> so we have data for 12m+. As a comparison safety data for Covid is only 6m older. We have data for 12m, but only for a very small population (22k in Pfizer,

> so we have data for 12m+. As a comparison safety data for Covid is only 6m older. We have data for 12m, but only for a very small population (22k in Pfizer, less in others IIRC). You are unlikely to see a 1:20,000 general population risk (as indicated by the Israeli study) in a 22k "volunteer, must be quite healthy" experiment. Unsurprisingly, there are no deaths in the pfizer trial - neither vaccine nor placebo arm (and no severe disease past day 73 in the placebo arm) That's the 12m data we have. No, we have 6m real world data for the vaccine, and 18m real world data for the virus. That's .. quite a difference. > However to detect two rare events, say narcolepsy and 5x narcolepsy, you need a lot of data. Indeed, which is why I am puzzled -- given that you are very much aware of the details -- that you can keep claiming that "the vaccine is less dangerous than the virus". You have proof from just 11 years ago where it took over a year of real world use to figure otherwise. What makes you think this time is different? > That's not the conclusion of the paper and hopeful speculation True. Also, the long term safety of covid vaccines is not a conclusion of any research and is hopeful speculation. And yet, people get no challenge for assuming that, despite counterexamples like Pandemrix. > you are currently engaging in lifestyle choices or are taking medication that are way riskier than current Covid vaccines. While that's true, that's also true for my subjective risk from COVID19 (and that's also true for the vast majority of 20-40 year olds). Would you consider that a good reason to ignore covid completely, and not take any precautions? If so, then - why do you care about the vaccine? If it isn't a good reason -- and I don't think it's a good reason to ignore covid -- then ... why is the same argument not applicable to the covid vaccines safety?