9 ms·

> I'd imagine not too long after safe and effective vaccines are authorized for children under 12. Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. It's time

by timr 5y ago

> I'd imagine not too long after safe and effective vaccines are authorized for children under 12. Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. It's time to stop with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and deal with facts. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w In the US, 340 children under 17 have died from Covid. Total. During the same period, 187 have died from the flu, and over 51,000 children have died from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... The reason the vaccines aren't being approved for children is that there is compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus. This is why (for example) approval for vaccination of children and teenagers is split across Europe, and the UK has restricted access to only children with known vulnerabilities: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-19/u-k-to-give-covid-19-vaccines-only-to-most-vulnerable-children https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-19/u-k-to-gi... https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/european-countries-evenly-split-covid-jabs-teenagers https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/european-countries... > At that point the majority of those who actively want protection will be able to get it. This is less about what the children want, and more about anxious adults want, and that is unconscionable. Kids are largely at the mercy of their parents, so it's essential that the regulatory bodies tread carefully on this issue. We don't need kids to be vaccinated to reduce Covid to a manageable seasonal illness on par with the flu.

anyonecancode 5y ago
> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Let's hope the die keep rolling up to that result with each succeeding variant!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 5y ago
  This is a perfect illustration of the point. In the face of ample documented evidence of the actual risk, your response is to speculate wildly about future events that are completely inconsistent with what we know.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. It's likely, yes, but why on earth would we want to just accept that? The flu, for instance, bounces around in severity and kills tens of thousands per year in the US. Few of those are kids, so what? If we're happy to let the virus continue to transmit in any populations, it'll change in various ways. One year a variant may pop up that'll be more harmful to those kids. At some other point a variant may pop up that'll be more elusive against adult immunity, etc. Over years, how many lives does that add up to? Why wouldn't we aggressively try to vaccinate as many people as possible before those things happen? Success wouldn't be guaranteed even if people weren't opposed to it for various spurious reasons but it would be nice if we believed we could accomplish hard things...
    - lordloki 5y ago
      Is it defeatism or just accepting reality? What are the chances that Covid19 is ever globally eradicated?
    - timr 5y ago
      > The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. Well first, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I made a very specific argument about how fear -- hysteria, really -- is driving our reaction to what is right to do for children. But second, it isn't "statistically foolish"...it's just a basic understanding of biology and our rather poor history of eradicating viral diseases. Statistics don't come into play here either way. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Covid can be eradicated, but you have to be delusional to think that this will be accomplished on any sort of timeline that is relevant to our lifetimes.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Since there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2, the virus will always be endemic regardless of what we do. That's not defeatism, just scientific reality.
  - anyonecancode 5y ago
- colordrops 5y ago
  Could say the same about the flu, no? How do you think the flu got so deadly in 1918? Far more deadly than Covid by the way.
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    It was actually the perverse effects on viral selection created by World War I. The relatively mild first wave turned into a deadly second wave because soldiers who became mildly ill stayed put in the trenches, while those who had severe cases were put on trains and sent to crowded field hospitals, where they spread the more lethal variants. If they simply suppress symptoms without reducing transmission, the current vaccines being administered may have a similar perverse evolutionary effect (although at least they're not actively selecting for worse strains).
colordrops 5y ago
I'm curious why this comment is being downvoted. Anyone wish to comment?
- basch 5y ago
  If I had to guess (and maybe I shouldnt be speaking as I didnt downvote), its a combination of "It's time to stop with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and deal with facts" followed by unsubstantiated "compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus." The "time to stop with fear" and to stop catering to "anxious adults" can equally apply to this persons crusade to not vaccinate children. A mild mannered moderate can both not be scared of their children having a severe covid reaction AND get their child a jab when its available, if risk assessment reveals there to be benefit.
  - timr 5y ago
    > its a combination of "It's time to stop with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and deal with facts" followed by unsubstantiated "compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus." The links I provided -- particularly the last three -- document the points I made regarding relative risk. You just have to read them.
