I'm not quite sure how this is relevant here. The vaccination is not going to be repeating with a larger than annual frequency. And the vaccinations themselves happen throughout the year anyway, so how does it matter how much the side effect is delayed? The side effect is also going to be happening throughout the year; it's not like 177M people are going to be vaccinated on the same day, which is what you seem to be assuming for some reason.
> Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences.
No, absolutely not. Definitely not according to your flawed reasoning.
Why a year? Why not daily? The vaccinations happen throughout the day. Why not per lifetime? You can only get the second dose once. I could pick any interval, either customary (hourly, daily, monthly) or completely arbitrary (per 47 seconds) and get any number as a result. If you can't argue why a per-year incidence is the proper number and not any other, then that by itself disproves the validity of the approach. You can't just pick an arbitrary number for what is effectively a scaling factor and say works for me.
I wanted to compare vaccination occurrences with regular ones. Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days. I.e. how likely is one to get vaccine carditis vs. background carditis during the same or equivalent time.
Sorry about the last paragraph. I meant vaccine carditis vs. non-vaccine for young males during the same time one would be at risk from vaccine carditis. Mainly as a sanity check for the signal-to-noise ratio.
> Why a year? Why not daily? The vaccinations happen throughout the day.
Because vaccinations take months, perhaps up to a year. In my country it's been at least half a year by now and we're at something like 55-60% of the population.
> Why not per lifetime? You can only get the second dose once.
Lifetime makes it an even worse comparison for natural myocarditis since you can get that in any year of your life. (But if need arises in the future for annual boosters against new strains or something like that, chances are that annual risks will again be the number to look for.)
> I could pick any interval, either customary (hourly, daily, monthly) or completely arbitrary (per 47 seconds) and get any number as a result.
You can pick garbage methodology and get garbage results, agreed. You can do pretty much what you want.
> Most of reported vaccine carditis happens a few days after second dose, so I compared those with the average incidence for a few (5) days.
Which is a complete red herring since how do you know that other kinds of myocarditis don't happen a few days after the initial viral infection as well? Either delay is completely irrelevant since shifting infections of individuals in time does nothing to overall statistics of incidence.
> Assuming young people have lower incidence rate and it is not already accounted for, there would be more vaccines carditis than natural occurrences.
No, absolutely not. Definitely not according to your flawed reasoning.