Remote school? No vaccine for under 12 until mid-winter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

I don’t care what stupid people choose to do. I would like the option to protect my child. Just like I get my kid a flu vaccine.

And you will get that option in mid-winter. No one is taking that away from you.

Right but until then I need to decide if I want to stick my kids in a classroom with a bunch of people who clearly, based on your post and others, are making bad choices.

NP. Seriously, though, the FDA is debating about the risk of the vaccine to children versus the risk of covid. This is an actual empirical question. It's not some anti-vax lunacy.

I think what people need to realize is that the risk to the under-12 set is very, very low, and always has been very, very low. And it is extremely low now with community rates so low.

This. This is the reason the FDA just asked for 6 months of follow-up data for under 12's (vs the 2 months they wanted for adults).
They are determining if it is worth it to vaccinate an entire population of kids when the risk to kids is so low.

People, WE MAY NEVER GET AN UNDER 12 VACCINE. If there is essentially NO risk to kids from Covid, there are not going to approve an vaccine that has risks!

I don't think this is correct. The FDA approved the Chicken pox vaccine almost exclusively because of the risk to adults and the loss of adult workdays. When push comes to shove, they'll approve the COVID vaccine -- at least for 6-11s -- for the same reason; I think for 2-5s as well. Chicken pox poses basically no risk to kids and all vaccines have some risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

I don’t care what stupid people choose to do. I would like the option to protect my child. Just like I get my kid a flu vaccine.

And you will get that option in mid-winter. No one is taking that away from you.

Right but until then I need to decide if I want to stick my kids in a classroom with a bunch of people who clearly, based on your post and others, are making bad choices.

NP. Seriously, though, the FDA is debating about the risk of the vaccine to children versus the risk of covid. This is an actual empirical question. It's not some anti-vax lunacy.

I think what people need to realize is that the risk to the under-12 set is very, very low, and always has been very, very low. And it is extremely low now with community rates so low.

This. This is the reason the FDA just asked for 6 months of follow-up data for under 12's (vs the 2 months they wanted for adults).
They are determining if it is worth it to vaccinate an entire population of kids when the risk to kids is so low.

People, WE MAY NEVER GET AN UNDER 12 VACCINE. If there is essentially NO risk to kids from Covid, there are not going to approve an vaccine that has risks!

I don't think this is correct. The FDA approved the Chicken pox vaccine almost exclusively because of the risk to adults and the loss of adult workdays. When push comes to shove, they'll approve the COVID vaccine -- at least for 6-11s -- for the same reason; I think for 2-5s as well. Chicken pox poses basically no risk to kids and all vaccines have some risks.

I agree that a vaccine will probably be approved eventually for the 6-12 YOs, for the reason that PP cites. Plus probably more vaccinated people = less variants. But because the vaccine risk compared to the covid risk will be difficult to discern, you'll have a lot of adults choosing not to vaccinate their kids. And it will be more justifiable than, say, not vaccinating kids for measles.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but don't forget that young kids might actually carry the virus, even though they're symptom-free, and spread it around to Grandma or whomever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but don't forget that young kids might actually carry the virus, even though they're symptom-free, and spread it around to Grandma or whomever.

Yeah, we know that. But Grandma or whomever (over 12) can get try to obtain immunity through vaccination.

Plus you'll have someone say in 4 seconds that the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus.

My point: The arguments around vaccination for young kids are going to be full of nuance and fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

I don’t care what stupid people choose to do. I would like the option to protect my child. Just like I get my kid a flu vaccine.

And you will get that option in mid-winter. No one is taking that away from you.

Right but until then I need to decide if I want to stick my kids in a classroom with a bunch of people who clearly, based on your post and others, are making bad choices.

NP. Seriously, though, the FDA is debating about the risk of the vaccine to children versus the risk of covid. This is an actual empirical question. It's not some anti-vax lunacy.

I think what people need to realize is that the risk to the under-12 set is very, very low, and always has been very, very low. And it is extremely low now with community rates so low.

This. This is the reason the FDA just asked for 6 months of follow-up data for under 12's (vs the 2 months they wanted for adults).
They are determining if it is worth it to vaccinate an entire population of kids when the risk to kids is so low.

People, WE MAY NEVER GET AN UNDER 12 VACCINE. If there is essentially NO risk to kids from Covid, there are not going to approve an vaccine that has risks!

I don't think this is correct. The FDA approved the Chicken pox vaccine almost exclusively because of the risk to adults and the loss of adult workdays. When push comes to shove, they'll approve the COVID vaccine -- at least for 6-11s -- for the same reason; I think for 2-5s as well. Chicken pox poses basically no risk to kids and all vaccines have some risks.

