The FDA Delays Action on Covid Shots for Young Children (nytimes.com) 107
In a striking reversal, federal regulators and Pfizer-BioNTech said on Friday that they would wait for data on whether three doses of the companies' coronavirus vaccine are effective in children younger than five before deciding whether to authorize a vaccine for the age group. From a report: The Food and Drug Administration will postpone a meeting of outside experts that was scheduled for Tuesday; the experts were to weigh the evidence and make a recommendation on whether to authorize two doses of the vaccine in young children, as Pfizer had requested. In a news release, Pfizer-BioNTech said that their three-dose trial for young children was moving briskly, and that the new timetable would allow the F.D.A. to get more data and thoroughly review it. Results are expected in early April.
"Given that the study is advancing at a rapid pace, the companies will wait for the three-dose data as Pfizer and BioNTech continue to believe it may provide a higher level of protection in this age group," the companies said. Regulators and vaccine manufacturers have been wrestling with how quickly to move to vaccinate roughly 18 million children under the age of five, the only Americans still ineligible for shots. The highly transmissible Omicron variant is receding in much of the nation, but federal officials have said that nearly 400 children under five have died of Covid-19.
"Given that the study is advancing at a rapid pace, the companies will wait for the three-dose data as Pfizer and BioNTech continue to believe it may provide a higher level of protection in this age group," the companies said. Regulators and vaccine manufacturers have been wrestling with how quickly to move to vaccinate roughly 18 million children under the age of five, the only Americans still ineligible for shots. The highly transmissible Omicron variant is receding in much of the nation, but federal officials have said that nearly 400 children under five have died of Covid-19.
"Of" or "with"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Were these children that died of covid, or died of something and tested positive for covid before they died?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of, the number would be much higher with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I am not allowed to share that. However, I do reporting for a major hospital system. And they do indeed classify the difference of death with Covid vs Death because of Covid. As they report the cause the death to be the cause of the death, vs reporting existing issues of being the cause.
If you have cancer, but you died as a heart attack, You are classified has dying from a heart attack, not from cancer.
Also with the scope of Covid 400 deaths is actually a surprisingly small number. Hospitals have
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You'll probably have to wait 75 years for the answer because of "National Security/Too much data to go through/Fill in own reason"...
Re:"Of" or "with"? (Score:5, Informative)
Were these children that died of covid, or died of something and tested positive for covid before they died?
Read the summary. Although I know you were just trying to make an ignorant and cheeky point, these are children who died of Covid. It is hard to tell exactly who has died of Covid, which is why nearly all estimates of Covid related deaths are under reported. Real Covid-related deaths are upward of 20% higher than the official tally [usatoday.com] but because it is so hard to confirm individual cases officials report very conservative figures.
Not that it stops the convergence of ignorance and political motivation, which leads many to claim Covid deaths are actually over reported.
Re:"Of" or "with"? (Score:5, Informative)
A good measurement is to note the increase in deaths overall, with or without covid, versus number of deaths in 2019. There is a sharp jump when the pandemic started and it would take enough hand waving to get off the ground to deny that it had nothing to do with covid.
The number one cause of death for policement in 2021 was... covid-19.
Don't even look at death rates, look at hospitalization rates! That puts a complete like to the myth that covid is just like the flu. Hospitalization rates are very high, and if you're hospitalized then it's nothing like a mild disease. Someone spending a couple weeks in the ICU who then survives should not be dismissed "see, they lived, no big deal" by the those trying to claim covid is just hype and hot air.
Also of note: flu deaths are estimated by the CDC. Because most of those deaths happen at home, and there's no official reporting of flu deaths. Covid numbers from the CDC however are based on actual report numbers, with no estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well according to this https://www.healthcare.gov/glo... [healthcare.gov]
"Hospitalization
Care in a hospital that requires admission as an inpatient and usually requires an overnight stay. An overnight stay for observation could be outpatient care."