    - basch 5y ago
      I did make some effort to comb through your links, and I didn't see anything regarding the risk you mention. You said, your last 3 links in particular. The third to last is the CDC about covid not vaccines. The Bloomberg article said "The British position is driven by fears of rare cases of myocarditis -- an inflammation of the heart muscle -- and pericarditis -- an inflammation of membranes around the heart -- in younger people who have had the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines." The VOA article said "Those opposed to vaccinating teenagers argue the risks of adverse reactions outweigh the benefits." So I ask, what substantiation do you have. Because all youve given is fear. Is there a case of myocarditis death after a vaccine? 79% of young people (around 1000 total) have recovered. Are you expecting the rest not to recover? Im curious how you calculate risk? Covid deaths 17, mrna vaccine deaths 0? How is the vaccine a greater risk? Are you comparing long term side effects? How do you have those statistics? I still contend that your claim that children are at "greater risk" (of what?) from the vaccine is unsubstantiated at this point. What you are doing is exactly what you accuse others of doing, instilling fear over reason. I dont believe reality reflects your purview. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fae-f0b0-11eb-a532-4fba452ecc7e.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fa...
jkhdigital 5y ago
> This is less about what the children want, and more about anxious adults want, and that is unconscionable. You could say that about basically the entire relationship that society has with children nowadays... tragically.
walshemj 5y ago
You are aware in the past the kids at schools are a large vector for colds etc which they then give to their parents who infect their co workers Why would covid 19 be any different. And that's ignoring any potential long term organ damage.
munificent 5y ago
From the Nature article you linked to: > The studies did not evaluate rates of less-severe illness or debilitating ‘long COVID’ symptoms that can linger months after the acute phase of the infection has past. “The low rate of severe acute disease is important news, but this does not have to mean that COVID does not matter to children,” says paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome. “Please, let’s keep attention — as much as is feasible — on immunization.” Death is not the only bad outcome to be avoided. > The reason the vaccines aren't being approved for children is that there is compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus. A Nature article [0] says: > Most of those affected have recovered, and the data suggest that the risk of these conditions is “extremely low”, says paediatrician David Pace at the University of Malta in Msida — about 67 cases per million second doses in adolescent males aged 12–17, and 9 per million in adolescent females in the same age group. There are ~48 million kids under 12 in the US. Assuming they are evenly split between male and female, that would mean 1,824 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis if 100% of them were vaccinated. Given that nowhere near 100% of children have been exposed to COVID and yet 340 have died, I don't see clear evidence here that the vaccine is more risky than not being vaccinated. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01898-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01898-9
- timr 5y ago
  > Death is not the only bad outcome to be avoided. And this is yet another illustration of the point I was making about fear, uncertainty and doubt: the Nature article didn't say that there is proof that children will have "long Covid"...it says that these particular studies didn't address the question. By this standard, anyone can make up any speculation of something that might happen to children someday, and we'll use that speculation to demand fearful responses, indefinitely. There is no end to this logic. Fortunately, the well-controlled evidence is increasingly pointing to the conclusion that "long Covid" is not a serious risk to children -- and that, more generally, Covid appears to be similar to other viral infections in terms of long-term symptoms: https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1421415741706981376 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1421415741706981376 Again, lots of hysterical speculation in this area, not much good data. But the better the data gets, the less legitimate the early, speculative claims appear. > There are ~48 million kids under 12 in the US. Assuming they are evenly split between male and female, that would mean 1,824 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis if 100% of them were vaccinated. The myocarditis issue disproportionately affects young boys. Your calculation is incorrect. > Given that nowhere near 100% of children have been exposed to COVID and yet 340 have died, I don't see clear evidence here that the vaccine is more risky than not being vaccinated. Be that as it may, the UK and about half of the EU countries disagree with your assessment, including a number of experts here in the US, as well: https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340
microtherion 5y ago
> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Low risk of death, yes. But still a substantial risk of long lasting severe effects: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962830/s1079-ons-update-on-long-covid-prevalence-estimate.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... A complete loss of sense of taste, or chronic fatigue are both entirely possible outcomes with children, and at this time, it's not clear at all how long these effects last. Conversely, the effects of myocarditis, while unpleasant, are fairly well understood (and at least one physician I've spoken to was of the opinion that the vaccine related risk was overstated, as the base rate in that age group was bound to be higher than reported, due to the mild nature of most cases, so some of the elevated rates appear to be due to closer post-vaccination scrutiny).
