There is nothing “Concrete” at all in your claim. In fact, the study makes sure to point out the value of vaccination. If we actually interpret what the data says we should note that the largest increases in risk is after the second dose, and points out that timing of the vaccination is probably a factor. In no way does it say that younger men should not be vaccinated. If anything, waiting longer after a covid infection or not giving the second dose would more closely align any adverse effects with the general population.
There is concrete evidence that young men should not have been boosted if they had already been infected.
Show the concrete evidence.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970
There is nothing “Concrete” at all in your claim. In fact, the study makes sure to point out the value of vaccination. If we actually interpret what the data says we should note that the largest increases in risk is after the second dose, and points out that timing of the vaccination is probably a factor. In no way does it say that younger men should not be vaccinated. If anything, waiting longer after a covid infection or not giving the second dose would more closely align any adverse effects with the general population.
I did not mention the value of vaccination
And in no way did I say that. I said young men should not be boosted, I.e. second dose.
No, you said there was “concrete evidence” that “young men should not have been boosted”.
That is opinion, and the study makes no corroborating claim to not vaccinate or boost.
Ironically you are having a failure of comprehension in a thread about failure of comprehension.
I suggest you carefully reread the claim made and the evidence provided.