So just showing up at the ER because you're nervous doesnt count, you need to be admitted for inpatient care and no hospital is going to admit you for that if you don't need to be (especially right now) so I don't think your concerns apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to the hospital versus being admitted to a hospital. Those who went in a panic over possibly having covid but with no symptoms would have been sent home. Those with mild symptoms would be tested and sent home. Those with serious symptoms requiring treatment would have been admitted. Those who are admitted is what hospitalization rates are about.
And hospitalization rates going up for covid means fewer beds for other stuff. It's a real problem. Also there's a nursing shortage, adding to problems. A
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The number one cause of death for policement in 2021 was... covid-19.
Don't even look at death rates, look at hospitalization rates! That puts a complete like to the myth that covid is just like the flu. Hospitalization rates are very high, and if you're hospitalized then it's nothing like a mild disease. Someone spending a couple weeks in the ICU who then survives should not be dismissed "see, they lived, no big deal" by the those trying to claim covid is just hype and hot air.
Just thinking out loud here so please don't tar and feather me... but I often wonder how many of these people who went to the hospital were only there because they were simply scared of a new virus, and not because they were so symptomatic that they thought their life was at risk... in other words, I wonder how many were more of a "better safe than sorry" type scenario.
When I had covid I spent more time in bed than I have in my life. Fever for 10 days straight, no desire to eat or really do anything other than lay down. If I were older and didn't have any family or friends who could take care of me... who knows.. I might've taken my ass to the hospital just for the added support. I'm middle aged and could still get around fine, but still had to have a friend bring me some groceries and ginger ale lol
The first thing you've got to realise is that not only does COVID affect people differently (hey, we're not all genetically identical clones) but also different strains affect people differently. I know someone who caught the original strain, he wasn't an unhealthy bloke but it knocked him flat for 6 weeks straight and he still wasn't back to normal for a few months after that. OTOH, I know someone who got it over Christmas, likely to be Omicron (possibly Delta) but he just stayed in bed for a few days (he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Of" or "with"? (Score:1)
Silly question: do you know more hypochondriac people or "hypercondriac" people?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... let's go to the head of the CDC about those hospitalization rates.
https://www.newsweek.com/jake-... [newsweek.com]
Tapper was reacting to comments CDC director Rochelle Walensky made on Fox News on Sunday that "up to 40 percent" of patients had been admitted to hospitals with another medical emergency but had been later detected as having COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
A good measurement is to note the increase in deaths overall, with or without covid, versus number of deaths in 2019. There is a sharp jump when the pandemic started and it would take enough hand waving to get off the ground to deny that it had nothing to do with covid.
While the scaling on the graph in this article [hatchardreport.com] is a prime example of 'how to abuse statistics' New Zealand with its 0-covid approach does provide an interesting 'control' when compared to most of the rest of the world.
Can I think of alternative explanations to the contention within it: of course, I'm a 'rationalising person'. Do the facts seem to support their conclusion? Unfortunately, maybe.
Whatever your beliefs the article is worth a read and, in my view, the evidence they provide does suggest further re
Re: "Of" or "with"? (Score:2)
This guy reeks of far right misinformation.
One person has been confirmed of dying of the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand, a guy who went two weeks with myocarditis and refusing to see a doctor the whole time.
Itâ(TM)s also worth noting that New Zealandâ(TM)s excess mortality has been below average over the last two years.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This guy reeks of far right misinformation.
Agreed, which is why I 'equivocated' in my post. However...
One person has been confirmed of dying of the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand, a guy who went two weeks with myocarditis and refusing to see a doctor the whole time.
I think this is an example of the point he was trying to make. If an elderly person dies but doesn't get autopsied it's assumed to be age-related natural causes. Confirmation of cause is 'assumed' not definitive. Unfortunately I can see both sides of the coin, and understand why an apparent refusal to look further into any possible relationship would seem suspicious.
It's also worth noting that New Zealandâ(TM)s excess mortality has been below average over the last two years.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
The article was specifically about "Relationship between vaccination and all cause m
Re: (Score:2)
You can (and Medsafe does) look at all deaths after the pfizer vaccination. For example, here's the latest report:
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/CO... [medsafe.govt.nz]
This shows the number of deaths that have occurred and the expected number of deaths.
