5 ms·

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

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
- munificent 5y ago
  > 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. You are also speculating, but simply about different things. You're speculating about harm from the vaccine, or about infection that don't happen. One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers. https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-calls-for-children-and-teens-age-12-and-up-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine/ https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021... "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend... "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parents-need-to-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... "Yes. Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks. Although COVID-19 in children is usually milder than in adults, some kids can get very sick and have complications or long-lasting symptoms that affect their health and well-being. The virus can cause death in children although this is rarer than for adults." > The myocarditis issue disproportionately affects young boys. Your calculation is incorrect. I took that into account when calculating. > including a number of experts here in the US At national scale, you can find experts that will tell you anything. The consensus opinion of the major US health authorities is that the vaccine is a net benefit for children.
  - timr 5y ago
    > You are also speculating, but simply about different things. You're speculating about harm from the vaccine, No, I've provided evidence of that. It's not speculation: young boys are seeing disproportionate levels of vaccine-induced myocarditis > One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers Indeed, that's all I've done here. > "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine." We're talking about kids under 12. > "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19." We're talking about kids under 12. > Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks. And other experts disagree with those experts (the ones I linked to, above). Now what? That's the problem with blind appeals to authority...you can always find another authority. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing news reporters credulously using the phrase "experts say", and applying no critical thought to what they're actually saying. In this case, you can find legitimate "experts" on both sides of the debate, and both deserve to be heard.
dude187 5y ago
The problem is that none of the risk analysis takes into account freedom and happiness. Not every injury is worth avoiding at all costs.

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

munificent 5y ago
> 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. You are also speculating, but simply about different things. You're speculating about harm from the vaccine, or about infection that don't happen. One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers. https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-calls-for-children-and-teens-age-12-and-up-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine/ https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021... "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend... "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parents-need-to-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... "Yes. Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks. Although COVID-19 in children is usually milder than in adults, some kids can get very sick and have complications or long-lasting symptoms that affect their health and well-being. The virus can cause death in children although this is rarer than for adults." > The myocarditis issue disproportionately affects young boys. Your calculation is incorrect. I took that into account when calculating. > including a number of experts here in the US At national scale, you can find experts that will tell you anything. The consensus opinion of the major US health authorities is that the vaccine is a net benefit for children.
- timr 5y ago
  > You are also speculating, but simply about different things. You're speculating about harm from the vaccine, No, I've provided evidence of that. It's not speculation: young boys are seeing disproportionate levels of vaccine-induced myocarditis > One way to avoid going down that speculation rabbithole is to defer to experts whose job it is to weigh the pros and cons and crunch the numbers Indeed, that's all I've done here. > "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine." We're talking about kids under 12. > "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19." We're talking about kids under 12. > Experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, believe that the benefits of being vaccinated for COVID-19 outweigh the risks. And other experts disagree with those experts (the ones I linked to, above). Now what? That's the problem with blind appeals to authority...you can always find another authority. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing news reporters credulously using the phrase "experts say", and applying no critical thought to what they're actually saying. In this case, you can find legitimate "experts" on both sides of the debate, and both deserve to be heard.

dude187 5y ago

The problem is that none of the risk analysis takes into account freedom and happiness. Not every injury is worth avoiding at all costs.