How close are we to Under 11 vaccines?

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Yes, but there have been over 50K deaths from other causes (see the CDC website for these stats), for ages under 17, during the same time that COVID claimed a few hundred lives.

In other words, statistically, COVID mortality risk is trivial relative to other sources of mortality risk for children under the age of 17.

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

DP. And the risk from the vaccine, if that's the comparison you're thinking of, is virtually microscopic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

Actually, it is a leading cause of death among children. Per this article, it is one of the top ten causes of death among kids. https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/ And per this analysis, it is not only a leading cause of death, but particularly tragic because young lives are cut short. https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

Actually, it is a leading cause of death among children. Per this article, it is one of the top ten causes of death among kids. https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/ And per this analysis, it is not only a leading cause of death, but particularly tragic because young lives are cut short. https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93055

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

DP. And the risk from the vaccine, if that's the comparison you're thinking of, is virtually microscopic.

The UK panel said the risk benefit analysis is unclear due to our lack of data on the vaccine. You can make up your own opinion, but there is no expert consensus on this.

I will vaccinate my kids by the way, so you are not talking to an anti-vaxxer. But I will do it for social reasons more than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

Then you have a meaningless concept of “meaningful risk”. Risk is by definition statistical, and for the average kid, the statistical risk of death or serious illness from Covid is extremely small, i.e. not meaningful. Obviously the harm was meaningful to those few hundred kids (kids as in under 18, the number for the under 12s is much smaller) who died, but that is different from “risk”.

DP. And the risk from the vaccine, if that's the comparison you're thinking of, is virtually microscopic.

The UK panel said the risk benefit analysis is unclear due to our lack of data on the vaccine. You can make up your own opinion, but there is no expert consensus on this.

I will vaccinate my kids by the way, so you are not talking to an anti-vaxxer. But I will do it for social reasons more than anything else.

And to be clear, they were talking about teens. It will be interesting to see what the European position will be on the younger age group.

[Anonymous]

According to this article, Pfizer expects to request EUA status for kids 5-11 in September or October: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210702/pfizer-seeking-vaccination-approval-for-ages-5-to-11-years-old-by-fall
No guess as to how long it would take FDA to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to this article, Pfizer expects to request EUA status for kids 5-11 in September or October: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210702/pfizer-seeking-vaccination-approval-for-ages-5-to-11-years-old-by-fall
No guess as to how long it would take FDA to make a decision.

News out today is that the FDA wants more participants in the trial. Move it back at least a month. Moderna says early 2022.

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

UK kids are generally healthier so there’s that.

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

But again, I wasn’t engaging in the risk-benefit calculation. I was just responding to the misleading argument that covid isn’t a meaningful risk to kids. It is: hundreds of kids in the US have died from covid. Many of them were otherwise healthy.

You realize that “meaningful” is subjective and arbitrary, right?

[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.

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.

NP. So the UK expert panel that said exactly that is wrong? Do you think they are lying to cover up a supply issue?

I’m not aware of a UK panel opining on the hundreds of pediatric deaths from covid in the US.

No, they are speaking about the risk to the average child. US and UK kids aren’t fundamentally different.

UK kids are generally healthier so there’s that.

Are they? Their childhood obesity rates are similar.

[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.

Most of this post is totally made up.

Yes, sadly 300 kids have died from Covid. But, very few of them were “otherwise healthy.” No, there’s no real evidence that kids are suffering from long term side effects.

There’s no evidence that COVID is a meaningful risk to 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.

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.

Most of this post is totally made up.

Yes, sadly 300 kids have died from Covid. But, very few of them were “otherwise healthy.” No, there’s no real evidence that kids are suffering from long term side effects.

There’s no evidence that COVID is a meaningful risk to kids.

NP and I just looked up the data and it is about 350 kids. But when you look at each state’s definition of a child the age range is 0-17 in some states, but all the way up to 20 in other states. So while 350 is a tragic number, how many of those were aged 5-11? Because that is what parents such as myself want to see before vaccinated my lower elementary aged kids.