Scroll down about halfway on that link:
"To date, the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths."
Now look at the table "Observed-versus-expected deathsa by age group from any cause, up to 21 days after dose 1,
Re: (Score:2)
Very informative. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you just undermine your own argument, by noting that most flu deaths are at home?
Re: (Score:1)
Read the summary. Although I know you were just trying to make an ignorant and cheeky point, these are children who died of Covid. It is hard to tell exactly who has died of Covid, which is why nearly all estimates of Covid related deaths are under reported. Real Covid-related deaths are upward of 20% higher than the official tally [usatoday.com] but because it is so hard to confirm individual cases officials report very conservative figures.
Not that it stops the convergence of ignorance and political motivation, which leads many to claim Covid deaths are actually over reported.
But Fox is saying that anyone who died of anything since 2020 is marked as a covid death. I ask for more information and they babble something about funeral money.
Re:"Of" or "with"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is hard to tell exactly who has died of Covid, which is why nearly all estimates of Covid related deaths are under reported. Real Covid-related deaths are upward of 20% higher than the official tally but because it is so hard to confirm individual cases officials report very conservative figures.
I can't agree with the assumption excess deaths must be caused by covid. We have two years of people not seeking medical care and canceled or postponed "elective" (elective != optional) procedures. During the pandemic instead of making money hospitals have sustained massive financial losses due to not providing care and services that would otherwise be provided. This most certainly has already cost lives and will continue to do so for years to come even after the pandemic in the form of missed diagnosis and failure to secure early treatment.
Not that it stops the convergence of ignorance and political motivation, which leads many to claim Covid deaths are actually over reported.
I wish there was at least a reasonable national standard but instead every state or county has their own criteria and some of them make no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Much less incentive now (Score:5, Insightful)
The incentive for the first round of boosters was we were entering the holiday season and there was a new variant on the rise. Even then there was great debate on whether it was necessary, or whether we should focus on providing more shots to the developing world. Now we have Omnicron receeding and are past the winter peak of infections.
I'm on the far liberal end of the bell curve when it comes to the importance of Covid immunization, but it makes sense that we wouldn't be prioritizing booster shots for small children. Less than 2% of Africa has been fully immunized [bbc.com], so there are obviously much better uses of these vaccines than a third shot for our youngest children (the least at risk group).
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You say you are on the far liberal end but any other day of the week you would be telling us about the evils of big pharma. Seems more like you are on the wag-the-dog end of liberalism to be honest. Wherever they need you to be, there you are.
Re:Much less incentive now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Much less incentive now (Score:4, Interesting)
You fail to understand that everything about this new kind of vaccine and getting "boosted" is that its entirely about the money. 100% about the money. Until YOU start talking about this in those terms then YOU will never say anything that shows understanding.
As long as you believe this topic is entirely about the money, you will show you bring no critical thought to this discussion. There is more than one factor here, even though certainly financial profit is a significant one.
You say you are on the far liberal end but any other day of the week you would be telling us about the evils of big pharma. Seems more like you are on the wag-the-dog end of liberalism to be honest. Wherever they need you to be, there you are.
Your image of the most ridiculous liberal imaginable is no more representative of liberals in the US than those who stormed the capital building are representative of all conservatives. On any day of the week, including this one, I will tell you strong regulation is necessary to prevent powerful corporations from abusing and harming both our citizens and our free market. Corporations whose profit almost entirely depends on government support (in this case intellectual property protection) require even greater regulation, because the opportunity to abuse this government support is so great.
There are no industries I feel are inherently bad, just ones the US does not historically regulate well. This usually puts companies making significant profit in the healthcare industry on my shit list, of which many pharmaceutical companies qualify. But pharmaceutical companies are also critical to improving our quality of life and general health. I have pills I take each day which will combine to significantly increase my life expectancy (yes I'm old enough to have a weekly pill box). I also think health insurance companies play an important role in reducing health care costs even though I also want a single payer system to exist in the US.
