There are reports of a growing number of young people who develop myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Is this a serious long-term concern that would argue against vaccinating the young, especially considering their relative resistance to infection and extremely low risk of death from COVID-19?

As we have said before, vaccination of the young is not necessary from the standpoint of the cost-benefit ratio usually applied because, in this case, the vaccination has not been rigorously safety tested, it is an experiment. So to inflict a major portion of the population, especially the young, to something that is truly unknown about its long-term downside in the face of growing continued evidence that young people rarely contract the illness and have serious problems warranting even hospitalization, let alone a lethal outcome, this is a step that would not be taken normally. What is at play here is the campaign of fear to drive the Vaccination Program forward, both for economic reasons but mostly because it serves the Extraterrestrial Alliance to ensure everyone receives their marker implants contained within the vaccine, and this will assist with the planned annihilation of humanity because these locator chips will facilitate finding them and ending their lives. And this is especially the case for the young, who they know are largely escaping the consequences of the COVID-19 illness itself, so having them vaccinated is not too great a counter to their aims of wanting to harm as many people as possible. This is why when you read about the anti-vaccine perspective, promoting and exaggerating the potential side effects that do appear, there will be a broad condemnation of the very idea of vaccinating the young because of their low rate of actual suffering. But this is often without a treatment or analysis of the secondary problem that in having young people, as in a family group, who may contract the illness and spread it to family members, there is still a general risk to the population posed by young people, who have either not had the illness or avoid vaccination, and therefore could become a carrier, at least for a time. So the risks to the people around them will vary depending on whether there are elderly people living with them, and so on, who are more vulnerable to the hazards of the virus, and of course that is highly variable in particular settings and personal histories and environments. Our perspective is that side effects like the myocarditis, if it is not fatal, are a worthwhile trade-off for preventing any death that might happen, even if the death toll is extremely low in numbers, but that is a divine perspective and not a human one. The human perspective is simplistic, it is a question of whether one person is hurt or many, and not so much the relative severity. So if the deaths from the virus are quite few, having a number of people with side effects from the vaccine grows larger in people's perception and seems to be an effective counterargument to avoid vaccination altogether in that age group. So what we are illustrating here is this whole question is highly subjective and comes down to comparing the lesser of evils, which will vary depending on one's personal place in things, their relative safety and vulnerability, and so on. There is no one best answer categorically here that would be agreed on by the stakeholders, so we are simply weighing in with our own views to give some reassurance we do not see the myocarditis problem as a huge liability. It is real and it will certainly cause harm but it, too, must be considered in the broader context of cost and benefit overall for the population as a whole and not just the young cohort and its prospects.