5 ms·

OK so if you take into account almost any transmission rate we've seen that seems like it easily balances out, even not taking into account potential for mutati

OK so if you take into account almost any transmission rate we've seen that seems like it easily balances out, even not taking into account potential for mutations and the classification of severe. I have a "severe" reaction to alcohol every time I drink too much.

timr 5y ago
Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero. Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger...this is a choice that can be made, but I think it's a tougher decision than you do.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Yeah no one is forcing them, so what’s your point? Vaccination of children wouldn’t be needed if most adults got it. But they don’t because they’re dumb. So now they’re saying children can get it if they’re parents want. It’s a choice to do your part to reduce the spread. Pretty simple.
  - timr 5y ago
    > But they don’t because they’re dumb Given that some of the the lowest vaccination uptake rates are in black and latino communities who have historically strained relationships with the medical system -- as well as some of the highest prior infection rates -- your comment is misinformed. Whatever the current level of immunity may be, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all rapidly declining across the US. Moreover, the vaccines are all close to 100% effective at preventing severe illness. There are a great many reasons to be optimistic about our current trajectory, and no immediate need to put children at risk to get where we need to go.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Vaccine refusal is more partisan than racial.[1] [1] https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#page=13 https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#...
      - timr 5y ago
        The numbers you're citing say that 19% of black and 30% of hispanic people surveyed don't plan to get vaccinated. The equivalent number is 24% for white people. Moreover, empirical reality differs from polling. In New York City, for example (a big, liberal, multi-ethnic city), Latino people lag whites by 12% in vaccination rate; black people lag by 17%: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p... Whatever people are telling pollsters, it differs from their actions. Maybe they have "plans" to get vaccinated, but they're not doing it right now.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        I didn't say not racial at all. I said more partisan. 45% of 1 major party. 7% of the other. Independents in between. A different poll said Hispanic people are the most inclined to get vaccinated. But politics was the strongest correlation still.[1] Cumulative vaccination rates reflect earlier hesitation. Also scheduling difficulties, transportation difficulties, and wanting to get vaccinated by a trusted provider.[2] But targeted efforts have closed or nearly closed the gaps in many places.[3] [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coronavirus-vaccine-low-intent-inoculated/story?id=77218518 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coron... [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/989962041/why-black-and-latino-people-still-lag-on-covid-vaccines-and-how-to-fix-it https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620... [3] https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero. > Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. > Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger. That’s not all the vaccine is for. Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - timr 5y ago
    > So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. Now you're just fear-mongering. > Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against. There have been 3200 cases of MIS-C in the US. 36 have died. https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html The rate of MIS-C is exceptionally low -- possibly lower than the rate of severe adverse events for the vaccine itself: "Overall, MIS-C is a rare complication of SARS-CoV-2. A May 2020 systematic review from 26 countries reported a MIS-C incidence of 0.14% among all children with SARS-CoV-2 infection" https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385 Give this vaccine to 1M children, and at a rate of 0.4% serious adverse (i.e. life-threatening) reactions, you would expect 4000. An unknowable portion of those will die. Moreover, there will be 20,000 reactions severe enough to put a child out of school for a few days. There are about 25M kids age 12-17 in the US. Your sense of risk is seriously miscalibrated.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261

timr 5y ago

Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero. Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger...this is a choice that can be made, but I think it's a tougher decision than you do.

randomopining 5y ago
Yeah no one is forcing them, so what’s your point? Vaccination of children wouldn’t be needed if most adults got it. But they don’t because they’re dumb. So now they’re saying children can get it if they’re parents want. It’s a choice to do your part to reduce the spread. Pretty simple.
- timr 5y ago
  > But they don’t because they’re dumb Given that some of the the lowest vaccination uptake rates are in black and latino communities who have historically strained relationships with the medical system -- as well as some of the highest prior infection rates -- your comment is misinformed. Whatever the current level of immunity may be, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all rapidly declining across the US. Moreover, the vaccines are all close to 100% effective at preventing severe illness. There are a great many reasons to be optimistic about our current trajectory, and no immediate need to put children at risk to get where we need to go.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Vaccine refusal is more partisan than racial.[1] [1] https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#page=13 https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#...
    - timr 5y ago
      The numbers you're citing say that 19% of black and 30% of hispanic people surveyed don't plan to get vaccinated. The equivalent number is 24% for white people. Moreover, empirical reality differs from polling. In New York City, for example (a big, liberal, multi-ethnic city), Latino people lag whites by 12% in vaccination rate; black people lag by 17%: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p... Whatever people are telling pollsters, it differs from their actions. Maybe they have "plans" to get vaccinated, but they're not doing it right now.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        I didn't say not racial at all. I said more partisan. 45% of 1 major party. 7% of the other. Independents in between. A different poll said Hispanic people are the most inclined to get vaccinated. But politics was the strongest correlation still.[1] Cumulative vaccination rates reflect earlier hesitation. Also scheduling difficulties, transportation difficulties, and wanting to get vaccinated by a trusted provider.[2] But targeted efforts have closed or nearly closed the gaps in many places.[3] [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coronavirus-vaccine-low-intent-inoculated/story?id=77218518 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coron... [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/989962041/why-black-and-latino-people-still-lag-on-covid-vaccines-and-how-to-fix-it https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620... [3] https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero. > Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. > Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger. That’s not all the vaccine is for. Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 5y ago
  > So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. Now you're just fear-mongering. > Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against. There have been 3200 cases of MIS-C in the US. 36 have died. https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html The rate of MIS-C is exceptionally low -- possibly lower than the rate of severe adverse events for the vaccine itself: "Overall, MIS-C is a rare complication of SARS-CoV-2. A May 2020 systematic review from 26 countries reported a MIS-C incidence of 0.14% among all children with SARS-CoV-2 infection" https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385 Give this vaccine to 1M children, and at a rate of 0.4% serious adverse (i.e. life-threatening) reactions, you would expect 4000. An unknowable portion of those will die. Moreover, there will be 20,000 reactions severe enough to put a child out of school for a few days. There are about 25M kids age 12-17 in the US. Your sense of risk is seriously miscalibrated.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261