Reply to Why aren’t schools with high COVID rates masking?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Why aren’t schools with high COVID rates masking? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Because most people have already had it. [/quote]

Hmmm … citation for this?[/quote]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm
“As of February 2022, approximately 75% of children and adolescents had serologic evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, with approximately one third becoming newly seropositive since December 2021."[/quote]

And now they're all getting the new strain. Immunity doesn't last. [b]Vaccines don't seem to a great job in preventing longterm effects. [/b]Most sane people would therefore conclude that not getting a highly contagious virus that can have long-term effects is worth wearing a mask to do. [/quote]

Meh.  Just keep getting more shots.  Two wasn’t good enough.  Three didn’t cut it.  Maybe four will do the trick?  [/quote]

You keep getting them.  Hard no for us. Two and done. [/quote]

I love this arbitrary position. Why, exactly? Do you refuse to get a flu shot every year because you got it once? This is just so arbitrary. [/quote]

DP. The Covid vaccine schedule is what is arbitrary so far.  They’re making up the schedule as they go along, when immunity from the last shot starts to wane.    I hope we can get to the point where it’s an annual vaccine like for the flu.  I’m not super comfortable just getting a vax every few months until they figure it out.[/quote]

DP. While I can somewhat understand this point of view (mostly because of how sick the vaccines make me), I think it's strange to draw the line at 2 shots. I recognize the public messaging was probably misleading, but in practical terms there was never an expectation that 2 shots spaced 2-3 weeks apart would be enough. Even if two shots could have been enough, spacing them so closely together was expected to decrease the efficacy and durability. But it was a good tradeoff at the beginning, because it meant they could complete the trials faster.

Adding a third shot about 6 months later brings the vaccine schedule closer to what you’d typically expect. And given there’s pretty good data on the benefits of a third shot, I don’t know why anyone would pass it up.

Now, 4th shots are a different story. I'd be looking for better data than simply higher antibody levels, or a couple months of better immunity against infection.[/quote]

PP here and I don’t necessarily disagree- DH and I both got a booster but I’d like to see more evidence that another shot is needed before getting a second one. Or whether they start recommending yet another in a few months.  And I just wish they had taken a more deliberate process for kids, even if it took longer.  Covid has never been an emergency for kids and an EUA was probably not appropriate.[/quote]

Well, they created an emergency through their ridiculous quarantine policies for unvaccinated kids. Not that those make any sense.

I get where you’re coming from, although I don’t entirely agree. Covid is about as risky to kids as the flu, which we vaccinate kids against, and it’s occurring at higher rates. So whether it’s really an emergency is debatable, but it’s certainly serious enough to want a vaccine, even if it just reduces illness severity and duration (as the flu vaccine does).

The trials being done on kids are about the size that you’d expect for pediatric trials. Apples to apples comparisons there are a little hard, because trials for vaccines that originally come out for kids are going to be a bit bigger, but in this case we started with adults and worked our way down. The trials were completed faster, but that’s mostly because a pandemic is an ideal time to recruit test subjects and collect data. The pace/duration of the trials hasn’t really impacted the quality of the data meaningfully. At least, not from a safety perspective, since hidden, long-term side effects aren’t a thing with vaccinations.

The problem with these kinds of trials is that you need a massive number of subjects to be able to measure rare effects, whether you’re talking about rare negative effects like myocarditis, or the effect of the vaccine on rare events, like hospitalizations/deaths. You can’t create a trial big enough to be able to measure those things. All you can really do is look effects that occur at significant rates during the trial, and then monitor real-world reports after a vaccine is authorized or approved.

Early on, parents, consulting with their children’s doctors, would self-select before widespread vaccination would typically begin.

But in this case, the policies around quarantines effectively created a de facto mandate for vaccinations well before you’d typically expect to see one. That's where things went wrong-- not with the speed of the EUA process.

[/quote]

Then  get your kids vaccinated.  Majority of kids, except preschool are over age 5, so you can vaccinate.  They are your kids.  If they are quarantined, you keep them home.  You figure it out like the rest of us do. [/quote]

Options

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

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics