> They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted.
They absolutely did! Let's go through that one sentence clause by clause.
> i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive
...which is utterly ridiculous. The vaccines have clearly saved tens of millions of lives by any reasonable assessment.
> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats
..."especially", so not only the sub-60 cohort, but to a greater degree for them. Looking at "the actual stats", so should be verifiable, but still no evidence for that. And there won't be: the benefits very clearly outweigh the negatives for under-60s.
> - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.
"At least" in the unspecified "younger pop". But this is only true if you chuck a bunch of qualifiers in there.
If you want to argue that the risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccine than from covid in, say, under-35s, then I don't think that is true in general, but it gets a bit less clear (and there are other risks from the virus than just myocarditis). But if you are going to argue that then why talk about the "sub 60 cohort"?
> You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation
No, I most certainly did not. You can read what I wrote by moving your eyes a couple of paragraphs up. I called bullshit on "especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats".