How close are we to Under 11 vaccines?

[Anonymous]

To the mask point: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/24/1020088162/experts-call-for-more-stringent-mask-requirements-as-delta-variant-spreads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

If this virus had the same effect on the population as a whole as it does on kids (i.e. few, if any, symptoms for the vast, vast majority), covid would’ve been in the news a few times and would then have been ignored. We wouldn’t have imposed any restrictions, and nobody would have spent money developing a vaccine.

So, given that covid doesn’t pose any meaningful risk to kids, what’s the point of vaccinating them? Is there any other vaccine that we give to a group that isn’t at risk from the disease in question?

Here we go again. Hundreds of kids in the United States have died from COVID. A substantial percent of them were otherwise healthy. Many, many more are suffering from long-term side effects. While they are generally at less of a risk than adults, it is simply incorrect to say that they aren’t at a meaningful risk.

Most of this post is totally made up.

Yes, sadly 300 kids have died from Covid. But, very few of them were “otherwise healthy.” No, there’s no real evidence that kids are suffering from long term side effects.

There’s no evidence that COVID is a meaningful risk to kids.

+1

I believe also it was an overwhelming majority of the deaths had one, but most had two or more comorbidities. There was a very strong link. It doesn’t make it any less sad whatsoever, but the link was significantly stronger than what we see with the flu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. If people haven't gotten vaccinated, then they are a lost cause. But, it is also not fair to be pushing the essential nature of the unvaccinated AND then consider not approving a vaccine for the under 12 set. Now, many schools and businesses are requiring masks for unvaccinated. It is UNACCEPTABLE to require masks for all children under the age of 12 forever. Either push the vaccine through and get it approved OR don't and also drop the mask requirement. We are in this weird limbo and as you run down the decision tree, I can see the insanity of no vaccine for my kids (because it isn't deemed worth it because the virus isn't that bad for kids) but ALSO a requirement that my kids wear masks. It isn't minimal Every day, all day at school. No smiles, no funny faces, impaired breathing for my child with asthma. This is absolute insanity and we are all complicit in it.

Disagree. In hospitals where they had vaccine mandates, the mandates pushed the holdout staff to get vaccinated. People don't want to lose their jobs. Half the US military was unvaccinated the last time I checked, because the vaccine is currently optional. Enough employers make it mandatory and vaccination rates will soar.

I agree with this!!!! I am European and in my country vaccines are mandatory for health care workers. They are also now pushing people to get vaccinated because restaurants, trains, buses, places of work, etc will require a “green pass” that can only be obtained after vaccination or with a negative test within 48 hours. The result is that more and more people are getting vaccinated. A country that is 5-6 times smaller than the US is averaging the same daily vaccine numbers as the US. I believe close to 60% of the population is now fully vaccinated and 70% or so had at least 1 shot (over 12 population).

THIS is how you do it (in my opinion). I wish the US would follow the Italian-French-Austrian example in this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's possible they never approve it. They have to weigh the risk from the vaccine itself against the risks of Covid. Kids have so little risk from Covid, that the vaccine may not meet the threshold.

Which is all to say, stop worrying about your kids. They will be fine.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that OP’s specific kids “will be fine” if they get COVID, but keep on with your empty, dismissive platitudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough kids getting Covid in the trials (Same thing happened with Moderna) This has been discussed at length. Also if they are now "taking safety seriously" for under 11 as people have posted, then that's all the more reason to be wondering what they did with 12-15, 16, etc..

There were 1100 kids tested in that, and myocarditis now uncovered and no change other than a warning label while other countries aren't allowing. Many countries waiting for safety data or more data or just realized the risk/benefit isn't there.

Mild myocarditis, self-resolving, at a rate comparable to COVID itself. I’ll take that over a virus that has the potential to cause permanent lung and brain damage to my child.

+1

Great! That is your choice.

As a parent, I am weighing the risks much differently for my very active 12 year old boy. And I should be allowed to make the decision, especially when two shots at an adult dose seems like overkill.