Almost no one matches the caricatures created by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
its entirely about the money. 100% about the money
The FDA wanted to authorize the shot for kids under 5 next week. Pfizer asked them to wait for more data. Doesn't track with your narrative, really.
Re: (Score:2)
None of his nonsense tracks with reality.
I swear, some people will believe anything but the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Much less incentive now (Score:5, Insightful)
The article concerns fda authorization, cdc recommendation is the next step both decided by technocrat standards. Allocation of vaccines is a political decision by the elected.
One way to defang criticism. (Score:1)
I'm assuming that the application the FDA was promising to post online around now will not be posted until April?
So instead of being able to form an informed opinion by looking at any efficacy data they might have in there, and making one of the following two decisions for my kids:
a) this looks promising, when can I sign them up?
or
b) this looks pointless, I'll just wait for the full results or wait (years) for them to age into eligibility
I now have no informed opinion, only suspicions of sloppy thinking on
Re: One way to defang criticism. (Score:2)
Translation: "Your guy is a walking corpse. My guy lost to him by several million votes. I blame, um, the media."
Find something better to do with your time. Your country needs you. Don't you have a tank to drive, some mines to plant, some Boeings to shoot down, or something?
What is good for the goose isn't always good for.. (Score:2)
While the Vaccines are Safe and Effective. They do give a different degree of reaction to the people who take them, where most often someone just feels like crap, but they are actually rather healthy.
This is factored in with the FDA recommendation. We are not being recommended for a set of 3 BioNTech , then a set of 3 Pfizer, then 2 J&J for good measure. While I doubt even that set would have any long term ill effect on the person, you are just going to have them feel miserable for a longer time, wit
Trust The Science of Election Years (Score:1)
But Muh Myocarditis!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus, these fucking wackballs are convinced that every heart attack now is from the vaccine. I distinctly remember even young athletes dying pre-covid randomly from heart defects, but now every time it happens "They're dun killing us with their vaccine!!!".
The thing is - if the vaccine gives you serious myocarditis and if you die from it, it means actual Covid would be a literal death sentence. You think a handful of those spike proteins are heart toxic, wait until your whole system is making them.
Re:But Muh Myocarditis!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Jesus, these fucking wackballs are convinced that every heart attack now is from the vaccine. I distinctly remember even young athletes dying pre-covid randomly from heart defects, but now every time it happens "They're dun killing us with their vaccine!!!".
The thing is - if the vaccine gives you serious myocarditis and if you die from it, it means actual Covid would be a literal death sentence. You think a handful of those spike proteins are heart toxic, wait until your whole system is making them.
This. There's no reason to believe that someone getting myocarditis from a vaccine won't also get myocarditis from COVID. What makes that problematic, though, is that there's no good way to evaluate the risk of myocarditis from COVID, because there's no good way to tease apart the myocarditis portion of the risk from the rest of the COVID risk. Your only options are a gross underestimation or a gross overestimation.
If you choose gross underestimation, by considering only cases in which myocarditis was the reason for admission or listed as a cause of death, you'll catch every myocarditis case caused by the vaccine, but only a fraction of the myocarditis cases caused by COVID. After all, probably 99% of the time, the reason for admission will be listed as "COVID", not "myocarditis", so you'd be limiting detection to only the myocarditis cases that occur in the absence of any other significant COVID symptoms (which almost never the case). And this approach results in comically absurd conclusions, like the Moderna vaccine causing four times as many myocarditis deaths as the virus itself, which is clearly not a reasonable interpretation of the data.
If you choose gross overestimation by considering every case in which myocarditis occurred in conjunction with COVID, regardless of whether it was the reason for admission, you'll catch every myocarditis case caused by COVID, but you'll end up with a very large percentage of COVID deaths being attributed to myocarditis, because there's a strong correlation between disease severity and myocarditis. More than half of all COVID myocarditis cases involved someone in critical condition, IIRC.