I agree that a vaccine will probably be approved eventually for the 6-12 YOs, for the reason that PP cites. Plus probably more vaccinated people = less variants. But because the vaccine risk compared to the covid risk will be difficult to discern, you'll have a lot of adults choosing not to vaccinate their kids. And it will be more justifiable than, say, not vaccinating kids for measles.

This. All of the decisions during this pandemic that affected kids have been made for the benefit of (largely older) adults. The vaccine is no different.

[Anonymous]

The news articles give more nuance on the age ranges:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccines-kids-under-age-12-expected-mid-winter-fda-official-n1274057

"Pfizer said in a statement to NBC News it anticipates results on its clinical trials in kids ages 5 to 11 sometime in September, and then could apply for emergency use authorization. "Data for kids 2 and under 5 could arrive soon after that," the company said, adding that results on kids ages 6 months up to 2 years may not be released until October or November."

The last EUAs (for adults and 12+) were approved about a month after results/application. If Pfizer gets data for 5-11 year olds in September, EUA could be received in October. It's the younger kids that might not have EUA until December/January. Let's say EUA for 5-11s comes in late October- you could have your 3rd grader fully vaxxed by end of November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

+1

YES. THIS. +100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FDA just announced that they will not have a vaccine for under 12s until mid-winter. Do you trust DCPS to do a good job of keeping your kid safe? I don’t even trust them to not have lead in the water so I’m really not sure what to do about the fall. I was banking on September/October vaccines.

No, I'm not particularly concerned ~at this moment~ about sending my under-12 kid to school in the fall. Rates are so low, and vaccination rate among the general populace is slowly climbing.

I'd like to see vaccination rates for teachers/staff -- that would make me feel like the adults around my kid are more likely to care about school safety of spread.

In my non-DCPS school, the rate is 75% for staff (small school, people are comfortable sharing their status). Those anti-vaxxers are standing strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but don't forget that young kids might actually carry the virus, even though they're symptom-free, and spread it around to Grandma or whomever.

Yeah, we know that. But Grandma or whomever (over 12) can get try to obtain immunity through vaccination.

Plus you'll have someone say in 4 seconds that the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus.

My point: The arguments around vaccination for young kids are going to be full of nuance and fun.

With delta, breakthrough infection is happening in vulnerable populations like those over 65. Most recent local restrictions are focused on non vaccinated and vaccinated adults 65+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but don't forget that young kids might actually carry the virus, even though they're symptom-free, and spread it around to Grandma or whomever.

Yeah, we know that. But Grandma or whomever (over 12) can get try to obtain immunity through vaccination.

Plus you'll have someone say in 4 seconds that the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus.

My point: The arguments around vaccination for young kids are going to be full of nuance and fun.

With delta, breakthrough infection is happening in vulnerable populations like those over 65. Most recent local restrictions are focused on non vaccinated and vaccinated adults 65+.

Yeah, but let’s not sacrifice kids’ vital interests again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

I don’t care what stupid people choose to do. I would like the option to protect my child. Just like I get my kid a flu vaccine.

And you will get that option in mid-winter. No one is taking that away from you.

Right but until then I need to decide if I want to stick my kids in a classroom with a bunch of people who clearly, based on your post and others, are making bad choices.

NP. Seriously, though, the FDA is debating about the risk of the vaccine to children versus the risk of covid. This is an actual empirical question. It's not some anti-vax lunacy.

I think what people need to realize is that the risk to the under-12 set is very, very low, and always has been very, very low. And it is extremely low now with community rates so low.

This. This is the reason the FDA just asked for 6 months of follow-up data for under 12's (vs the 2 months they wanted for adults).
They are determining if it is worth it to vaccinate an entire population of kids when the risk to kids is so low.

People, WE MAY NEVER GET AN UNDER 12 VACCINE. If there is essentially NO risk to kids from Covid, there are not going to approve an vaccine that has risks!

If it is possible that kids under 12 won’t ever get a vaccine then we just need to move on and let the kids get exposed. I cannot have my children’s entire youth defined by masks and fear. I’d rather expose them to COVID and move on. This is really ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

This is the fda giving Biden another 6 months of crisis to use to further his policies and to help the teachers union get the masks they want. Lunacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

If the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease… then FDA won’t give EUA for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

If the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease… then FDA won’t give EUA for kids.

This is all well and good, but then quarantine rules/restrictions have to align with the "risk of the disease" being low for kids and treat it like a rhinovirus or influenza or any other communicable disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think the under 12 vaccine will make much of a difference. Many parents will decline because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the virus to most kids. That's because the risk of the virus to kids is SO FREAKING LOW.

We have to stop thinking of the under 12 vaccine as some sort of game changer.

+1

YES. THIS. +100

+1000

Just look at the vaccination rates for 12-17 year olds. Those rates will be significantly lower for kids under 12. Whether the vaccine is approved for that age group won’t really make much of a difference in the number of vaccinated people in the US.