4 ms·

>Is it to protect kids? If so, then all that effort is better directed at the FDA who has banned them from getting the vaccine. I think this is the area where p

• pkulak 5y ago
  The FDA initially wanted 2 months of data for under 12, just like adults. Then they changed their minds and wanted 6 months instead. I'm sure they had a reason, but in 70 years of vaccines, we've never had a side effect after 2 months. If they changed their minds once, they can damn well do it again and get this thing out there. Then there's the objections (and resignations) to the booster. The specific reasons being: > current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations We all know this, but it's not the FDA's job to factor in global supply and distribution. Are boosters safe and effective? That's the FDA's job. Will denying boosters in the US increase first shots in other countries? That sure seems debatable to me. But regardless, it's not the concern of the FDA. I don't know what the hell they have been doing, but they've been going far beyond their scope lately.
  • adolph 5y ago
    How are they going to model efficacy if child mortality is very low already?
    • ufo 5y ago
      I think the first efficacy data is going to be about preventing infections. Data about preventing deaths will take longer to obtain.
      • adolph 5y ago
        Infections in a world where asymptotic spread is possible seems tough to measure. Are infections measured by symptoms such as cough, fever, etc, or by enough virus replication to shed or expel viral enough material to infect others?
        • ufo 5y ago
          Depends on the study design. Infections are detected by doing a PCR covid test. However, different studies might have different criteria for exactly who gets tested.
          • adolph 5y ago
            PCR doesn’t differentiate between live and dead virus molecules, which makes it less than diagnostic for active infection without symptoms, right?
            • ufo 5y ago
              That distinction isn't as important for evaluating vaccine efficacy. It wants to measure if the person was infected, not if the person is infectious.
              • adolph 5y ago
                If a trial subject is exposed to virus and the vaccine works to trigger an effective immune response, how does PCR know the difference between virus molecules neutralized by vaccine response and those neutralized otherwise?
                • ufo 5y ago
                  In those cases the virus particles don't replicate enough to be detected.
                  • 5y ago
  • SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > I'm sure they had a reason, but in 70 years of vaccines, we've never had a side effect after 2 months. Have we ever had mRNA vaccines?
    • detaro 5y ago
      no, but nothing about the mechanism of mRNA vaccines suggests they'd be an exception in that regard, since mRNA is very short-lived and thus if you'd get long-term effects, you'd have them from other delivery methods too.
      • Madmallard 5y ago
        As Vinay Prasad would say, It is often our mechanistic understanding that misaligns with study results. All we can do is test.
  • IAmEveryone 5y ago
    I believe part of the difficulty was the lull in infections before delta, plus the effectiveness of school closures. If nobody is getting sick, you cannot say anything about effectiveness. I don’t know if they want proof of effectiveness again, or are specifically looking at risk (which would not be impacted by the above). If guess the risk of death is so low among children, you need far more data to exclude a risk from vaccination at that (small) magnitude. Think of helmets, and how they are exactly as comfortable to wear in a car as they are on a motorcycle.