On the flip side, most of the COVID-related myocarditis cases will likely be coded as MIS-C or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children/adults) rather than myocarditis, which means they'll be easy to miss, so no matter what approach you choose, you have a risk of underestimating the COVID cases, even while overestimating them. Weird, huh?
IMO, comparing the risk from vaccine-induced myocarditis against the risk of COVID-induced myocarditis is pretty much a pointless exercise. You should instead be limiting yourself to comparing the risk from one vaccine to another, and comparing the overall reduction in mortality between vaccinated people and unvaccinated people. After all, the fraction of a percent of vaccine-induced myocarditis cases that result in death would still be tiny compared with the percentage of COVID cases that result in deaths, even if you wrongly assumed that everybody who gets the vaccine would get myocarditis. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
EU and CDC disagree with you, cases associated with covid19 vaccines have been reported, fact check yourself before posting.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But Muh Myocarditis!!! (Score:4, Informative)
No, it absolutely isn't. It is generally well understood that a vaccine has the potential to cause any symptom that the original virus or bacterium causes. What makes a vaccine successful is that it does so at a much lower rate than infection (possibly below the threshold of detection), and typically with much lower severity.
None of this is "fake news". What's fake news are the folks drumming up hysteria about myocarditis, acting as though that were somehow a reason to not get vaccinated.
The reality is that approximately 100% of the few people who have died from myocarditis triggered by the COVID vaccine would likely have died from COVID within a year or two, whereas a lot of people who would have died from COVID within a year or two didn't die because of vaccination. And as long as COVID is still spreading rapidly, that will remain the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You think that that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control are really Russian disinformation farms? Because they've published multiple [jamanetwork.com] articles [cdc.gov] on the subject of myocarditis triggered by COVID vaccination.
There are also supporting articles in the New England Journal of Medicine [nejm.org] and Nature Medicine [nature.com], along with articles from the UK Health Security Agency [www.gov.uk] and statements by government agencies in France [france24.com], Canada [publichealthontario.ca], Belgium [belgium.be], Sweden, Denmark [reuters.com], Iceland [barrons.com], Norway [bmj.com], and Portugal [outbreaknewstoday.com], along with at least one major pu
Re: (Score:1)
So these are right wing misinformation sites? what is wrong with you?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines do NOT cause myocarditis. Slashdot doesn't have fact checkers unfortunately. But you are fake news.
Oh really? [reuters.com]
The CDC would appear to disagree: "The risk of myocarditis was 18.5 per million doses given among people aged 18 to 24 after their second Pfizer dose and 20.2 per million for that age group among Moderna second dose recipients. The risk decreases with age, according to the CDC analysis based on its national reporting system."
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link, 200 million doses only 5 deaths from heart problems, all in elderly patients.
GP claimed that vaccines do not cause Myocarditis. I provided a link to an article saying otherwise. If you want to debate that, by all means provide evidence to the contrary. Given you haven't, and in fact went further by focussing on deaths caused by it, I think it's clear who's correct, me or the GP.
But in your narrative, the vaccine is killing more people than Covid. Hmm...
My narrative? Which narrative is that? I disagreed with an incorrect statement, and provided evidence to support my case. I made no wider claims, especially not one so ridiculous.
Your misinformation is killing people. Fuck you.
Again, what misinformation? Y
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines do NOT cause myocarditis. Slashdot doesn't have fact checkers unfortunately. But you are fake news.
I wish that were true, but it isn't.
Myocarditis can be triggered by anything that even resembles an infection, including vaccinations for influenza [onlinejcf.com], smallpox, diphtheria [nih.gov], tetanus [sciencedirect.com], the combined DPT shot [bmj.com], and AFAIK, every single COVID vaccine out there.
In fact, you can probably assume that all vaccines have a small, but nonzero risk of triggering myocarditis. That's certainly closer to correct than assuming that none of them do. Any time the immune system responds to any unknown pathogen, whether as a resul
Re: (Score:2)
All from National Institutes of Health [nih.gov].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So you're admitting vaccines cause myocarditis.