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  The highest quality study on this to date [1] found no difference in the prevalence of long term symptoms between kids that had covid and kids that didn't. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v...
  - smileypete 5y ago
    See how this guy misrepresents the study on TWiV episode 783. https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 He states that '4% seropositive having symptoms after 12 weeks', but omits to mention that 2% of seronegative have symptoms after 12 weeks too... Also he doesn't mention the 9%/10% rate split at 4 weeks, or the symptoms: Tiredness, Headache, Congested or runny nose, Stomachach, Sleep disturbances, Cough So he's making the case for child vaccination on the basis of 2 extra seropositive children having one or more of the above symptoms. And, BTW, the study authors themselves note the limitations as follows: 'Limitations include the relatively small number of seropositive children, possible misclassification of some false seropositive children, potential recall bias, parental report of child’s symptoms, and lack of information on symptom severity.' The study authors concluded that: 'Seropositive children, all with a history of pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, did not report long COVID more frequently than seronegative children. This study suggests a very low prevalence of long COVID in a randomly selected population-based cohort of children followed over 6 months after serological testing.'
ryandrake 5y ago
The reason to not want children to get COVID is that they will spread it to their parents and grandparents, who are more vulnerable. It’s not about whether the children will die, which everyone agrees is very low probability.
- nradov 5y ago
  The parents and grandparents who want to be vaccinated already have been.
- realreality 5y ago
  The current vaccines will not prevent kids from spreading the virus to their grandparents.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    It's not about preventing. It's about reducing probabilities. The vaccines do not prevent kids from getting it. They do not prevent adults from getting it. They do not prevent people from spreading it. They do not prevent people from getting hospitalized or dying from it. They decrease the chances of all of the above happening.
    - realreality 5y ago
      The real-life efficacy at preventing transmission is waning by the day, it seems.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  It’s an interesting point, and I’m relatively neutral on all the underlying empirical claims. But taking the assumptions as a given, doesn’t this violate the Hippocratic Oath? Physicians are ethically forbidden from recommending a medical treatment that’s a harm to the patient, even if it’s in the interest of society.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
outworlder 5y ago
Can we stop talking just about deaths? It's as if, as long as people survive in some form, we shouldn't care. There has been an uptick of other diseases, including diabetes. Pancreas cells also have ACE-2 receptors and get infected. It's extremely irresponsible to dismiss the virus' effect on children at this stage. EDIT: we are also conflating our vaccines, which are manufactured, stable, controlled and much more understood, with a virus, which is multiplying, uncontrolled and mutating. We don't mess with viruses. This is not FUD, we simply need to be careful with pathogens.
- timr 5y ago
  There's a long subthread right at the top where this is discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28042539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28042539 TL;DR: there's not much evidence that these things you are concerned about are happening in children, and the best evidence suggests that they are not. This discussion about all of these things that might/could/maybe/possibly happen to kids who get Covid, but we don't have evidence for it? That's called "speculation".
Brybry 5y ago
The Louisiana government had a press conference today where doctors from children's hospitals claimed their hospitals are full, especially the ICUs. [0] Even if kids don't die and just get sick enough to take up beds that still puts stress on limited hospital resources that other children need. The CDC data doesn't seem to show an unusual surge in hospitalizations for kids (0-17) [1]. But the LDH data does show a significant increase in cases for kids [2] (and local news has reports from local hospitals citing highest-ever covid-positive child patients [3]). Of course if the nymag article is correct and it's just a short spike then that would be a relief for many people. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxWZ8qe0oU&t=2005s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxWZ8qe0oU&t=2005s [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admis... [Jurisdiction: Louisiana, By Jurisdiction and Age Group] [2] https://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ https://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ [cases over time by age group] [3] https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fae-f0b0-11eb-a532-4fba452ecc7e.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fa...
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  The governor had his head in his hands as the doctor was speaking and later asked if Louisiana was really the self described “most pro-life state”

