How close are we to Under 11 vaccines?

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

FALSE. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 50K deaths from all causes in the 17 and under age group. Of these, under 400 are due to COVID. So no, COVID isn't even close to a "leading cause of death" among children. Motor vehicle deaths, firearm deaths and cancer are much larger risks than is COVID.

Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message

[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.

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….

I'm the PP who wrote about going to the cardiologist, but did not write the subsequent response against osteopaths. I agree with you - MDs aren't the final word on this. I solicited an opinion. The reason I even mentioned this is because myocarditis is the main concern about the vaccine, and that is his specialty. He is currently treating a few patients who had vaccine myocarditis, all of them expecting to fully recover, and also some pediatric heart patients due to Covid. He said the risk of Cpvid to a kid's heart can be bad and while we haven't seen many lethal cases, he worries about some research showing damage via long Covid. He said there are risks to both, but that given my children just had thorough heart scans, the risk to them from the vaccine in terms of their heart would be very low. He was very careful not to say what the right decision is - I had to do the whole "if it were your kid, would you hesitate" thing, and he said he would not, but that people should go in with their eyes wide open.

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

FALSE. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 50K deaths from all causes in the 17 and under age group. Of these, under 400 are due to COVID. So no, COVID isn't even close to a "leading cause of death" among children. Motor vehicle deaths, firearm deaths and cancer are much larger risks than is COVID.

Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message

Links were provided upthread that say otherwise: “COVID is the tenth leading cause of death for children in the United States,” Dr. David Kimberlin with Children’s of Alabama said. “It is among most common causes of death in children and adolescents.” https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/

[Anonymous]

I agree with most PPs who say that kids are highly unlikely to die from Covid. For me, it's the long term side effects. I'm in Minnesota, so always getting Mayo Clinic updates, and this one from May outlines many of the possible bad side effects. I'm sure most people think that these are unlikely to affect their child, and hopefully that is true. The same caution some are applying to not choosing to vax kids right now is the same concern I have for preventing even a mild Covid infection. None of know what the best answer is, and I know we are all doing our best. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

The claim that Covid is one of the “leading causes of death among children” was made on the previous page, but only supported with a link to a TV segment the headline of which was that it is in the Top 10 (is anyone surprised?). That in itself is meaningless and misleading without knowing the actual numbers. I saw a chart recently (can’t find it) that showed that yes, Covid was in the Top 10, but it was at the lower end and the difference in the actual numbers between it and the actually *leading* causes of death was huge.

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

FALSE. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 50K deaths from all causes in the 17 and under age group. Of these, under 400 are due to COVID. So no, COVID isn't even close to a "leading cause of death" among children. Motor vehicle deaths, firearm deaths and cancer are much larger risks than is COVID.

Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message

Links were provided upthread that say otherwise: “COVID is the tenth leading cause of death for children in the United States,” Dr. David Kimberlin with Children’s of Alabama said. “It is among most common causes of death in children and adolescents.” https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/

Oh look, you posted the TV link again while I was commenting how meaningless that was. Is that really where you get your information?

[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?

NP. It is a local news station covering a report from a children’s hospital. What do you doubt - that the local news station adequately described the report? That the hospital data is accurate?

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

FALSE. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 50K deaths from all causes in the 17 and under age group. Of these, under 400 are due to COVID. So no, COVID isn't even close to a "leading cause of death" among children. Motor vehicle deaths, firearm deaths and cancer are much larger risks than is COVID.

Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message

Links were provided upthread that say otherwise: “COVID is the tenth leading cause of death for children in the United States,” Dr. David Kimberlin with Children’s of Alabama said. “It is among most common causes of death in children and adolescents.” https://www.wbrc.com/2021/05/23/covid-is-one-top-causes-death-children/

Oh look, you posted the TV link again while I was commenting how meaningless that was. Is that really where you get your information?

[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.

What percentage of the population do we need to achieve herd immunity? Does anyone know?

[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.

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.

We are talking about less than 500 kids have died, it was 401 last time I checked out of about 74 million children under 18 in the United States, so YES, YES...COVID does NOT pose any meaningful risk to children. You cite hundreds but forget to cite out of how many. It isn't as if there are 1000 kids, we are talking about OVER 74 million. The risk is less than 0.01% and NO most of the kids who have died were not otherwise healthy.

It has been cited in other threads—with supporting links—that between 25 and 41 percent of pediatric COVID deaths were kids who were otherwise healthy. And while the denominator is of course large, hundreds of pediatric COVID deaths is still a significant number considering the nature of the population—which is why it’s one of the leading causes of death among kids right now.

The claim that Covid is one of the “leading causes of death among children” was made on the previous page, but only supported with a link to a TV segment the headline of which was that it is in the Top 10 (is anyone surprised?). That in itself is meaningless and misleading without knowing the actual numbers. I saw a chart recently (can’t find it) that showed that yes, Covid was in the Top 10, but it was at the lower end and the difference in the actual numbers between it and the actually *leading* causes of death was huge.