This is disinformation, probably Russian, and you would be censored on Twitter or Facebook by fact checkers for saying so.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy wait until you find out what a god damn number the actual disease does on the circulatory system...
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com] In a German study of 100 patients who recently recovered from COVID-19, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (performed a median of 71 days after COVID-19 diagnosis) rev
Re: (Score:2)
https://jamanetwork.com/journa [jamanetwork.com]... In a German study of 100 patients who recently recovered from COVID-19, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (performed a median of 71 days after COVID-19 diagnosis) revealed cardiac involvement in 78% and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%.5 The presence of chronic comorbidities, duration and severity of acute COVID-19 illness, and time since original diagnosis did not correlate with these findings.
One has to be really careful with drawing inferences from hospital studies due to often comical levels of baked in selection bias. For example among these 100 patients 33% of them were hospitalized with covid. This isn't even remotely representative of the general population.
Oh, you're "outraged" that the vaccines have a 1 in 100000 risk of giving a specific group (young men) a temporary case of myocarditis that resolves completely with zero lasting effects in a few weeks?
This is not accurate for children as far as I can tell.
CDC showing risk of 1 in 15936 for 12-17
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/a... [cdc.gov]
The FDA showing risk from Pfizer of 1 in 5000 for 16-17 males.
https://www.fda.gov/media/1548... [fda.gov]
There is ev
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is - if the vaccine gives you serious myocarditis and if you die from it, it means actual Covid would be a literal death sentence. You think a handful of those spike proteins are heart toxic, wait until your whole system is making them.
This reflects a common misunderstanding of how mucosal immunity works. Some people get covid, recover and never even seroconvert. The mucosal system is substantially walled from the blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people get covid, recover and never even seroconvert.
Nice for them but "some people" are but a small part of this virus' epidemiology.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice for them but "some people" are but a small part of this virus' epidemiology.
My remarks were not directed at "some people". They were a demonstration of the underlying concept of immune system compartments. The assertion if vaccines caused a problem in the blood the virus would have as well is too simplistic and inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is - if the vaccine gives you serious myocarditis and if you die from it, it means actual Covid would be a literal death sentence. You think a handful of those spike proteins are heart toxic, wait until your whole system is making them.
^Right said for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that's as good an argument as you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, stand in line. The Beagles will have their trial first...
[This comment contains sarcasm, which may not be clear through the red haze these topics produce in some people]
400 deaths? (Score:5, Interesting)
Total covid deaths by age group for the whole country throughout the entire pandemic (Jan 1 2020 thru Feb 5 2022) per CDC:
< 1 - 203 deaths
1-4 - 93 deaths
5-14 - 244 deaths
Source: https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9... [cdc.gov]
Applicable age range for vaccines under consideration is 6 months thru all of age 4. This excludes newborns and complications from covid during pregnancy. So we're talking about less than 200 deaths in total based on CDCs data among people in relevant age groups while ignoring inherent decrease in severity of current variants.
To date there is no statistically significant data available demonstrating a benefit in health outcomes of children in the 6m - 4y age group from vaccine trials. If showing of a clear and significant benefit cannot be made vaccines should not be authorized.
Re:400 deaths? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The vaccines do not prevent become infectious. A vaccinated preschooler will infect their parents just as well as a preschooler that is not vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Because no child has ever infected mommy or daddy or grandma with something they caught at school.
The issue at hand is vaccinations for people aged 6 months thru 4 years. Mommy, daddy and grandma already have access to vaccines.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
COVID is one of the top 6 to top 10 (depending on which date range you use) killers of children.
Covid is 0.7% of all deaths in the 6m to 4y age group throughout the entirety of the pandemic.