by timr 5y ago

anyonecancode 5y ago

> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Let's hope the die keep rolling up to that result with each succeeding variant!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
timr 5y ago
This is a perfect illustration of the point. In the face of ample documented evidence of the actual risk, your response is to speculate wildly about future events that are completely inconsistent with what we know.
- majormajor 5y ago
  The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. It's likely, yes, but why on earth would we want to just accept that? The flu, for instance, bounces around in severity and kills tens of thousands per year in the US. Few of those are kids, so what? If we're happy to let the virus continue to transmit in any populations, it'll change in various ways. One year a variant may pop up that'll be more harmful to those kids. At some other point a variant may pop up that'll be more elusive against adult immunity, etc. Over years, how many lives does that add up to? Why wouldn't we aggressively try to vaccinate as many people as possible before those things happen? Success wouldn't be guaranteed even if people weren't opposed to it for various spurious reasons but it would be nice if we believed we could accomplish hard things...
  - lordloki 5y ago
    Is it defeatism or just accepting reality? What are the chances that Covid19 is ever globally eradicated?
  - timr 5y ago
    > The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. Well first, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I made a very specific argument about how fear -- hysteria, really -- is driving our reaction to what is right to do for children. But second, it isn't "statistically foolish"...it's just a basic understanding of biology and our rather poor history of eradicating viral diseases. Statistics don't come into play here either way. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Covid can be eradicated, but you have to be delusional to think that this will be accomplished on any sort of timeline that is relevant to our lifetimes.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Since there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2, the virus will always be endemic regardless of what we do. That's not defeatism, just scientific reality.
- anyonecancode 5y ago
colordrops 5y ago
Could say the same about the flu, no? How do you think the flu got so deadly in 1918? Far more deadly than Covid by the way.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  It was actually the perverse effects on viral selection created by World War I. The relatively mild first wave turned into a deadly second wave because soldiers who became mildly ill stayed put in the trenches, while those who had severe cases were put on trains and sent to crowded field hospitals, where they spread the more lethal variants. If they simply suppress symptoms without reducing transmission, the current vaccines being administered may have a similar perverse evolutionary effect (although at least they're not actively selecting for worse strains).

colordrops 5y ago

I'm curious why this comment is being downvoted. Anyone wish to comment?

basch 5y ago
If I had to guess (and maybe I shouldnt be speaking as I didnt downvote), its a combination of "It's time to stop with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and deal with facts" followed by unsubstantiated "compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus." The "time to stop with fear" and to stop catering to "anxious adults" can equally apply to this persons crusade to not vaccinate children. A mild mannered moderate can both not be scared of their children having a severe covid reaction AND get their child a jab when its available, if risk assessment reveals there to be benefit.
- timr 5y ago
  > its a combination of "It's time to stop with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and deal with facts" followed by unsubstantiated "compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus." The links I provided -- particularly the last three -- document the points I made regarding relative risk. You just have to read them.
  - basch 5y ago
    I did make some effort to comb through your links, and I didn't see anything regarding the risk you mention. You said, your last 3 links in particular. The third to last is the CDC about covid not vaccines. The Bloomberg article said "The British position is driven by fears of rare cases of myocarditis -- an inflammation of the heart muscle -- and pericarditis -- an inflammation of membranes around the heart -- in younger people who have had the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines." The VOA article said "Those opposed to vaccinating teenagers argue the risks of adverse reactions outweigh the benefits." So I ask, what substantiation do you have. Because all youve given is fear. Is there a case of myocarditis death after a vaccine? 79% of young people (around 1000 total) have recovered. Are you expecting the rest not to recover? Im curious how you calculate risk? Covid deaths 17, mrna vaccine deaths 0? How is the vaccine a greater risk? Are you comparing long term side effects? How do you have those statistics? I still contend that your claim that children are at "greater risk" (of what?) from the vaccine is unsubstantiated at this point. What you are doing is exactly what you accuse others of doing, instilling fear over reason. I dont believe reality reflects your purview. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fae-f0b0-11eb-a532-4fba452ecc7e.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fa...

