I actually kind of find the name amusing and it's making it harder for me to take the problem as seriously as I should. And then there are all the other animal poxes! Is there a pigpox, goatpox, dogpox, catpox, or ratpox?
I won't repeat the gravest sin of the public health establishment and those in their circles: I won't tell a well-meaning lie to try to coax the behavior I want.
I will tell them the truth: they are operating at a severe credibility deficit, and I am *very* reluctant to say a version of "I will let the CDC tell me when I can stop paying close attention to issues that people at the CDC personally think are important".
I just can't muster it right now. I think most can't. I hope the establishment attempts to engage the population where it is rather than where it wishes we were, but lol.
Experts absolutely should tell "well meaning lie[s]." They should tell you not to smoke cigarettes, although the chance it will kill you varies both with your genetics and with random chance. They cannot merely "present the evidence" because very few people can decipher statistics and most will instantly stop listening.
However, they need to be far more aware of the tightrope they are walking between maintaining credibility and delivering guidance. They need to understand how social media and the internet in general have reshaped access to valid and absurd criticism of public guidance. They need to choose their words very carefully and hedge.
The chance that anything will kill you always depends on genetics and random chance. If that ‘anything’ is known to hasten death on average then there is no lie in telling people not to do it.
Getting hit by a Mac truck will kill you independent of genetics and random chance. Taking a significant amount of cyanide will kill you independent of genetics and random chance. Clearly everything does not depend on genetics and random chance.
Just because not everyone gets lung cancer doesn’t mean smoking is harmless to anyone—it interferes with intake of oxygen and messes with your heart rate in all cases (when I was in high school our biology teacher did an in-class demonstration with one of the students, showing that it had an effect even on a teenager)
Slow Boring’s first annual subscriber orgy is hereby suspended indefinitely. Please submit your receipts to Milan to obtain reimbursement for your feathered mask.
It could be though that because it was a publicly announced orgy at a rave it was just easy to trace the cases back to that event and test other attendees and find more cases whereas much more common anonymous sex you're not likely to get a notification that you were exposed to monkey pox. The fact that this has spread to so many countries so so fast suggest we're looking at the tip of a giant iceberg.
Gotta believe there's a very tired public health officer briefing a bunch of politicians right now who are all asking "wait, what do you mean there's a second disease?"
On the whole, I'm much more sympathetic to the idea that there are a bunch of tired politicians right now who are explaining to few public health officers, the latter of whom are asking "wait, what do you mean there's more than one public-good factor to consider?"
Gay bars, bathhouses, and party organizers could have informational flyers warning people to be extra attentive to any rash (on themself or a partner). And maybe the CDC could allow people to set up testing at some of these locations like they often have for HIV/syphilis/gonorrhea/chlamydia.
No it is worse than nothing because it provides completely false feelings of security. Many sexually transmitted diseases spread by skin to skin contact mainly and monkey pox isn't even a sexually transmitted disease. It's the skin to skin contact that matters. Is it really that big of an ask not to have sex with strangers for a couple months while we figure out how widespread this is?
Uh. No surprises there. But since MY mentioned stocking up and you gave a specific figure it gave me the tiniest glimmer of hope. I suppose we’re lucky to have the stockpiles of the older vaccines thanks to the greater wisdom of previous generations. Seriously, I sometimes feel the world has devolved to some kind of Moronland twilight zone…
Maybe the CDC or the Government should say that having "a lifestyle that includes touching the skin of people you don’t know well in darkened conditions" (quite the euphemism for an orgy) is a bad idea and you shouldn't do it.
Nah. That would be judgmental and we can't have that.
It would be counterproductive, and thus moronic. It’s like sex Ed. Of course you should tell the teens the safest thing is not having sex at all, but if you stop there (adding some hypocritical moralizing on top) you’re not more likely to prevent them from actually having sex. What you are doing is making it less likely for them to have *safe* sex. Ditto for most things, within reason. In general our government should supply us with clear honest information, and enforce our democratically legislated constitutional laws, but it’s not its job to preach or moralize to us. Citizens are not children, government ain’t our parent or our priest etc. Beyond giving the information and enforcing the laws, free citizens can and should make their own choices.