DP

And yet, that kind of misinformation is allowed to flourish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an anti-vaxer. My wife and I signed up as soon as we were able to in VA and have been fully vaccinated since May, but currently I would not vaccinated my elementary school age boys against COVID. The risks for "mild myocardia" are much higher than the risks to them from COVID itself. If you do any research on what the CDC considers "mild" you might be astonished. Admission to the ER, 10 days in the PICU, long lasting damage to the heart. These don't sound mild to me.

Given the very low COVID case levels in the US right now, the risks of COVID seem to minor in comparison. At a minimum I'd like to see a lot more data come out on this. Maybe the dosing for kids needs to be less. Maybe kids can get by with a single shot, since most issues seem related to the 2nd shot.

I feel the same way. I am not planning to vax my kids, and I’m shocked that all my friends seem to be so set on vaxxing theirs.

My ES kids want the vaccine. They want to take their masks off.

Have you talked to your kids?

Vaxxed or not, it’s probably better to keep your mask on. And your kids.

Masks will likely be required in schools, even with a vaccine available.

DP here, but I have talked to my kids and both are fine continuing with masks and not taking the risk yet with a brand new vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an anti-vaxer. My wife and I signed up as soon as we were able to in VA and have been fully vaccinated since May, but currently I would not vaccinated my elementary school age boys against COVID. The risks for "mild myocardia" are much higher than the risks to them from COVID itself. If you do any research on what the CDC considers "mild" you might be astonished. Admission to the ER, 10 days in the PICU, long lasting damage to the heart. These don't sound mild to me.

Given the very low COVID case levels in the US right now, the risks of COVID seem to minor in comparison. At a minimum I'd like to see a lot more data come out on this. Maybe the dosing for kids needs to be less. Maybe kids can get by with a single shot, since most issues seem related to the 2nd shot.

I feel the same way. I am not planning to vax my kids, and I’m shocked that all my friends seem to be so set on vaxxing theirs.

My ES kids want the vaccine. They want to take their masks off.

Have you talked to your kids?

Vaxxed or not, it’s probably better to keep your mask on. And your kids.

Masks will likely be required in schools, even with a vaccine available.

DP here, but I have talked to my kids and both are fine continuing with masks and not taking the risk yet with a brand new vaccine.

I respect your position on that. I might have made the same calculation with the original disease. My concern with Delta is that masks won't stop large amounts of infections in schools knowing that mask adherence will never be perfect. That bums me out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an anti-vaxer. My wife and I signed up as soon as we were able to in VA and have been fully vaccinated since May, but currently I would not vaccinated my elementary school age boys against COVID. The risks for "mild myocardia" are much higher than the risks to them from COVID itself. If you do any research on what the CDC considers "mild" you might be astonished. Admission to the ER, 10 days in the PICU, long lasting damage to the heart. These don't sound mild to me.

Given the very low COVID case levels in the US right now, the risks of COVID seem to minor in comparison. At a minimum I'd like to see a lot more data come out on this. Maybe the dosing for kids needs to be less. Maybe kids can get by with a single shot, since most issues seem related to the 2nd shot.

I feel the same way. I am not planning to vax my kids, and I’m shocked that all my friends seem to be so set on vaxxing theirs.

My ES kids want the vaccine. They want to take their masks off.

Have you talked to your kids?

Vaxxed or not, it’s probably better to keep your mask on. And your kids.

Masks will likely be required in schools, even with a vaccine available.

DP here, but I have talked to my kids and both are fine continuing with masks and not taking the risk yet with a brand new vaccine.

I respect your position on that. I might have made the same calculation with the original disease. My concern with Delta is that masks won't stop large amounts of infections in schools knowing that mask adherence will never be perfect. That bums me out.

DP. Do we actually have data yet how delta spreads in a classroom setting when masks are worn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an anti-vaxer. My wife and I signed up as soon as we were able to in VA and have been fully vaccinated since May, but currently I would not vaccinated my elementary school age boys against COVID. The risks for "mild myocardia" are much higher than the risks to them from COVID itself. If you do any research on what the CDC considers "mild" you might be astonished. Admission to the ER, 10 days in the PICU, long lasting damage to the heart. These don't sound mild to me.

Given the very low COVID case levels in the US right now, the risks of COVID seem to minor in comparison. At a minimum I'd like to see a lot more data come out on this. Maybe the dosing for kids needs to be less. Maybe kids can get by with a single shot, since most issues seem related to the 2nd shot.

I feel the same way. I am not planning to vax my kids, and I’m shocked that all my friends seem to be so set on vaxxing theirs.

My ES kids want the vaccine. They want to take their masks off.

Have you talked to your kids?

Vaxxed or not, it’s probably better to keep your mask on. And your kids.

Masks will likely be required in schools, even with a vaccine available.

DP here, but I have talked to my kids and both are fine continuing with masks and not taking the risk yet with a brand new vaccine.

I respect your position on that. I might have made the same calculation with the original disease. My concern with Delta is that masks won't stop large amounts of infections in schools knowing that mask adherence will never be perfect. That bums me out.

DP. Do we actually have data yet how delta spreads in a classroom setting when masks are worn?

I don't think so yet. But all the data coming out of Australia and China seems to imply that short of a KN95 type mask, delta will penetrate extremely easily.