Thanks for allowing me to choose, just as you had the chance to choose to do what you think is best.

As of today 4.2 Million kids ages 12-15 are fully vaccinated in the USA, including scores of thousands of "very active 12 year old boys." What makes your boy so different that he needs a special protocol?

Too bad there is t a vaccine for your anger management issues

Nice deflection. Now answer the question. NP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

If this virus had the same effect on the population as a whole as it does on kids (i.e. few, if any, symptoms for the vast, vast majority), covid would’ve been in the news a few times and would then have been ignored. We wouldn’t have imposed any restrictions, and nobody would have spent money developing a vaccine.

So, given that covid doesn’t pose any meaningful risk to kids, what’s the point of vaccinating them? Is there any other vaccine that we give to a group that isn’t at risk from the disease in question?

Here we go again. Hundreds of kids in the United States have died from COVID. A substantial percent of them were otherwise healthy. Many, many more are suffering from long-term side effects. While they are generally at less of a risk than adults, it is simply incorrect to say that they aren’t at a meaningful risk.

The issue is whether the risks of the vaccine would outweigh the benefit in this subpopulation. “The Science” says we don’t know. You make think you know, but that’s like, just your opinion, man. It’s entirely inconsistent to claim that “antivaxxers” are irrational to have qualms about clinical trials showing vaccine efficacy, and then say the vaccine should be approved for under 12s when the clinical trials are inconclusive on risk/benefit just because you want to vaccinate your kids.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. I didn’t say anything about the risk-benefit analysis. I was simply responding to the misleading statement that COVID doesn’t pose a meaningful risk to kids. And while I have my opinions, I agree it is ultimately up to the FDA to make a determination of the risk-benefit analysis.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

That’s not how math works. You don’t compare dead children to all children. You compare dead children to children who got Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

If this virus had the same effect on the population as a whole as it does on kids (i.e. few, if any, symptoms for the vast, vast majority), covid would’ve been in the news a few times and would then have been ignored. We wouldn’t have imposed any restrictions, and nobody would have spent money developing a vaccine.

So, given that covid doesn’t pose any meaningful risk to kids, what’s the point of vaccinating them? Is there any other vaccine that we give to a group that isn’t at risk from the disease in question?

Here we go again. Hundreds of kids in the United States have died from COVID. A substantial percent of them were otherwise healthy. Many, many more are suffering from long-term side effects. While they are generally at less of a risk than adults, it is simply incorrect to say that they aren’t at a meaningful risk.

The issue is whether the risks of the vaccine would outweigh the benefit in this subpopulation. “The Science” says we don’t know. You make think you know, but that’s like, just your opinion, man. It’s entirely inconsistent to claim that “antivaxxers” are irrational to have qualms about clinical trials showing vaccine efficacy, and then say the vaccine should be approved for under 12s when the clinical trials are inconclusive on risk/benefit just because you want to vaccinate your kids.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. I didn’t say anything about the risk-benefit analysis. I was simply responding to the misleading statement that COVID doesn’t pose a meaningful risk to kids. And while I have my opinions, I agree it is ultimately up to the FDA to make a determination of the risk-benefit analysis.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

That’s not how math works. You don’t compare dead children to all children. You compare dead children to children who got Covid.

Actually, for viruses, people often use an out of 100k pop stat that looks as the general public. You can’t look at just those children who got Covid because the vast majority of children are apparently asymptomatic. We don’t
Have even an iota of a clue how many children got covid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

If this virus had the same effect on the population as a whole as it does on kids (i.e. few, if any, symptoms for the vast, vast majority), covid would’ve been in the news a few times and would then have been ignored. We wouldn’t have imposed any restrictions, and nobody would have spent money developing a vaccine.

So, given that covid doesn’t pose any meaningful risk to kids, what’s the point of vaccinating them? Is there any other vaccine that we give to a group that isn’t at risk from the disease in question?