Excuse me, but that’s precisely not what John was saying nor what I was saying, these are two straw men you have there. He was saying that the government should tell people that “ [it] is a bad idea and you shouldn't do it.” A moralizing, paternalistic and *prescriptive* formulation like that is quite different, indeed drastically different from merely providing autonomous citizens with accurate information to help them with good risk assessment. Likewise, I’m not hysterical, and not at all averse to educating the public. But the public are adults, and aside from emergency situations (such as was indeed the COVID pandemic at its height) government prescription, as opposed to providing of information, should be minimal. Moreover, one cannot ignore the historical (and not only historical) context of homophobia in society, and by the government, including the horrifying way the response to the aids pandemic was botched. So yes ,people can be justly skeptical of a suggestion that a useful and justified solution to our woes is for Uncle Sam to tell “the gays” to control their libido or some such.
I didn't reference "the gays" (your words) in my comment. I presume attending events where casual sex occurs in darkened rooms with strangers is a bad idea whether between homosexual or heterosexual partners.
That you took my generic statement and went to "moronic" and tied it to homophobia is on you.
Sure you didn't, you just happened to suggest it in the context of specifically gay events being mentioned, as your recommendation for governments response to those events, and lamenting the govenment's current supposed laxity and liberalization ("overstepped" in your words). I wonder which groups benefitted the most from those trends of liberalization you lament? But of course I am totally imagining the gaslight.
I'll be more clear: I have nothing against gay people, gay marriages, gay rights or gay parades. I was for gay marriage long before it became the accepted position in society and well before the SCOTUS decision regarding it.
To the extent, as Matt wrote, there is "a lifestyle that includes touching the skin of people you don’t know well in darkened conditions", then I think that lifestyle is bad and should be discouraged. And I don't care which genitalia are being used in the process.
yes, yes, consenting adults. But consenting adults do lots of stupid things and I think it is fine for the CDC or the government to make some statement that some of those things are dangerous.
Perhaps government health regulators could simply state don't fucking fuck any random people for a measly couple months while we figure out how widespread this is and maybe have the potential to nip it in the bud. You can still go to the bar and meet people or even online date (no online sex apps isn't online dating) and have sex with those people even though that is at least somewhat high risk if you're doing it more than rarely with a different person, but please just don't fuck completely random ppl you didn't even buy a drink. And for the love of God don't go to any massive orgies which is how a chunk of these cases were identified.
So would you be in favor shaming GOP congressmen into getting together and making statements about how foolishly risky it is to not have your firearms locked up in a safe(or trigger lock)?
These two things seem largely equivalent. It is absolutely obvious that both serious dedication to firearm safety and safe sex (apparently many-many gay men take the prophylactic AIDS cocktail regularly) are the right way to go. Browbeating your constituents about it might save a few lives. It would also annoy the hell out of the vast majority of them who vote (and probably also do the right thing already).
own a gun at the very fucking least use safety measures. I also think men (and I say men bc this is a men thing not a gay thing average straight men would be just as hedonistic if women weren't cautious about sex and for the critics just look at lesbian sexual dynamics to see even without the fear of rape by men women are just not that into anonymous sex with strangers for the most part the ratio of places catering to anonymous gay male sex compared to ones catering to anonymous lesbian sex has to be 500 to 1) need to stop having random anonymous or semi anonymous sex with strangers for at least a couple months while we figure out how prevelanent spread is and hopefully nip said spread in the bud while we still feasibly can.
It encourages all kinds of behavioral modifications, both more significant ones like avoiding sex or kissing with anyone outside your social bubble, and additional modifications for people who aren't going to do that, acknowledging that some people might even find some of these modifications to be turn-ons.
I think probably more effective would be the CDC printing up informational flyers that give appropriate warnings without being graphic in a way that turns people off from looking at them, and encouraging bath houses, gay bars, and party organizers to post them in prominent locations. (Better yet, have the New York State Department of Public Health print these flyers, because they've been pretty good at getting information across in ways that don't feel preachy.)
Even better would be permitting a test that could be offered in these locations, which already often offer rapid HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia tests.
There are places on the continuum between the social mores of 1920 and today. One needn't desire to go back to the early 20th century in order to think today's culture has overstepped in some ways.
Governments -- state, local and federal -- have been putting out messages around dangerous activity for a long while and more-so in the past 2 years. Seems like this would be a fine time to continue that tradition.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying I have a limited amount of fucks to give these days and I’m not convinced yet that this qualifies for one.
International travel (and orgies) was a mistake. Shut it down!