jkhdigital 5y ago

> This is less about what the children want, and more about anxious adults want, and that is unconscionable. You could say that about basically the entire relationship that society has with children nowadays... tragically.

walshemj 5y ago

You are aware in the past the kids at schools are a large vector for colds etc which they then give to their parents who infect their co workers Why would covid 19 be any different. And that's ignoring any potential long term organ damage.

munificent 5y ago

From the Nature article you linked to: > The studies did not evaluate rates of less-severe illness or debilitating ‘long COVID’ symptoms that can linger months after the acute phase of the infection has past. “The low rate of severe acute disease is important news, but this does not have to mean that COVID does not matter to children,” says paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome. “Please, let’s keep attention — as much as is feasible — on immunization.” Death is not the only bad outcome to be avoided. > The reason the vaccines aren't being approved for children is that there is compelling evidence that children are at greater risk from the vaccines than the virus. A Nature article [0] says: > Most of those affected have recovered, and the data suggest that the risk of these conditions is “extremely low”, says paediatrician David Pace at the University of Malta in Msida — about 67 cases per million second doses in adolescent males aged 12–17, and 9 per million in adolescent females in the same age group. There are ~48 million kids under 12 in the US. Assuming they are evenly split between male and female, that would mean 1,824 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis if 100% of them were vaccinated. Given that nowhere near 100% of children have been exposed to COVID and yet 340 have died, I don't see clear evidence here that the vaccine is more risky than not being vaccinated. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01898-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01898-9

timr 5y ago
> Death is not the only bad outcome to be avoided. And this is yet another illustration of the point I was making about fear, uncertainty and doubt: the Nature article didn't say that there is proof that children will have "long Covid"...it says that these particular studies didn't address the question. By this standard, anyone can make up any speculation of something that might happen to children someday, and we'll use that speculation to demand fearful responses, indefinitely. There is no end to this logic. Fortunately, the well-controlled evidence is increasingly pointing to the conclusion that "long Covid" is not a serious risk to children -- and that, more generally, Covid appears to be similar to other viral infections in terms of long-term symptoms: https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1421415741706981376 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1421415741706981376 Again, lots of hysterical speculation in this area, not much good data. But the better the data gets, the less legitimate the early, speculative claims appear. > There are ~48 million kids under 12 in the US. Assuming they are evenly split between male and female, that would mean 1,824 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis if 100% of them were vaccinated. The myocarditis issue disproportionately affects young boys. Your calculation is incorrect. > Given that nowhere near 100% of children have been exposed to COVID and yet 340 have died, I don't see clear evidence here that the vaccine is more risky than not being vaccinated. Be that as it may, the UK and about half of the EU countries disagree with your assessment, including a number of experts here in the US, as well: https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340

microtherion 5y ago

> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Low risk of death, yes. But still a substantial risk of long lasting severe effects: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962830/s1079-ons-update-on-long-covid-prevalence-estimate.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... A complete loss of sense of taste, or chronic fatigue are both entirely possible outcomes with children, and at this time, it's not clear at all how long these effects last. Conversely, the effects of myocarditis, while unpleasant, are fairly well understood (and at least one physician I've spoken to was of the opinion that the vaccine related risk was overstated, as the base rate in that age group was bound to be higher than reported, due to the mild nature of most cases, so some of the elevated rates appear to be due to closer post-vaccination scrutiny).

