ABC2019 wrote:no you are wrong. Because if those who did not have comorbidities were not protected by the vaccine, there would be many more. If people without comorbidities can be hospitalized, that means they are ALSO protected by the vaccine.
Bé no. My data is for 2020, since these are the aggregate data that we have, and no one was vaccinated. Suddenly, even WITHOUT vaccination, people without comorbidities are 18% of 2% of hospitalizations, so 0,36%. Even if the vaccination would protect this part of the population 100%, you would therefore avoid 0,36% of hospital stays. It is therefore indeed negligible.
ABC2019 wrote:The only way to justify not vaccinating them is to show that the risk benefit is negative, and I haven't seen a bit of an argument in this direction in everything you've written.
Nope. I don't need to show that the risk benefit is negative, it's up to you to show that it is positive for these people. It was a fine attempt to deviate from the original subject "hospital overcrowding due to the whole population".
Even if we start from the principle that this vaccine just has "no interest" for the population not at risk, apart from the precautionary principle of not using it (since it is useless), it poses the question of using enormous financial, industrial and human resources for nothing at all.
ABC2019 wrote:precisely, we do not do it because it is very clear to everyone that anticoagulants (which have many side effects) have a negative risk benefit for those who do not need them. It illustrates what I'm telling you.
It illustrates the reverse. It is used on patients who need it. But maybe the example was badly chosen, I grant you. So, since the benefit / risk of homeopathy is not negative, I suggest you stuff yourself with it all winter. In addition, you already have an appetite for the subject