And, considering it is preventable (via a vaccine
Covid is not preventable via the vaccine. In older age groups it has been demonstrated to be highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
As for the assumption vaccines will help those in the 6m to 4 year age group we don't have evidence to support this. Thus far from two dose trials there has been no statistically significant finding of benefit. To extrapolate to younger age groups by induction with
If it's going to take until April... (Score:2)
Abuse (Score:1)
Nice that they don't want to harm children (Score:1)
re:: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Current definition of anti-vax is "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination". You just clearly stated that you're anti-vaccine mandate for children.
Ergo, you're anti-vax.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Welcome to post-fact world, where "truth" is about "correct narrative" rather than facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Chicken Pox is a mandated vaccine for school children. It's a rarely a fatal disease. So where is the outrage over it?
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken Pox itself is pretty nonfatal in children. Occasionally it gets into the brain and causes death, but pretty nonfatal all things considered. However the incidences of necrotizing faciitis and pneumonia as secondary infections due to the disease were pretty fucking serious even in children. And of course it is significantly more fatal in anyone past puberty. Moreover, unlike the C19 "vaccine" the CPox vaccine stops transmission in it's tracks and is good for at least 8 years, and possibly over 20.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the chicken pox vaccine, since it prevents infection also prevent Shingles from appearing in adults later in life?
Re: (Score:2)
Does the chicken pox vaccine, since it prevents infection also prevent Shingles from appearing in adults later in life?
Probably. Chickenpox vaccines do help prevent shingles, but we don't yet know if that protection lasts from childhood to old age. It only started being used in the 90's, so those children are only in their 30's now. It will take decades still to know for sure. But many adults do get the vaccine and so far the vaccine has shown to have a long effectiveness so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Since shingles requires the virus to be in your cells, yes. Being exposed to someone with chicken pox can trigger shingles but it is not their virus infecting you. It is your immune response reactivating the latent virus.
So you can both protect other adults from shingles now and yourself from shingles later in life.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . because Chicken Pox is a common childhood disease, unlike Covid-19?
Because the Chicken Pox vaccine actually provides protection that can last for years?
Because the Chicken Pox vaccine may also provide protection against shingles later in life?
Re: (Score:1)
The chicken pox vaccine is an actual vaccine, unlike the Covid mRna gene therapy.
You cant change the definition of a word just so it fits your argument.
So why did you just do it? mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy despite your misunderstanding of the science behind them.
Re:Risk Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
The chicken pox vaccine is an actual vaccine, unlike the Covid mRna gene therapy.
You cant change the definition of a word just so it fits your argument.
Covid mRNA Vaccines are not gene therapies. [forbes.com] You can't change the definition of a word just so it fits your argument.
"Vaccines that use mRNA technology are not, however, gene therapies because they do not alter a person’s genes."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck the media.
Fuck corrupt politicians.
https://citizenfreepress.com/b... [citizenfreepress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you. Stop spreading outright lies and misinformation.
Re:Risk Reward (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people like myself are not anti-vaxxx in general. But are anti covid vaxxx. I have no issue with other properly tested proven vaxxx. This covid vaxxx was rushed and rubber stamp approved so biden could push his illegal mandate.
For god sakes nothing in your post is accurate, but this part is just comically ridiculous. The vaccine was developed and approved by the FDA under the leadership of the Trump appointed Stephen Hahn. Try putting some critical thought into your opinions from time to time.
Re:Risk Reward (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm not antivax. Personally vaccinated up to the booster(though I won't do a 4th booster unless it covers variants.) Children rarely have complications from covid exposure, but the vaccines have well known side effects. With delta and omicron spreading despite vaccination there is no rational argument for vaccinating children.
If a new variant comes out tomorrow that is more deadly and another booster is still the best protection, you would be stupid not to take it, though I agree the vaccine makers should be moving towards a place they can tailor their vaccine to what is circulating more quickly like with annual flu shots.
As for children, I'm hard pressed to think of a reason that more immunity to more things is ever bad. Spanish flu mostly killed young healthy people, and that is thought to be because older people had some residual immunity from a long ago infection that younger people lacked.