Here we go again. Hundreds of kids in the United States have died from COVID. A substantial percent of them were otherwise healthy. Many, many more are suffering from long-term side effects. While they are generally at less of a risk than adults, it is simply incorrect to say that they aren’t at a meaningful risk.

The issue is whether the risks of the vaccine would outweigh the benefit in this subpopulation. “The Science” says we don’t know. You make think you know, but that’s like, just your opinion, man. It’s entirely inconsistent to claim that “antivaxxers” are irrational to have qualms about clinical trials showing vaccine efficacy, and then say the vaccine should be approved for under 12s when the clinical trials are inconclusive on risk/benefit just because you want to vaccinate your kids.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. I didn’t say anything about the risk-benefit analysis. I was simply responding to the misleading statement that COVID doesn’t pose a meaningful risk to kids. And while I have my opinions, I agree it is ultimately up to the FDA to make a determination of the risk-benefit analysis.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

FALSE. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 50K deaths from all causes in the 17 and under age group. Of these, under 400 are due to COVID. So no, COVID isn't even close to a "leading cause of death" among children. Motor vehicle deaths, firearm deaths and cancer are much larger risks than is COVID.

Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message

I’m not sure where the higher numbers of coming from but on July 20th, CDC confirms 335 Children Ages 17 and Under Have Died of COVID in U.S. During Pandemic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

If this virus had the same effect on the population as a whole as it does on kids (i.e. few, if any, symptoms for the vast, vast majority), covid would’ve been in the news a few times and would then have been ignored. We wouldn’t have imposed any restrictions, and nobody would have spent money developing a vaccine.

So, given that covid doesn’t pose any meaningful risk to kids, what’s the point of vaccinating them? Is there any other vaccine that we give to a group that isn’t at risk from the disease in question?

Here we go again. Hundreds of kids in the United States have died from COVID. A substantial percent of them were otherwise healthy. Many, many more are suffering from long-term side effects. While they are generally at less of a risk than adults, it is simply incorrect to say that they aren’t at a meaningful risk.

The issue is whether the risks of the vaccine would outweigh the benefit in this subpopulation. “The Science” says we don’t know. You make think you know, but that’s like, just your opinion, man. It’s entirely inconsistent to claim that “antivaxxers” are irrational to have qualms about clinical trials showing vaccine efficacy, and then say the vaccine should be approved for under 12s when the clinical trials are inconclusive on risk/benefit just because you want to vaccinate your kids.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. I didn’t say anything about the risk-benefit analysis. I was simply responding to the misleading statement that COVID doesn’t pose a meaningful risk to kids. And while I have my opinions, I agree it is ultimately up to the FDA to make a determination of the risk-benefit analysis.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

By that same ratioed analysis, about 80 males between the ages of 12-15 out of 3 million have had myocarditis as a result of the vaccine. That's about .0008%. Yet, people are losing their minds over this miniscule risk. Death is not the only risk COVID poses for children; many have some long term pulmonary effects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By that same ratioed analysis, about 80 males between the ages of 12-15 out of 3 million have had myocarditis as a result of the vaccine. That's about .0008%. Yet, people are losing their minds over this miniscule risk. Death is not the only risk COVID poses for children; many have some long term pulmonary effects.

Yes but the myocarditis risk should be looked at differently (your myocarditis numbers are low by the way, but I'll ignore that). You compare:

1) A healthy young male with no pre-existing conditions that has that is being vaccinated (80 in 3 million risk)

vs

2) A healthy young male's risk from COVID times his risk of ever catching COVID. The risk to a health young male from COVID is much lower than 80 in 3 million and then they have to actually catch COVID.

Also when talking about kids 5-11, their risk from COVID is even less than the risk to a 12-15 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By that same ratioed analysis, about 80 males between the ages of 12-15 out of 3 million have had myocarditis as a result of the vaccine. That's about .0008%. Yet, people are losing their minds over this miniscule risk. Death is not the only risk COVID poses for children; many have some long term pulmonary effects.

