From my understanding, the RCTs were never big enough to gauge the risks you're talking about in a statistically valid way. As your data suggests, even if the relative risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is very high, the absolute risk is quite small. Meaning that carrying on the RCTs for years would almost certainly have told us nothing of value.
> From my understanding, the RCTs were never big enough to gauge the risks you're talking about in a statistically valid way.
You can't know because the trials were cut short.
The RCTs were too small to detect that specific risk. However, the only reason it was discovered outside of the clinical trial was because the base rate of myocarditis for 16-19 year olds is so vanishingly low.
If the base rate was even slightly higher, much larger effects could not have been easily detected. Would you be able to detect an increase, say, of the diabetes rate in 1 in 100 after the vaccine has been released? what about 1 in 500?
It should be obvious that if your trials cannot detect adverse events that occur in 1 in 10,000, you should not vaccinate populations in which there is a significant benefit in less than 1 in 10,000.
> As your data suggests, even if the relative risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is very high, the absolute risk is quite small.
And sadly, a few thousand kids had their heart damaged (hopefully minimally) for no possible benefit whatsoever.
> Meaning that carrying on the RCTs for years would almost certainly have told us nothing of value.
BTW, hindsight is not a valid way to design vaccine safety studies.
