4 ms·

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that pediatric study. In hindsight it’s not surprising that children might need a different quantity of vaccine than adults to tilt th

by alecst 5y ago

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that pediatric study. In hindsight it’s not surprising that children might need a different quantity of vaccine than adults to tilt the balance further away from the harms caused by rare reactions.

miles 5y ago
> it’s not surprising that children might need a different quantity of vaccine Or perhaps none at all, given that the survival rate for unvaccinated children ages 0 to 19 is 99.9973%: Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v...
- alecst 5y ago
  Yea but children live among the rest of us.
  - pbak 5y ago
    And they are no different in relation to risks of transmission than what we know are between 40% and 60% of vaccinated susceptible to asymptomatic breakthrough cases. Are you saying we should hurt the young to protect the old nevertheless, which would be the result of such a policy ?
    - alecst 5y ago
      It’s not clear to me what your position is. We are talking rare harms, perhaps dozens per million, and no deaths that I know of. So I’m unconcerned. As more data comes out maybe my mind will change and I’ll agree with you. But you seem to be nipping for a fight and I don’t really care to engage.
      - AndrewBissell 5y ago
        You don't know of any deaths because most physicians and the media steadfastly refuse to attribute any to the vaccine. There are thousands of reports in VAERS, many of them of deaths in very young, healthy people hours or days after getting the vaccine. It's not the Pfizer vaccine, but the AstraZeneca vaccine has been publicly acknowledged as the cause of BBC presenter Lisa Shaw's death.
        Daishiman 5y ago
        If you even want to cite VAERS as a reliable source of _anything_ it means you don't even know the first thing about the topic.
        pbak 5y ago
        It is not reliable, for sure, and we don't know by what factor or which way the error goes. It might show ten times the real number, or half the real number. That would be either 1'700 people or 34'000 dead in the US alone. I wouldn't discount the lower limit either, 1'700 is still a lot and far from a small risk.
        Daishiman 5y ago
        You've essentially admitted it's an unreliable source that can be complete fiction for all we know. It's not validated by any medical institution, no one has jumped to defend it, none of the claims can be independently validated. I might as well just take my pandemic advice from a radio talk show host.
        AndrewBissell 5y ago
        You're just robotically repeating fact-check talking points. Lots of young healthy people have been killed by the Covid vaccine and, for all its problems, the reason they're waving gigantic "DO NOT LOOK HERE" signs around VAERS is to give people like you an excuse to keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Survival rate is not the only measure. COVID survivors exhibit numerous lingering problems including myocarditis. The aim of the vaccine is more than just keeping people from dying.
native_samples 5y ago
There are similar studies for adults. The reality is, nobody knows how dangerous the vaccines are relative to COVID because the trials weren't sufficiently reliable or well powered to show it, the data on COVID is corrupted by people being reported as died of/with COVID or hospitalized with COVID when the true causes were different, and all data on vaccines then is horribly corrupted by swivel-eyed hatred of "anti vaxxers". meaning reports of people being seriously injured or killed by the vaccines are constantly being swept under the carpet. Anyone who thinks they have a clear picture of this, or that they understand the tradeoffs, just isn't aware of how useless the data has been (deliberately) made.

by alecst 5y ago

miles 5y ago

> it’s not surprising that children might need a different quantity of vaccine Or perhaps none at all, given that the survival rate for unvaccinated children ages 0 to 19 is 99.9973%: Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v...

alecst 5y ago
Yea but children live among the rest of us.
- pbak 5y ago
  And they are no different in relation to risks of transmission than what we know are between 40% and 60% of vaccinated susceptible to asymptomatic breakthrough cases. Are you saying we should hurt the young to protect the old nevertheless, which would be the result of such a policy ?
  - alecst 5y ago
    It’s not clear to me what your position is. We are talking rare harms, perhaps dozens per million, and no deaths that I know of. So I’m unconcerned. As more data comes out maybe my mind will change and I’ll agree with you. But you seem to be nipping for a fight and I don’t really care to engage.
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      You don't know of any deaths because most physicians and the media steadfastly refuse to attribute any to the vaccine. There are thousands of reports in VAERS, many of them of deaths in very young, healthy people hours or days after getting the vaccine. It's not the Pfizer vaccine, but the AstraZeneca vaccine has been publicly acknowledged as the cause of BBC presenter Lisa Shaw's death.
      - Daishiman 5y ago
        If you even want to cite VAERS as a reliable source of _anything_ it means you don't even know the first thing about the topic.
        pbak 5y ago
        It is not reliable, for sure, and we don't know by what factor or which way the error goes. It might show ten times the real number, or half the real number. That would be either 1'700 people or 34'000 dead in the US alone. I wouldn't discount the lower limit either, 1'700 is still a lot and far from a small risk.
        Daishiman 5y ago
        You've essentially admitted it's an unreliable source that can be complete fiction for all we know. It's not validated by any medical institution, no one has jumped to defend it, none of the claims can be independently validated. I might as well just take my pandemic advice from a radio talk show host.
        AndrewBissell 5y ago
        You're just robotically repeating fact-check talking points. Lots of young healthy people have been killed by the Covid vaccine and, for all its problems, the reason they're waving gigantic "DO NOT LOOK HERE" signs around VAERS is to give people like you an excuse to keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.
Tagbert 5y ago
Survival rate is not the only measure. COVID survivors exhibit numerous lingering problems including myocarditis. The aim of the vaccine is more than just keeping people from dying.

native_samples 5y ago

There are similar studies for adults. The reality is, nobody knows how dangerous the vaccines are relative to COVID because the trials weren't sufficiently reliable or well powered to show it, the data on COVID is corrupted by people being reported as died of/with COVID or hospitalized with COVID when the true causes were different, and all data on vaccines then is horribly corrupted by swivel-eyed hatred of "anti vaxxers". meaning reports of people being seriously injured or killed by the vaccines are constantly being swept under the carpet. Anyone who thinks they have a clear picture of this, or that they understand the tradeoffs, just isn't aware of how useless the data has been (deliberately) made.