Mandatory vaccines for schools kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

These statements that something is "common sense" are an interesting argument method. The DC Council just passed something with at least one element that wasn't "common sense." The vocal group of parents petitioning the Council to not follow CDC guidance on close contacts argued that was also "common sense."

My point: maybe what you think is common sense isn't what everyone else thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

You do realize there are other vaccines that are required, right?

DP. You do realize that requiring a brand new vaccine that is still under EUA in the middle of the school year is an entirely different matter both legally and practically, right?

[Anonymous]

The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

+1

The whole ‘ you know we require other vaccines’ argument is ridiculous and doesn’t account for the risk analysis needed.

I also think it’s a slippery slope to start saying any EUA vaccine can be mandated just because there is political pressure to do so. Get the vaccine for your own child. Let others wait or do the analysis to decide if the risk is worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

1) Myocarditis cases are mild and resolve themselves.

2) It is debatable in the UK and other European countries. Not so here.

The reason why is because community spread is significantly higher here than there. The risk of severe illness is significantly higher here in the US, therefore this isn’t much of a debate. 1:100 hospitalization risk with community spread varying across the country from moderate to very high is a higher risk than the 1:50,000 myocarditis risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

1) Myocarditis cases are mild and resolve themselves.

2) It is debatable in the UK and other European countries. Not so here.

The reason why is because community spread is significantly higher here than there. The risk of severe illness is significantly higher here in the US, therefore this isn’t much of a debate. 1:100 hospitalization risk with community spread varying across the country from moderate to very high is a higher risk than the 1:50,000 myocarditis risk.

those numbers are not accurate for boys 12-18. and we won’t even know the numbers for boy 5-11 for quite a while. and we also don’t know the long-term impact of “mild” mRNA vaccine induced myocarditis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

1) Myocarditis cases are mild and resolve themselves.

2) It is debatable in the UK and other European countries. Not so here.

The reason why is because community spread is significantly higher here than there. The risk of severe illness is significantly higher here in the US, therefore this isn’t much of a debate. 1:100 hospitalization risk with community spread varying across the country from moderate to very high is a higher risk than the 1:50,000 myocarditis risk.

those numbers are not accurate for boys 12-18. and we won’t even know the numbers for boy 5-11 for quite a while. and we also don’t know the long-term impact of “mild” mRNA vaccine induced myocarditis.

Not to mention that

1) that hospitalization number does not reflect the risk for severe illness
2) community spread will go down to European levels here soon enough as the delta wave has crested (could of course rise again, but so it could in Europe)

So yes, it is debatable here as well. The one lasting difference between the US and Europe is the higher number of at risk children here due to obesity and poor health. But this doesn’t change the individual risk-benefit calculus for healthy kids. There is no question that higher risk children should get the vaccine. Whether everyone should be forced to get vaccinated to protect those kids if their parents won’t get them their shot is an ethical and not a scientific question.

I will vaccinate my low risk kids. But I question the ethics of a mandate under EUA, and I would like to see an honest discussion about the topic of Covid vaccines for young children instead of the political pressure campaign that is currently going on, against which European experts are explicitly speaking out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

1) Myocarditis cases are mild and resolve themselves.

2) It is debatable in the UK and other European countries. Not so here.

The reason why is because community spread is significantly higher here than there. The risk of severe illness is significantly higher here in the US, therefore this isn’t much of a debate. 1:100 hospitalization risk with community spread varying across the country from moderate to very high is a higher risk than the 1:50,000 myocarditis risk.

then why not try our hardest to get all adults vaccinated? That will bring down community spread. Why put children at risk to bring down that number when there are other ways of doing it?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure where folks who are saying that kids aren't affected are getting their info? Things have changed since delta came to visit. https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-4035798709ec77b8acaf96a49d48acfa

[Anonymous]

Here's some more information about the proposed legislation, BTW. https://dcist.com/story/21/10/04/d-c-students-would-have-to-get-covid-vaccine-under-new-legislation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure where folks who are saying that kids aren't affected are getting their info? Things have changed since delta came to visit. https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-4035798709ec77b8acaf96a49d48acfa

Did you even read the article? Or the thread?

“The sheer numbers can make it seem like children are getting sicker with the delta variant, but experts say that does not appear to be the case. Most infected kids have mild infections or no symptoms and do not need to be hospitalized.”

Nobody is saying that kids aren’t affected. But delta hasn’t changed the fact that kids usually don’t get very sick from this coronavirus.

[Anonymous]

And this one:Covid and Age https://nyti.ms/3v2DISv

“Covid is a threat to children. But it’s not an extraordinary threat,” Dr. Alasdair Munro, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the University of Southampton, has written. “It’s very ordinary. In general, the risks from being infected are similar to the other respiratory viruses you probably don’t think much about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this one:Covid and Age https://nyti.ms/3v2DISv

“Covid is a threat to children. But it’s not an extraordinary threat,” Dr. Alasdair Munro, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the University of Southampton, has written. “It’s very ordinary. In general, the risks from being infected are similar to the other respiratory viruses you probably don’t think much about.

There are many many articles showing that Covid poses small risk to kids. Even with kids in schools, community case number declining, school case numbers declining, positivity rates declining, and school positivity rates being extremely low, people are still acting like they did in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

And it will be debated. By actual experts at the FDA and CDC. Not by googlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk analysis for vaccines has always been "is the risk of side effects from this vaccine smaller than the risk of severe illness from the disease". That's it. For many of the childhood vaccines that all our kids get it is a no brainer that the vaccine is less risky. For the covid vaccines, for adults it is a no brainer to get the vax. For the mRNA vax for boys, it is actually debatable.

And it will be debated. By actual experts at the FDA and CDC. Not by googlers.

And by experts in other countries, who seem to be much more realistic about this particular risk than those in the US, who are impacted by extremism on both sides.