If a new Super-COVID variant emerges 20 years from now, those kids who will then be in their 20s may appreciate having their shots as kids (much as they are for so many other communicable diseases). We know previous infection with SARS1 or MERS likely still offers "some" protection against SARS2.
Re: (Score:2)
If a new Super-COVID variant emerges 20 years from now, those kids who will then be in their 20s may appreciate having their shots as kids (much as they are for so many other communicable diseases). We know previous infection with SARS1 or MERS likely still offers "some" protection against SARS2.
You do realize the current debate is on a 2nd booster/4th shot because they're already losing efficacy, right? Now suddenly they're going to last 20 years?
Re:Risk Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
If a new Super-COVID variant emerges 20 years from now, those kids who will then be in their 20s may appreciate having their shots as kids (much as they are for so many other communicable diseases). We know previous infection with SARS1 or MERS likely still offers "some" protection against SARS2.
You do realize the current debate is on a 2nd booster/4th shot because they're already losing efficacy, right? Now suddenly they're going to last 20 years?
The immune system is way more complicated than you seem to assume. Immunity comes from a combination of antibodies neutralizing the virus directly, antibodies sticking to other parts of the virus and attracting macrophages and other innate immune cells, from T-cell attacks on infected cells, and from rapid B-cell production of antibodies after recognizing the virus.
T-cell and B-cell immunity are both relatively slow, so they aren't as effective at preventing an initial infection, but they're more persistent and are highly effective against severity. It is likely that T-cell and B-cell immunity will provide some benefit after decades, but the extent of that protection depends on how much the virus mutates in that time (obviously).
Neutralizing antibodies are extremely effective at preventing infection, but fade much more quickly in the absence of repeated exposure. Within six months, this protection is likely gone (within the margin of error) unless you get exposed to COVID at least once or twice within that time frame.
Non-neutralizing antibodies fall somewhere in between.
And vaccination also temporarily boosts nonspecific antibodies for a period of a couple of months, so that further increases the effectiveness in the short term, despite the current vaccine's relatively poor antigen match. That's probably another reason why effectiveness is falling as quickly as it is.
But what I think a lot of folks have missed is that COVID-19 is now an upper respiratory infection, whereas early variants were a lower respiratory infection. The new strain is much more contagious, but much less deadly on a per-case basis (albeit worse from a total deaths perspective because of the total number of cases being so much higher). So in some sense, the vaccine probably already did everyone a huge favor by eradicating the earlier strains that affected the lungs so badly. And that impact will almost certainly still be around in twenty years.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the current debate is on a 2nd booster/4th shot because they're already losing efficacy, right?
You think efficacy is a linear function? Don't quit your day job.
Re: (Score:2)
The current vaccine and booster are a poor match for Omicron, so it does require your immune system to be heavily primed. Most of this is because none of the shots have been modified to mimic the newer variants. It's probably much safer to just keep dosing on that than to wait on another trial period with yet another version of the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad no normal people believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
Queensland Australia has only had Omricon covid. Of the estimated 1 million infections in the last month only only one already very ill person under 20 has died with covid.
I now know of multiple healthy people who have died shortly after vaccination.
69% of deaths in the last month have been double or triple vaccinated vs 74% of total population vaccinated.
There is no good reason to give any healthy under 18 a vaccination for the Omricon variant.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I'm not antivax. Personally vaccinated up to the booster(though I won't do a 4th booster unless it covers variants.) Children rarely have complications from covid exposure, but the vaccines have well known side effects. With delta and omicron spreading despite vaccination there is no rational argument for vaccinating children.
While you are correct that the vaccines have known side effects, current medical guidance is still that they are so rare and/or mild that the risk/reward greatly favors vaccinating children. But it's likely determining whether that is still true for booster shots is part of their hesitance in approving these boosters for this age group at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Children rarely have complications from covid exposure, but the vaccines have well known side effects
The vaccine side effects are primarily the same as covid exposure for the same age groups and risk factors. So this would mean that children are also less likely to have complications from the vaccine. Just a thought experiment but would not be surprising in real world data.