How close are we to Under 11 vaccines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So are you saying that in order for kids to be able to go to school maskless, employers will have to mandate vaccinations for adult employees?

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

YES! That's exactly what they're saying.

Some employers (including mine) require vaccines. We got this requirement a few weeks ago: If you don't show your vaccination record or if you didn't get a shot, a disciplinary action will be pursued against you, which includes unpaid leave or possible loss of employment. This may improve % of vaccinated adults, but I don't think that this will do anything with kids being maskless in schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

You don’t get to decide how other parents choose to mitigate risk.

[Anonymous]

The trials expanded because not enough kids got COvID in the unvaccinated groups to show efficacy. There is not data to support emergency use authorization. They need to expand to get that approval and/or have sufficient data to support full approval because they can’t get EUA for kids because the risks are so small. This was discussed in the FDA’s list meeting on this in June - you can go watch the recording on YouTube. This is also consistent with what UK found last week:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people

“ From today, the JCVI is advising that children at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease are offered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

That includes children aged 12 to 15 with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.

The JCVI also recommends that children and young people aged 12 to 17 who live with an immunosuppressed person should be offered the vaccine. This is to indirectly protect their immunosuppressed household contacts, who are at higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 and may not generate a full immune response to vaccination.

Under existing advice, young people aged 16 to 17 with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious COVID-19 should have already been offered vaccination.

The JCVI is not currently advising routine vaccination of children outside of these groups, based on the current evidence.

As evidence shows that COVID-19 rarely causes severe disease in children without underlying health conditions, at this time the JCVI’s view is that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.

Almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19. Symptoms, when seen, are typically mild and fewer than 30 children have died because of COVID-19 in the UK as of March 2021.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is the only vaccine that has been authorised for children in the UK, for those aged 12 or older. This followed a US clinical trial in around 1,000 children aged 12 to 15 that found side effects in this group were generally short lived and mild to moderate.

Real-world data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children is currently limited, but there have been extremely rare reports of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in millions of younger adults.

Until more safety data is available and has been evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.”

Read the full thing to understand why the UK approved vaccine rollout to only a subset of kids at this point.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trials expanded because not enough kids got COvID in the unvaccinated groups to show efficacy. There is not data to support emergency use authorization. They need to expand to get that approval and/or have sufficient data to support full approval because they can’t get EUA for kids because the risks are so small. This was discussed in the FDA’s list meeting on this in June - you can go watch the recording on YouTube. This is also consistent with what UK found last week:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people

“ From today, the JCVI is advising that children at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease are offered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

That includes children aged 12 to 15 with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.

The JCVI also recommends that children and young people aged 12 to 17 who live with an immunosuppressed person should be offered the vaccine. This is to indirectly protect their immunosuppressed household contacts, who are at higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 and may not generate a full immune response to vaccination.

Under existing advice, young people aged 16 to 17 with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious COVID-19 should have already been offered vaccination.

The JCVI is not currently advising routine vaccination of children outside of these groups, based on the current evidence.

As evidence shows that COVID-19 rarely causes severe disease in children without underlying health conditions, at this time the JCVI’s view is that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.

Almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19. Symptoms, when seen, are typically mild and fewer than 30 children have died because of COVID-19 in the UK as of March 2021.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is the only vaccine that has been authorised for children in the UK, for those aged 12 or older. This followed a US clinical trial in around 1,000 children aged 12 to 15 that found side effects in this group were generally short lived and mild to moderate.

Real-world data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children is currently limited, but there have been extremely rare reports of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in millions of younger adults.

Until more safety data is available and has been evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.”

Read the full thing to understand why the UK approved vaccine rollout to only a subset of kids at this point.

This is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So are you saying that in order for kids to be able to go to school maskless, employers will have to mandate vaccinations for adult employees?

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

YES! That's exactly what they're saying.

Some employers (including mine) require vaccines. We got this requirement a few weeks ago: If you don't show your vaccination record or if you didn't get a shot, a disciplinary action will be pursued against you, which includes unpaid leave or possible loss of employment. This may improve % of vaccinated adults, but I don't think that this will do anything with kids being maskless in schools.

It should at least increase the percentage of vaxxed by 10 percent or so, which gets us closer to herd immunity, which will eventually help kids be maskless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So are you saying that in order for kids to be able to go to school maskless, employers will have to mandate vaccinations for adult employees?

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

YES! That's exactly what they're saying.

Some employers (including mine) require vaccines. We got this requirement a few weeks ago: If you don't show your vaccination record or if you didn't get a shot, a disciplinary action will be pursued against you, which includes unpaid leave or possible loss of employment. This may improve % of vaccinated adults, but I don't think that this will do anything with kids being maskless in schools.

It should at least increase the percentage of vaxxed by 10 percent or so, which gets us closer to herd immunity, which will eventually help kids be maskless.

+1 I hope insurance companies start requiring proof of vaccinations. Why should they be paying for some idiot who ends up on a ventilator because they couldn't be bothered to get a shot that is free and easily available?

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. It is a big choice and we are thinking about it for my DD. If it gets approved early 2022, she will be 11. But she is already my height and through puberty. Do we give her a reduced child’s dose immediately or wait the 6-9 additional months until she’s 12 for the adult dose. She’s the size of an adult so I’m inclined to wait.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So are you saying that in order for kids to be able to go to school maskless, employers will have to mandate vaccinations for adult employees?

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

YES! That's exactly what they're saying.

Some employers (including mine) require vaccines. We got this requirement a few weeks ago: If you don't show your vaccination record or if you didn't get a shot, a disciplinary action will be pursued against you, which includes unpaid leave or possible loss of employment. This may improve % of vaccinated adults, but I don't think that this will do anything with kids being maskless in schools.

It should at least increase the percentage of vaxxed by 10 percent or so, which gets us closer to herd immunity, which will eventually help kids be maskless.

+1 I hope insurance companies start requiring proof of vaccinations. Why should they be paying for some idiot who ends up on a ventilator because they couldn't be bothered to get a shot that is free and easily available?

There is help for your mental health issues and I hope you get it, hugs

[Anonymous]

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.

Why the rush given that the risk is low for kids, and given that there are still unknowns in regard to the long-term effects of the vaccines? This article about long-term risks associated with mRNA vaccines is worth reading:

[url]
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/01/11/rna-vaccines-and-their-lipids
[/url]

[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.

Why the rush given that the risk is low for kids, and given that there are still unknowns in regard to the long-term effects of the vaccines? This article about long-term risks associated with mRNA vaccines is worth reading:

Here is a key passage from the article cited above:

The nightmare scenario would be if e.g. the mRNA vaccines’ lipid nanoparticles are, indeed, crossing the BBB and getting endocytosed into critical glial cells, like oligodendrocytes, or even worse, into neurons themselves in the brain and spinal cord, putting a bullseye on these critical cells for cytotoxic CD8 lymphocytes. If so, we’d be setting the stage for a rash of multiple sclerosis and ALS-type clinical scenarios down the road with multiple boosters. My old medical colleagues have been getting especially concerned about this possibility, and I think this may be behind the recent sharp plunge in willingness among more and more healthcare workers to take the mRNA vaccines. in the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, which is an unfortunate shortcoming given the pandemic’s urgency, we can only go with fragmented hints here and there about potential downstream issues, so we need a wealth of information with full transparency to make up for that shortcoming.