Or, for the more neoliberally inclined, perhaps we could collect a tax to properly price the negative public health externalities associated with antisocial behavior like sex partying or going to an international professional conferences.
Important addendum or caveat: aren’t the smallpox vaccines (at least the older ones?) only 85% effective for monkeypox? Obviously that would still be very good. However, for high risk groups, that’s a point worth taking into account in the calculus, esp. re: MY’s suggestion of having people volunteer to take the riskier older the vaccine to protect themselves from monkeypox.
We have three cases now in Sacramento that are all linked to the original patient who was at one of those raves I guess, but the news coverage is still coy and just says that the three people were "close contacts" which I assume means that they were sexual partners, but those words mean something broader to me and I wish they would just be factual and precise so we could better understand how this virus is moving. I am old enough to be headed to get my second shingles vaccine today, but young enough that I just missed small pox vaccination (literally it was declared eradicated days before I was set to get the vaccine) so I feel a little naked right now and part of me would just like to get a small pox vaccine and not have to worry.
Is this the same CDC that said masks don't work, that bumbled the COVID testing strategy, that took the masks off too early, that failed to recommend vaccines based on Israeli data?
The challenge of pandemic preparation is to find a way for our society to protect itself from diseases in a way that's actually sustainable and comes with a minimal risk of overreacting to non-entities like monkeypox is likely to be. And I think most of that work happens below the hood (by improving testing and funding research and other good ideas you have advocated that work against infectious disease in general), not by opening up a vaccine to a bunch of hypochondriacs at zero risk.
Michael Lewis's book about COVID praised its protagonists, who were actually a bunch of alarmist "experts" who wanted to shut down society for swine flu. Obviously this would have been stupid, would have tanked Obama's presidency, and would have left us even worse prepared for the actual pandemic when it hit. But Lewis praised those experts because he thought the precautionary principle is good (it is bad).
I appreciate that this post isn't praising the precautionary principle. But if we treat Monkeypox as a unique threat the way that Lewis's protagonists saw swine flu as a unique threat (as opposed to a common problem where we just need a better response infrastructure), then we'll see it as a success once it goes away on its own like swine flu did, and there will be even less motivation to fix the underlying issues.
There is no such thing as “the R0” of a virus. As you note, it depends on your behaviors. And when there have been only a few hundred cases detected in the current outbreak, and not a lot of details of contact tracing noted, it’s not going to be easy to estimate.
Considering the indications that it’s at least somewhat airborne I would guess non negligible. However I would also imagine it’s too early to tell. But regardless MY’s point is well taken, even for disease whose transmission is only fluid based, which this one unfortunately it seems is not, that’s no guarantee they will stay “with strangers in the dark” if they are not contained (see HIV).
OK, as to safety of the ACAM2000, which we all remember from Terminator - Judgement Day:
It is routinely administered to incoming US soldiers, who may one day have an exotic deployment. So, roughly 900,000 vaccine recipients in the surveillance population.
Incidence of myocaridits/ pericarditis was about 218/million in men under 40, 85/MM in women
As a possible comparison, folks remembering the COVID vaccine scares may recall that the MRNA vaccines (esp. seond shot) had an issue with myo- annd pericarditis, especially with young men. Incidence was 12.6/MM across all ages, genders. For young men it varied with age: 56/MM for 18-24, 20/MM for 25-29, 10/MM for 30-39.
So ACAM2000 is 4 to 20 times as risky as the MRNA COVID vaccines (on the myo- and pericarditis metric). IDK - is that daunting?
At least this one has a scary name and gross effects.
Sometimes it’s the little things that get people to act more rationally.
I actually kind of find the name amusing and it's making it harder for me to take the problem as seriously as I should. And then there are all the other animal poxes! Is there a pigpox, goatpox, dogpox, catpox, or ratpox?
It does have a bit on a Monty Python feel to it -- but have you seen the pictures?!
No, I'm avoiding them.
The plague doctor squishable is incredible.
The scary name and visible effects do grab people's attention. My God who wants the pox!
I thought this was a well-reasoned article.
I won't repeat the gravest sin of the public health establishment and those in their circles: I won't tell a well-meaning lie to try to coax the behavior I want.
I will tell them the truth: they are operating at a severe credibility deficit, and I am *very* reluctant to say a version of "I will let the CDC tell me when I can stop paying close attention to issues that people at the CDC personally think are important".
I just can't muster it right now. I think most can't. I hope the establishment attempts to engage the population where it is rather than where it wishes we were, but lol.
