Yes, I agree that it's important to put the absolute risk in context. The NEJM paper that started the concern about myocarditis put it this way: > Vaccination

Yes, I agree that it's important to put the absolute risk in context. The NEJM paper that started the concern about myocarditis put it this way: > Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/ Giving the risk difference in terms of events per 100,000 people is useful. It's also trickier to interpret because the length of the follow-up period is important: if the vaccine changes the rate of events, then a study that observes patients for two years after vaccination will have (roughly) double the number of events of a study that follows patients for one year after vaccination. That's why people like relative risks in this setting.