How close are we to Under 11 vaccines?

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Hey antivaxxer, you actually quoted a response on the Internet from someone in response to the so called “article.” This passage is not from the article. And actually, it’s not even an article. It is a blog. You are pathetic.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this on another timeline:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/pfizer-and-moderna-are-expanding-vaccine-studies-of-kids-5-to-11/ar-AAMzNT9?ocid=msedgntp

The fact that they are expanding their studies shows they are taking this age group seriously and are not taking the "kids are just fine" attitude.

lol, no it doesn’t. they are expanding the numbers in the trial because the risks of covid are *so low* that you need a bigger trial to even be able to discern the risks v benefits of the vaccine. It also shows that the drug companies were trying to do the least amount possible for approval, but FDA instructed them to do more.

PP here - by "they" I was referring to the FDA. They recognized they needed a larger pool and are now calling for one. If the risk was negligible they wouldn't have bothered.

[Anonymous]

Any mandate is going to result in significant lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

The hell he is. Plenty of kids have gotten COVID and many have been hospitalized.

the number of 5-11 year olds in the trial is so small (just increased to 3000) that they aren’t even really going to be able to compare the risks of Covid to the risks of vaccination. We’re likely not going to vaccinate our 9 year old until there’s more evidence - probably 3-4 months at a minimum after the initial EUA. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The uptake is going to be very slow for kids.

The FDA is expanding the trial size, so I think they understand the desire to get this population vaccinated. If you want to hold off on your 9 year old, that's your choice. I know plenty of parents with 9-11 year olds that can't wait to get their kids vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

This portion of the article is seemingly against the mRNA vaccine in general and has nothing specifically do with vaccinating kids specifically. Guarantee you 98% of the people reading it right now have absolutely no idea what any of it means, either. This pandemic has bred a bunch of self-proclaimed epidemiologists who want to "analyze the data" themselves and send Dr. Fauci to jail.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Hey antivaxxer, you actually quoted a response on the Internet from someone in response to the so called “article.” This passage is not from the article. And actually, it’s not even an article. It is a blog. You are pathetic.

Can you please point to a study that demonstrates that the vaccines are safe in the long-run? How does one study long-term effects for a vaccination approach that is quite new? Isn't the passage of time require for long-term effects to be fully understood?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

The hell he is. Plenty of kids have gotten COVID and many have been hospitalized.

the number of 5-11 year olds in the trial is so small (just increased to 3000) that they aren’t even really going to be able to compare the risks of Covid to the risks of vaccination. We’re likely not going to vaccinate our 9 year old until there’s more evidence - probably 3-4 months at a minimum after the initial EUA. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The uptake is going to be very slow for kids.

The FDA is expanding the trial size, so I think they understand the desire to get this population vaccinated. If you want to hold off on your 9 year old, that's your choice. I know plenty of parents with 9-11 year olds that can't wait to get their kids vaccinated.

+1 I have 9 and 11 year old daughters. We did preventative full cardio workups for them last week (echocardiogram and EKG) and their cardiologist said he would definitely recommend the shot for kids under 12 if it were his kids. We were already planning on it, but it was good to hear from a heart specialist in terms of risk vs. benefit.

[Anonymous]

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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

The hell he is. Plenty of kids have gotten COVID and many have been hospitalized.

the number of 5-11 year olds in the trial is so small (just increased to 3000) that they aren’t even really going to be able to compare the risks of Covid to the risks of vaccination. We’re likely not going to vaccinate our 9 year old until there’s more evidence - probably 3-4 months at a minimum after the initial EUA. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The uptake is going to be very slow for kids.

The FDA is expanding the trial size, so I think they understand the desire to get this population vaccinated. If you want to hold off on your 9 year old, that's your choice. I know plenty of parents with 9-11 year olds that can't wait to get their kids vaccinated.

+1 I have 9 and 11 year old daughters. We did preventative full cardio workups for them last week (echocardiogram and EKG) and their cardiologist said he would definitely recommend the shot for kids under 12 if it were his kids. We were already planning on it, but it was good to hear from a heart specialist in terms of risk vs. benefit.