Experts absolutely should tell "well meaning lie[s]." They should tell you not to smoke cigarettes, although the chance it will kill you varies both with your genetics and with random chance. They cannot merely "present the evidence" because very few people can decipher statistics and most will instantly stop listening.
However, they need to be far more aware of the tightrope they are walking between maintaining credibility and delivering guidance. They need to understand how social media and the internet in general have reshaped access to valid and absurd criticism of public guidance. They need to choose their words very carefully and hedge.
The chance that anything will kill you always depends on genetics and random chance. If that ‘anything’ is known to hasten death on average then there is no lie in telling people not to do it.
Getting hit by a Mac truck will kill you independent of genetics and random chance. Taking a significant amount of cyanide will kill you independent of genetics and random chance. Clearly everything does not depend on genetics and random chance.
Getting hit by a Mac truck would be by random chance, unless you did it on purpose..
Just because not everyone gets lung cancer doesn’t mean smoking is harmless to anyone—it interferes with intake of oxygen and messes with your heart rate in all cases (when I was in high school our biology teacher did an in-class demonstration with one of the students, showing that it had an effect even on a teenager)
Is no one mention that the super-spreader events were two raves where there was widespread group sex?
For now it seems like this context is something that we should keep in mind while evaluating the risk.
People, please refrain from Orgies for the next few weeks just to be sure.
Slow Boring’s first annual subscriber orgy is hereby suspended indefinitely. Please submit your receipts to Milan to obtain reimbursement for your feathered mask.
Best comment in this thread.
It could be though that because it was a publicly announced orgy at a rave it was just easy to trace the cases back to that event and test other attendees and find more cases whereas much more common anonymous sex you're not likely to get a notification that you were exposed to monkey pox. The fact that this has spread to so many countries so so fast suggest we're looking at the tip of a giant iceberg.
Or that people in to Orgies like to travel.
Gotta believe there's a very tired public health officer briefing a bunch of politicians right now who are all asking "wait, what do you mean there's a second disease?"
On the whole, I'm much more sympathetic to the idea that there are a bunch of tired politicians right now who are explaining to few public health officers, the latter of whom are asking "wait, what do you mean there's more than one public-good factor to consider?"
It’s not at all obvious that condoms are relevant, if the issue is contact with a bodily rash, or bedsheets.
Gay bars, bathhouses, and party organizers could have informational flyers warning people to be extra attentive to any rash (on themself or a partner). And maybe the CDC could allow people to set up testing at some of these locations like they often have for HIV/syphilis/gonorrhea/chlamydia.
No it is worse than nothing because it provides completely false feelings of security. Many sexually transmitted diseases spread by skin to skin contact mainly and monkey pox isn't even a sexually transmitted disease. It's the skin to skin contact that matters. Is it really that big of an ask not to have sex with strangers for a couple months while we figure out how widespread this is?
Are they ordering 200m of the new one?
Uh. No surprises there. But since MY mentioned stocking up and you gave a specific figure it gave me the tiniest glimmer of hope. I suppose we’re lucky to have the stockpiles of the older vaccines thanks to the greater wisdom of previous generations. Seriously, I sometimes feel the world has devolved to some kind of Moronland twilight zone…
We better not get a sudden "it's airborne!" moment like he did.
Maybe the CDC or the Government should say that having "a lifestyle that includes touching the skin of people you don’t know well in darkened conditions" (quite the euphemism for an orgy) is a bad idea and you shouldn't do it.
Nah. That would be judgmental and we can't have that.
It would be counterproductive, and thus moronic. It’s like sex Ed. Of course you should tell the teens the safest thing is not having sex at all, but if you stop there (adding some hypocritical moralizing on top) you’re not more likely to prevent them from actually having sex. What you are doing is making it less likely for them to have *safe* sex. Ditto for most things, within reason. In general our government should supply us with clear honest information, and enforce our democratically legislated constitutional laws, but it’s not its job to preach or moralize to us. Citizens are not children, government ain’t our parent or our priest etc. Beyond giving the information and enforcing the laws, free citizens can and should make their own choices.
