CDC researchers examined March 2020 through January 2021 data from Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release, a U.S. hospital-based administrative database of healthcare encounters from more than 900 hospitals.
Eight things to know:
1. Myocarditis inpatient encounters were 42.3 percent higher in 2020 (4,560) than in 2019 (3,205).
2. The risk for myocarditis was 0.146 percent among COVID-19 patients and 0.009 percent among patients who were not diagnosed with COVID-19.
The article isn't talking about the general population, it's talking about people who went to a hospital between March 2020 and January 2021. AKA during the height of the pandemic. Your 0.009% figure is NOT a baseline risk for general population.
You are correct, the 0.009% is among patients without COVID diagnosis who visited the hospital, whereas the baseline risk for general population in U.S. is unknown and very difficult to ascertain.
This article here estimates cases of myocarditis to be 10-20 cases per 100,000 persons, or about 0.0001% to 0.0002%:
You missed a critical aspect here:
The 10-20 cases for 100,000 persons is the estimated world-wide incidence, not the overall incidence for the United States, which your article says is unknown, underdiagnosed, and very difficult to ascertain as many cases are subclinical. It also mentions that some estimates, 1-5% of all patients with acute viral infections may involve the myocardium. Basically, we don't know.... but it's a tiny small ass number, whether 0.009% or 0.0001%.
This is 45-90 times less likely than your 0.009% figure. Which means that a risk of 0.026% of myocarditits from the pfizer vaccine is 130-260 times higher than no vaccination and no covid!
This is a perfect example of why statistically significant difference (45-90X or even 130-260X higher risk) is not the same as clinically meaningful difference (only 0.0089% increase in absolute risk).
You can be 1,000X higher relative risk, but if the absolute risk increase is 0.01%, then it's not clinically meaningful. It's a rounding error. You can multiply a tiny number by a huge integer, but it's still ends up as a tiny number. The absolute risk is miniscule. Look at an 0.0089% increase risk.
That's why you can't look at only the Relative Risk, but the Absolute Risk increase. Is there a big difference between 0.009% vs. 0.0001%? It's a rounding error. So it's not appropriate to fearmonger about an 130-260X risk ratio, when the denominator is an infinitstimally small number to begin with.
In any case, if you get covid, you probably have other things to worry about than just myocarditis! The actual risk calculation should be:
Risk of severe adverse reaction from vaccine
VS
(Risk of of getting covid) * (Risk of severe to critical symptoms from covid)
Covid has approximately 20% chance of severe to critical symptoms. If we assume 0.026% to be the risk of severe adverse reaction from pfizer, then 0.13% is your threshold. If you estimate your chance of getting covid to be higher than 0.13%, then you should get the pfizer shot. If you estimate your chance of getting covid to be lower than 0.13%, then you logically shouldn't get the pfizer shot.
Translation: Using 0.13% as a threshold, you have to be
>99.97% confident of never never getting COVID, in order to avoid the Pfizer shot. 
I agree with you, if I am almost 100% confident that I will never get COVID, I would avoid the Pfizer shot too! However,
@taxiya is in Europe, and I am in the US, so there is an non-zero chance (may take few years or more) that I will eventually get infected by one variant or another. Maybe you are in China, so you believe the lockdowns can eradicate the disease and you are 100% confident of never getting COVID for the rest of your life. More power to you.
Then this conversation transitions to: Can these disease be truly eradicated? Can you be >99.97% certain you will never get COVID for rest of your life? I personally think it's going to be endemic like influenza and never go away. That's just my opinion.