Did the heart specialist cite the papers/studies that are the basis for this recommendation that you vaccinate your children? I'm concerned primarily about long-run risks, and the fact that the mRNA methodology is quite new. Without historical experience, how do we know that the mRNA approach is safe in the long-run? Please cite the papers/studies that indicate that long-run risk is minimal.

[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.

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.

[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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

The hell he is. Plenty of kids have gotten COVID and many have been hospitalized.

the number of 5-11 year olds in the trial is so small (just increased to 3000) that they aren’t even really going to be able to compare the risks of Covid to the risks of vaccination. We’re likely not going to vaccinate our 9 year old until there’s more evidence - probably 3-4 months at a minimum after the initial EUA. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The uptake is going to be very slow for kids.

The FDA is expanding the trial size, so I think they understand the desire to get this population vaccinated. If you want to hold off on your 9 year old, that's your choice. I know plenty of parents with 9-11 year olds that can't wait to get their kids vaccinated.

+1 I have 9 and 11 year old daughters. We did preventative full cardio workups for them last week (echocardiogram and EKG) and their cardiologist said he would definitely recommend the shot for kids under 12 if it were his kids. We were already planning on it, but it was good to hear from a heart specialist in terms of risk vs. benefit.

Did the heart specialist cite the papers/studies that are the basis for this recommendation that you vaccinate your children? I'm concerned primarily about long-run risks, and the fact that the mRNA methodology is quite new. Without historical experience, how do we know that the mRNA approach is safe in the long-run? Please cite the papers/studies that indicate that long-run risk is minimal.

If a cardiologist (that's what educated people call "heart specialists") states their professional recommendation, I don't ask him to parse the studies, because I didn't go to medical school. I choose a competent professional and then follow their judgement. If you want to find some osteopath who says that he "knows" that vaccines will make your heart beat slower, well, that's indicative of your own judgement.

[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.

He already is, PP, by his age.

The hell he is. Plenty of kids have gotten COVID and many have been hospitalized.

the number of 5-11 year olds in the trial is so small (just increased to 3000) that they aren’t even really going to be able to compare the risks of Covid to the risks of vaccination. We’re likely not going to vaccinate our 9 year old until there’s more evidence - probably 3-4 months at a minimum after the initial EUA. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The uptake is going to be very slow for kids.

The FDA is expanding the trial size, so I think they understand the desire to get this population vaccinated. If you want to hold off on your 9 year old, that's your choice. I know plenty of parents with 9-11 year olds that can't wait to get their kids vaccinated.

+1 I have 9 and 11 year old daughters. We did preventative full cardio workups for them last week (echocardiogram and EKG) and their cardiologist said he would definitely recommend the shot for kids under 12 if it were his kids. We were already planning on it, but it was good to hear from a heart specialist in terms of risk vs. benefit.

Did the heart specialist cite the papers/studies that are the basis for this recommendation that you vaccinate your children? I'm concerned primarily about long-run risks, and the fact that the mRNA methodology is quite new. Without historical experience, how do we know that the mRNA approach is safe in the long-run? Please cite the papers/studies that indicate that long-run risk is minimal.

If a cardiologist (that's what educated people call "heart specialists") states their professional recommendation, I don't ask him to parse the studies, because I didn't go to medical school. I choose a competent professional and then follow their judgement. If you want to find some osteopath who says that he "knows" that vaccines will make your heart beat slower, well, that's indicative of your own judgement.

There is a lot of judgement in this response. Also not sure what the slam is on osteopathy (close relative is German osteopath that has a waitlist of patients at all times and it’s quite normal practice in Germany)…. Anyway, I believe in vaccinations of course but I do worry about MDs that are providing opinions - which is perfectly fine! - but that people take those are somehow the word of God on Covid, and I think there is still a lot of unknowns out there. So I think it’s helpful to inquire and look to MDs for advice, but there are a lot of differing opinions out there, and only time and data and research will really tell us anything more concrete. It’s getting comfortable with some unknowns, that’s where I think we are….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was never the plan to make the kids save us from
This. They were punished for months and months to protect the adults and yet they are still getting punished and then pressured to get a vaccine.

We WANT our kids to be vaccinated. It's neither punishment nor pressure.

Yeah I want my kid to get back to a normal life- no masks, no quarantines for exposure to a virus, normal activities. Doesn’t really matter what the idiot adults do, kids still need the vaccine to regain normalcy.