Excuse me, but that’s precisely not what John was saying nor what I was saying, these are two straw men you have there. He was saying that the government should tell people that “ [it] is a bad idea and you shouldn't do it.” A moralizing, paternalistic and *prescriptive* formulation like that is quite different, indeed drastically different from merely providing autonomous citizens with accurate information to help them with good risk assessment. Likewise, I’m not hysterical, and not at all averse to educating the public. But the public are adults, and aside from emergency situations (such as was indeed the COVID pandemic at its height) government prescription, as opposed to providing of information, should be minimal. Moreover, one cannot ignore the historical (and not only historical) context of homophobia in society, and by the government, including the horrifying way the response to the aids pandemic was botched. So yes ,people can be justly skeptical of a suggestion that a useful and justified solution to our woes is for Uncle Sam to tell “the gays” to control their libido or some such.
I didn't reference "the gays" (your words) in my comment. I presume attending events where casual sex occurs in darkened rooms with strangers is a bad idea whether between homosexual or heterosexual partners.
That you took my generic statement and went to "moronic" and tied it to homophobia is on you.
Sure you didn't, you just happened to suggest it in the context of specifically gay events being mentioned, as your recommendation for governments response to those events, and lamenting the govenment's current supposed laxity and liberalization ("overstepped" in your words). I wonder which groups benefitted the most from those trends of liberalization you lament? But of course I am totally imagining the gaslight.
I'll be more clear: I have nothing against gay people, gay marriages, gay rights or gay parades. I was for gay marriage long before it became the accepted position in society and well before the SCOTUS decision regarding it.
To the extent, as Matt wrote, there is "a lifestyle that includes touching the skin of people you don’t know well in darkened conditions", then I think that lifestyle is bad and should be discouraged. And I don't care which genitalia are being used in the process.
yes, yes, consenting adults. But consenting adults do lots of stupid things and I think it is fine for the CDC or the government to make some statement that some of those things are dangerous.
Perhaps government health regulators could simply state don't fucking fuck any random people for a measly couple months while we figure out how widespread this is and maybe have the potential to nip it in the bud. You can still go to the bar and meet people or even online date (no online sex apps isn't online dating) and have sex with those people even though that is at least somewhat high risk if you're doing it more than rarely with a different person, but please just don't fuck completely random ppl you didn't even buy a drink. And for the love of God don't go to any massive orgies which is how a chunk of these cases were identified.
So would you be in favor shaming GOP congressmen into getting together and making statements about how foolishly risky it is to not have your firearms locked up in a safe(or trigger lock)?
These two things seem largely equivalent. It is absolutely obvious that both serious dedication to firearm safety and safe sex (apparently many-many gay men take the prophylactic AIDS cocktail regularly) are the right way to go. Browbeating your constituents about it might save a few lives. It would also annoy the hell out of the vast majority of them who vote (and probably also do the right thing already).
Yes. I both think if you must
own a gun at the very fucking least use safety measures. I also think men (and I say men bc this is a men thing not a gay thing average straight men would be just as hedonistic if women weren't cautious about sex and for the critics just look at lesbian sexual dynamics to see even without the fear of rape by men women are just not that into anonymous sex with strangers for the most part the ratio of places catering to anonymous gay male sex compared to ones catering to anonymous lesbian sex has to be 500 to 1) need to stop having random anonymous or semi anonymous sex with strangers for at least a couple months while we figure out how prevelanent spread is and hopefully nip said spread in the bud while we still feasibly can.
I'm not sure where you get the idea about what is "unacceptable". Look at this guide the NY Department of Health has about covid and safe sex: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-sex-guidance.pdf
It encourages all kinds of behavioral modifications, both more significant ones like avoiding sex or kissing with anyone outside your social bubble, and additional modifications for people who aren't going to do that, acknowledging that some people might even find some of these modifications to be turn-ons.
I think probably more effective would be the CDC printing up informational flyers that give appropriate warnings without being graphic in a way that turns people off from looking at them, and encouraging bath houses, gay bars, and party organizers to post them in prominent locations. (Better yet, have the New York State Department of Public Health print these flyers, because they've been pretty good at getting information across in ways that don't feel preachy.)
Even better would be permitting a test that could be offered in these locations, which already often offer rapid HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia tests.
I'd settle for "don't have sex with a new partner until they have been tested for STDs." Still too judgmental?
That's a good message, but you also want a message to reduce risk for people who won't follow this one.
There are places on the continuum between the social mores of 1920 and today. One needn't desire to go back to the early 20th century in order to think today's culture has overstepped in some ways.
I'm less libertarian than saying that anything between consenting adults is fine.