saddlerustle 5y ago
The highest quality study on this to date [1] found no difference in the prevalence of long term symptoms between kids that had covid and kids that didn't. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v...
- smileypete 5y ago
  See how this guy misrepresents the study on TWiV episode 783. https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 He states that '4% seropositive having symptoms after 12 weeks', but omits to mention that 2% of seronegative have symptoms after 12 weeks too... Also he doesn't mention the 9%/10% rate split at 4 weeks, or the symptoms: Tiredness, Headache, Congested or runny nose, Stomachach, Sleep disturbances, Cough So he's making the case for child vaccination on the basis of 2 extra seropositive children having one or more of the above symptoms. And, BTW, the study authors themselves note the limitations as follows: 'Limitations include the relatively small number of seropositive children, possible misclassification of some false seropositive children, potential recall bias, parental report of child’s symptoms, and lack of information on symptom severity.' The study authors concluded that: 'Seropositive children, all with a history of pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, did not report long COVID more frequently than seronegative children. This study suggests a very low prevalence of long COVID in a randomly selected population-based cohort of children followed over 6 months after serological testing.'

ryandrake 5y ago

The reason to not want children to get COVID is that they will spread it to their parents and grandparents, who are more vulnerable. It’s not about whether the children will die, which everyone agrees is very low probability.

nradov 5y ago
The parents and grandparents who want to be vaccinated already have been.
realreality 5y ago
The current vaccines will not prevent kids from spreading the virus to their grandparents.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  It's not about preventing. It's about reducing probabilities. The vaccines do not prevent kids from getting it. They do not prevent adults from getting it. They do not prevent people from spreading it. They do not prevent people from getting hospitalized or dying from it. They decrease the chances of all of the above happening.
  - realreality 5y ago
    The real-life efficacy at preventing transmission is waning by the day, it seems.
dcolkitt 5y ago
It’s an interesting point, and I’m relatively neutral on all the underlying empirical claims. But taking the assumptions as a given, doesn’t this violate the Hippocratic Oath? Physicians are ethically forbidden from recommending a medical treatment that’s a harm to the patient, even if it’s in the interest of society.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago

outworlder 5y ago

Can we stop talking just about deaths? It's as if, as long as people survive in some form, we shouldn't care. There has been an uptick of other diseases, including diabetes. Pancreas cells also have ACE-2 receptors and get infected. It's extremely irresponsible to dismiss the virus' effect on children at this stage. EDIT: we are also conflating our vaccines, which are manufactured, stable, controlled and much more understood, with a virus, which is multiplying, uncontrolled and mutating. We don't mess with viruses. This is not FUD, we simply need to be careful with pathogens.

timr 5y ago
There's a long subthread right at the top where this is discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28042539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28042539 TL;DR: there's not much evidence that these things you are concerned about are happening in children, and the best evidence suggests that they are not. This discussion about all of these things that might/could/maybe/possibly happen to kids who get Covid, but we don't have evidence for it? That's called "speculation".

Brybry 5y ago

The Louisiana government had a press conference today where doctors from children's hospitals claimed their hospitals are full, especially the ICUs. [0] Even if kids don't die and just get sick enough to take up beds that still puts stress on limited hospital resources that other children need. The CDC data doesn't seem to show an unusual surge in hospitalizations for kids (0-17) [1]. But the LDH data does show a significant increase in cases for kids [2] (and local news has reports from local hospitals citing highest-ever covid-positive child patients [3]). Of course if the nymag article is correct and it's just a short spike then that would be a relief for many people. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxWZ8qe0oU&t=2005s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxWZ8qe0oU&t=2005s [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admis... [Jurisdiction: Louisiana, By Jurisdiction and Age Group] [2] https://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ https://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ [cases over time by age group] [3] https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fae-f0b0-11eb-a532-4fba452ecc7e.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fa...

selimthegrim 5y ago
The governor had his head in his hands as the doctor was speaking and later asked if Louisiana was really the self described “most pro-life state”