nowhere stated that they are "not safe", but no vaccine is 100% safe. It's as if you just want to get your back up if someone even mentions a possible adverse effect.
