This is so incredibly tiresome. I quoted Dr Wu in this literal thread, the actual author of the Stanford study. You're the one disagreeing with him.

Dr Wu does decent math. You're taking him out of context chronologically. That's on you.

Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population.

You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others.

Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?

More simply, in case you still aren't seeing it, Wu's claim that COVID is worse is based on an assumption about prevalence. He believes (or believed, like everyone did at the time) that COVID prevalence is a known variable. But it was later discovered that all of the prevalence data was damaged and by the time the tests were corrected, it had mutated. So we plainly have very little data about prevalence, and we can't go back in time to fix that.

Based on the data that was available to Wu at the time, he was correct. Based on what we know now, he is very likely not correct.

For all we know, literally every single person on Earth might have been infected. If you instead counted 8 billion infections, then the outcomes for covid infection look much better than the myocarditis risks associated with the vaccine.

We just don't know. You are making a faith based claim, without evidence. Simply put.