Deary me! Where to start?
If you want to throw around accusations of killing, maybe I should say something about collaborating with a lying corrupt pharmaceutical industry that we know has done some very dubious things in the past, including things that have been harmful to people's health, an industry that appears to have backed the government into imposing health apartheid on England (and the club into a 3.9k capacity limit for that matter meaning that some people inevitably missed out on the Wrexham game) and has previously made concerted attempts to influence NHS policy, and that is about business and profit rather than charity.
But leaving that aside, the article I link to states "hospital admission or death" and "the general population".
Saying hospital admission or death is not very useful on its own as it does not tell us how many of each. If the hospital admissions who don't die and only have mild myocarditis are greater for one group than the other, that is a vital factor too. And there is evidence that people who get myocarditis after these "vaccines" rather than after "covid" have a more severe case of myocarditis. According to 'eminent cardiologist' Dr. Peter McCullough, "the myocarditis experienced by those infected with covid is milder than that experienced by the 'vaccinated' and is 'inconsequential". So if he is right, even for the general population, they may not necessarily be less likely to die of myocarditis from these "vaccines" - it is not clear from this study. But whether or not he is right, the Oxford study goes straight on to say that "the risk of myocarditis in younger males following 'vaccination' is consistently higher" . I wrote "males under 40" in the title of the post, I also mentioned "younger males" in the final paragraph, I linked to the article where people can read it for themselves, and I encouraged people to do their own research - such as reading this article. I maybe could have mentioned what it says about other groups but then again I could have mentioned any number of other things not relating to the group to whom I was referring. It's fair enough of course if you want to point out what it says about other groups too, but I don't think I have been unreasonable in what I have written, and I suggest it is important to read very carefully what these studies say and don't say. If you are saying that young healthy males should have these controversial "vaccines" without doing any research - and we know from the government's own data that no healthy 15-17 year olds had died from "covid" (the last I heard), it could be that that would put their health at greater risk, depending on their circumstances. And that's all I am saying - research it, be aware of the risks and benefits. And as it happens, the law also says that people may only be given medication with free and informed consent. And that's all I am saying - inform yourself. I think it is important not to brush these risks under the carpet as you and too many others appear to advocate. It will only make people at low risk more suspicious of these "vaccines" if they think that people are down-playing the risks - and by implication more suspicious of future new medications too if they think they have not been told everything about this one. It is absolutely vital to discuss these things.
If we're going to quote from the study, I may also add that it mentions the JCVI, which recommended against giving these "vaccines" to healthy 12-15 year olds and was overruled by the government, so I make no apologies for questioning some of the things we are being told, I don't believe that it is acceptable to put children at risk for anything really and am very concerned about the JCVI being overruled like this. The article also mentions funding from Cancer Research UK, which is owned by pharmaceutical companies - one of many, many conflicts of interest among some of the people who we hear from on the pharmaceutical industry's mRNA coronavirus "vaccines".
Apparently you get to decide what counts as "actual" evidence and are dismissing out of hand various groups of doctors and medical scientists, the government's own yellow card data, an inventor of mRNA technology called Dr. Robert Mallone, a professor who said that there is "no reliable evidence that the 'vaccines' reduce all-cause mortality", LifeSiteNews (which rather looks like you're having a go at Catholics now) and I dare say you will dismiss "eminent cardiologist" Peter McCullough and former vice president of Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon (who is pro-vaccine but very concerned about this novel mRNA "vaccine"). But if you're going to insist on all that, then maybe I am entitled to insist on a second opinion about these "vaccines" when we hear a lot about them from people (including people who advise the government) who have a conflict of interest on them.
I should add that I have serious concerns that free and informed consent may not be taking place with people who get this medication in some instances and in the current circumstances. I am well aware from my years of pro-life involvement of how with other medical interventions where vested interests and politics are involved there are cases where people do not give free and informed consent to medical interventions administered, and with so many powerful voices (some of who have interests in the pharmaceutical industry as I say) urging people to take these controversial gene therapy drugs that are being administered under emergency authorisation, I am certain that similar things will be happening with these "vaccines", and I think it is perfectly reasonable to provide some balance, tell people to do their own research and do what is best for their health which as we have seen (from the JCVI being overruled) may be something different from the sophisticated and incessant government propaganda
Only a small number of healthy males under 40 have died from "covid" and no healthy people at all aged 15-17 last I heard. And this new variant is more mild and will give them natural immunity once they have had it. Don't endanger those who are not at risk from "covid" by telling them to get a controversial "vaccine" without informing themselves about it, and which some scientists say may put them at increased risk (including the JCVI for 12-15 year olds apparently).
And just so you know, some people are suggesting that people should have three or four doses of these "vaccines" every year for a decade or more. Even if there is only relatively low risk from 2 doses, the risk may increase significantly by the time they get to thirty or forty doses - when I had ibuprofen for an extended period, I found I had to give it up in the end. A similar principle will apply with some other medication. Furthermore, four times a year is rather more times than people would get symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 after acquiring natural immunity. Let people make their own choices.
I do think you need to learn to take on board that other people have different opinions from you on some things, and that they may have good and deeply felt reasons for doing so. It's not just on this, is it, that you have a bit of an attitude. People are having to miss match attendance because of all this nonsense so of course some of us will have strong views about this.