Yes but the myocarditis risk should be looked at differently (your myocarditis numbers are low by the way, but I'll ignore that). You compare:

1) A healthy young male with no pre-existing conditions that has that is being vaccinated (80 in 3 million risk)

vs

2) A healthy young male's risk from COVID times his risk of ever catching COVID. The risk to a health young male from COVID is much lower than 80 in 3 million and then they have to actually catch COVID.

Also when talking about kids 5-11, their risk from COVID is even less than the risk to a 12-15 year old.

You are not accounting for The risk of catching covid this fall with a) more contagious Delta being the dominant strain and b) schools and activities open at full capacity, many without masks

The European Medicines Agency cited a myocarditis rate of 1-2 cases per million for vaccinated teens, which is actually much *lower* than the PPs rate of 80/3 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying early 2022. But it is pretty crappy of you to pin your hopes on little kids saving you instead of adults.

As a parent of a child under 12, I'm not looking for him to "save me". I am looking to protect him and save him from the a$$hats who refuse to get vaccinated by choice. Beyond that, I couldn't care less if they don't care enough to take care of themselves.

I am so sick of the kids will be fiiiine crowd. these people are not trumpers but liberal elitists who just want to get on with things.

+++ a million!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the mask point: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/24/1020088162/experts-call-for-more-stringent-mask-requirements-as-delta-variant-spreads

Yeah I'm not sending my kid to school in a KN95 or getting him something so tight fitting he has an even hard time breathing in it. A 6yo is not remotely at the same risk as a frail 95yo if they were to catch Covid yet there's no nuance to many recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the mask point: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/24/1020088162/experts-call-for-more-stringent-mask-requirements-as-delta-variant-spreads

Yeah I'm not sending my kid to school in a KN95 or getting him something so tight fitting he has an even hard time breathing in it. A 6yo is not remotely at the same risk as a frail 95yo if they were to catch Covid yet there's no nuance to many recommendations.

Becasue this country doesn't do nuance. On anything! So blanket restrictions it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By that same ratioed analysis, about 80 males between the ages of 12-15 out of 3 million have had myocarditis as a result of the vaccine. That's about .0008%. Yet, people are losing their minds over this miniscule risk. Death is not the only risk COVID poses for children; many have some long term pulmonary effects.

Yes but the myocarditis risk should be looked at differently (your myocarditis numbers are low by the way, but I'll ignore that). You compare:

1) A healthy young male with no pre-existing conditions that has that is being vaccinated (80 in 3 million risk)

vs

2) A healthy young male's risk from COVID times his risk of ever catching COVID. The risk to a health young male from COVID is much lower than 80 in 3 million and then they have to actually catch COVID.

Also when talking about kids 5-11, their risk from COVID is even less than the risk to a 12-15 year old.

You are not accounting for The risk of catching covid this fall with a) more contagious Delta being the dominant strain and b) schools and activities open at full capacity, many without masks

The European Medicines Agency cited a myocarditis rate of 1-2 cases per million for vaccinated teens, which is actually much *lower* than the PPs rate of 80/3 million.

Here is an AAP article on the latest CDC numbers from June:https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/06/10/covid-vaccine-myocarditis-rates-061021" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/06/10/covid-vaccine-myocarditis-rates-061021

There were 79 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis reported in teens ages 16 or 17 years after a second dose of vaccine, while the expected number was two to 19 cases, according to Dr. Shimabukuro. There were 196 cases in young adults ages 18-24 years, while eight to 83 were expected. The case rates per million doses for those age groups were 35 and 21, respectively.

This is a bit misleading, though, as they are grouping males and females together in these numbers. We know that males are much more likely to suffer from myocarditis than females.

Also does this sound mild to you:

Among 285 cases with a known outcome, 270 were discharged, most to their homes. About 81% have made a full recovery, and the rest had ongoing symptoms or unknown status. Fifteen are still hospitalized, including three in intensive care.