Governments -- state, local and federal -- have been putting out messages around dangerous activity for a long while and more-so in the past 2 years. Seems like this would be a fine time to continue that tradition.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying I have a limited amount of fucks to give these days and I’m not convinced yet that this qualifies for one.
International travel (and orgies) was a mistake. Shut it down!
Or, for the more neoliberally inclined, perhaps we could collect a tax to properly price the negative public health externalities associated with antisocial behavior like sex partying or going to an international professional conferences.
Important addendum or caveat: aren’t the smallpox vaccines (at least the older ones?) only 85% effective for monkeypox? Obviously that would still be very good. However, for high risk groups, that’s a point worth taking into account in the calculus, esp. re: MY’s suggestion of having people volunteer to take the riskier older the vaccine to protect themselves from monkeypox.
Per Madison Cawthorn, Republican officials in Washington deemed the most at-risk group.
We have three cases now in Sacramento that are all linked to the original patient who was at one of those raves I guess, but the news coverage is still coy and just says that the three people were "close contacts" which I assume means that they were sexual partners, but those words mean something broader to me and I wish they would just be factual and precise so we could better understand how this virus is moving. I am old enough to be headed to get my second shingles vaccine today, but young enough that I just missed small pox vaccination (literally it was declared eradicated days before I was set to get the vaccine) so I feel a little naked right now and part of me would just like to get a small pox vaccine and not have to worry.
I’m not worried; the CDC has got my back.
"The CDC has got my back." Yes, but is there a monkey on it? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Is this the same CDC that said masks don't work, that bumbled the COVID testing strategy, that took the masks off too early, that failed to recommend vaccines based on Israeli data?
The very same! Those people are awesome!
Fixed the name issues?
Yes. Turned out the problem was that I have two Substack accounts.
The challenge of pandemic preparation is to find a way for our society to protect itself from diseases in a way that's actually sustainable and comes with a minimal risk of overreacting to non-entities like monkeypox is likely to be. And I think most of that work happens below the hood (by improving testing and funding research and other good ideas you have advocated that work against infectious disease in general), not by opening up a vaccine to a bunch of hypochondriacs at zero risk.
Michael Lewis's book about COVID praised its protagonists, who were actually a bunch of alarmist "experts" who wanted to shut down society for swine flu. Obviously this would have been stupid, would have tanked Obama's presidency, and would have left us even worse prepared for the actual pandemic when it hit. But Lewis praised those experts because he thought the precautionary principle is good (it is bad).
I appreciate that this post isn't praising the precautionary principle. But if we treat Monkeypox as a unique threat the way that Lewis's protagonists saw swine flu as a unique threat (as opposed to a common problem where we just need a better response infrastructure), then we'll see it as a success once it goes away on its own like swine flu did, and there will be even less motivation to fix the underlying issues.
On the general theme of "we're not doing enough to build anti-pandemic state capacity", it's time to rebrand public health as bio-security.
What's the R0 of this thing, assuming you aren't having sex with strangers in the dark.
There is no such thing as “the R0” of a virus. As you note, it depends on your behaviors. And when there have been only a few hundred cases detected in the current outbreak, and not a lot of details of contact tracing noted, it’s not going to be easy to estimate.
Considering the indications that it’s at least somewhat airborne I would guess non negligible. However I would also imagine it’s too early to tell. But regardless MY’s point is well taken, even for disease whose transmission is only fluid based, which this one unfortunately it seems is not, that’s no guarantee they will stay “with strangers in the dark” if they are not contained (see HIV).
Gotta wonder if Alito is feeling stirrings regarding Lawrence vs. Texas.
OK, as to safety of the ACAM2000, which we all remember from Terminator - Judgement Day:
It is routinely administered to incoming US soldiers, who may one day have an exotic deployment. So, roughly 900,000 vaccine recipients in the surveillance population.
Incidence of myocaridits/ pericarditis was about 218/million in men under 40, 85/MM in women
As a possible comparison, folks remembering the COVID vaccine scares may recall that the MRNA vaccines (esp. seond shot) had an issue with myo- annd pericarditis, especially with young men. Incidence was 12.6/MM across all ages, genders. For young men it varied with age: 56/MM for 18-24, 20/MM for 25-29, 10/MM for 30-39.
So ACAM2000 is 4 to 20 times as risky as the MRNA COVID vaccines (on the myo- and pericarditis metric). IDK - is that daunting?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21010744