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

[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.

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.

Yes! The people who think vaccine availability should be delayed need to chat with the DC officials who require kids to quarantine after driving out of the DMV to see Grandma.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yes! The people who think vaccine availability should be delayed need to chat with the DC officials who require kids to quarantine after driving out of the DMV to see Grandma.

Yes, we should definitely expedite vaccine approval country-wide and vaccinate 50 million children potentially unnecessarily because the DC government is bat-sh$%t insane and had these dumb travel restrictions.

Listen, I am the BIGGEST fan of vaccination there is BUT NOT IF THE RISK OF THE VACCINE IS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF COVID!!! You can't vaccinate 50 million kids to harm 500 by the vaccine if only 50 of them would be harmed by Covid!!

How do people not understand this??? Clearly the DC government does not understand this but they are a bunch of morons. I would expect more of those of you reading on here.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yes! The people who think vaccine availability should be delayed need to chat with the DC officials who require kids to quarantine after driving out of the DMV to see Grandma.

Yes, we should definitely expedite vaccine approval country-wide and vaccinate 50 million children potentially unnecessarily because the DC government is bat-sh$%t insane and had these dumb travel restrictions.

Listen, I am the BIGGEST fan of vaccination there is BUT NOT IF THE RISK OF THE VACCINE IS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF COVID!!! You can't vaccinate 50 million kids to harm 500 by the vaccine if only 50 of them would be harmed by Covid!!

How do people not understand this??? Clearly the DC government does not understand this but they are a bunch of morons. I would expect more of those of you reading on here.

PP this type of reasoning is too complex for DCPS and the WTU and frankly most of the public. It's all being led by anecdotes and emotions at this point.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yes! The people who think vaccine availability should be delayed need to chat with the DC officials who require kids to quarantine after driving out of the DMV to see Grandma.

Yes, we should definitely expedite vaccine approval country-wide and vaccinate 50 million children potentially unnecessarily because the DC government is bat-sh$%t insane and had these dumb travel restrictions.

Listen, I am the BIGGEST fan of vaccination there is BUT NOT IF THE RISK OF THE VACCINE IS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF COVID!!! You can't vaccinate 50 million kids to harm 500 by the vaccine if only 50 of them would be harmed by Covid!!

How do people not understand this??? Clearly the DC government does not understand this but they are a bunch of morons. I would expect more of those of you reading on here.

Previous poster again.

MAYBE the FDA will find that there IS VALUE in vaccinating all those kids. But they just a minute to figure this out. They have decided that they have to track the study participants for more than a month and have asked for 4-6 months.

Give it a hot minute. This is how scientific research and public health policy works.

[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!

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.

But exposing a kid now doesn't mean they're forever safe. Immunity after recovery only lasts about 3 mos and then you're back at the starting point again.

[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 -- p.m. 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.

Chicken pox kills 100 kids per year. Chicken pox vaccine also lowers risk for severe shingles later in life, so, win-win.

[Anonymous]

Where is the link to this news? This whole thread is a troll post. The vaccine is coming in September.

[Anonymous]

My kids went in person 5 days a week this past year. It was glorious. Masks worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the link to this news? This whole thread is a troll post. The vaccine is coming in September.

As noted above, the "midwinter" is in the title and the actual text is more specific.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1274057?fbclid=IwAR0290hL6OvRrt-MrxcqgNw1tWObIeLGnlXMlvfOKmFhNRfRzHtxrphDI0s

"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."

[Anonymous]

What's wrong with offering a remote option from DCPS? How's does that harm you in any way? Go in-person if that's what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with offering a remote option from DCPS? How's does that harm you in any way? Go in-person if that's what you want.

It’s an issue of resources. The way DCPS is offering remote is by each school making a plan. That is incredibly ineffective and a waste of manpower. There are also issues around who would choose virtual school and those kids missing two and a half years of education, but that is a lot to explain on an anonymous forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with offering a remote option from DCPS? How's does that harm you in any way? Go in-person if that's what you want.

There is a reason school has been mandatory for a century. Not all parents make the best choices for their kids.

Also, why should tax dollars be spent on this inferior form of schooling for anyone but those kids with serious medical issues that are proven to put them at high risk for Covid? You can homeschool if it’s just about your comfort zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with offering a remote option from DCPS? How's does that harm you in any way? Go in-person if that's what you want.

I wouldn't care if it was an option, but I have zero trust that this kind of talk isn't just a ruse to make school remote for all. The OP is probably some depraved WTU member who thinks parents are looking for "free daycare" instead of wanting their childing to get an education and develop socially and emotionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a tall 11 year old. Seriously considering fudging the birthdate at a walk in clinic. They don’t ask for verification do they?

I know people who have done this.

I don’t know why I’m afraid. It’s not illegal right?

I mean yes, it is, and the dose for under 12 is smaller than the current dose for 12 and up, probably for good reason. But if you want to do it just do it. You won’t be alone. Yes it is illegal to falsify your kids birth date to obtain a medical treatment that is not FDA approved for them, and if there is an adverse event you will be on the news. But there probably won’t be, and it’s your child and your life so talk to your kid, make sure they know to give a different birth date when asked, and do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a tall 11 year old. Seriously considering fudging the birthdate at a walk in clinic. They don’t ask for verification do they?

I know people who have done this.

I don’t know why I’m afraid. It’s not illegal right?

I mean yes, it is, and the dose for under 12 is smaller than the current dose for 12 and up, probably for good reason. But if you want to do it just do it. You won’t be alone. Yes it is illegal to falsify your kids birth date to obtain a medical treatment that is not FDA approved for them, and if there is an adverse event you will be on the news. But there probably won’t be, and it’s your child and your life so talk to your kid, make sure they know to give a different birth date when asked, and do it.

I wouldn't PP without doing further research. We have a small child and I asked if the vaccine will be safe when it comes available as our child is smaller than other these same age. He said the age guidelines are not just physical size, but organ development , metabolism all that. These trials and the eventual dosage recommendations are taking the all of that and more into consideration. Your child.is biologically 11 and the current vaccine is designed for 12 and up. I'm just not sure I would do that .