7 ms·

What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent Covid fatality in kids?

5 points by hncurious 5y ago

WalterGR 5y ago
As has been repeated in the comments on every HN submission related to vaccinating kids, it’s not because the kids are going to die from COVID, but so that they don’t infect mom, dad, granma, or grandpa and accidentally kill them. Edit: This is a garbage article even beyond that. “Pharma sent a swarm of trolls in to attack me and Pharma goons published hits pieces on me outside of Twitter to punish me for even asking the question.” …k.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Out with the old fantasy: * vaccination prevents serious illness In with the new: * if enough people are vaccinated others can’t be infected
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Vaccination dramatically reduces the chance of serious illness. If enough people are vaccinated, others are less likely to be infected. Who is claiming the falsehoods in your comment?
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      If vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of serious illness, who cares if old people get infected. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other things they have to face all the time.
      - WalterGR 5y ago
        Are you being serious or sarcastic?
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Let me quote mr Fauci: > Specifically, at the congressional hearing, the NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent. This [Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2] has a mortality rate of 10 times that. Now, if the vaccines are 95% effective at preventing serious illness, as claimed, the result is that now, for the people who chose to take them, Covid-19 has half the mortality rate of the flu. Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19!
        pcwalton 5y ago
        > Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19! This is antivax propaganda which has no place on this site. Your math is absurd and not worth rebutting.
        nojokes 5y ago
        Was there a slightest possibility that an idea of a flu vaccine that also effectively prevents serious illness from flu could have been under consideration for this person?
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Antivax propaganda which doesn’t say anything about the vaccines than what the manufacturers say. That’s a new one! Your cries are absurd and devoid of argument and not worth rebutting.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        The argument is that because vaccinated people are still at severe risk (*), it follows we should vaccinate everyone to reduce the risk of severe infection in the vaccinated population (we have written off the unvaccinated). Following the logic, the worse the vaccine performs, the higher the risk of severe infection, thus the more we should vaccinate. All predicated on unproven models fed aging data, no public longterm VE studies, known unknowns and possibly unknown unknowns. A glaring ethical problem is that there is no "buffer of safety" allowed to account for future evolution of vaccine effectiveness, either waning (documented in the literature) or mutations (documented in the literature, e.g. Delta). There have been a couple studies showing VE agains infection in negative territory after the 6 months mark. Not claiming they are some sort of authoritative gold standard, but the possibility exists. One more thing. It is entirely unclear, given the minuscule risk for children and the tenuous link between potential child infections and potential severe covid in adults, why we can't wait a year or two to gather more clinical data. Like we did with every vaccine until covid. The clinical trial norm used to be ~10 years and not 6 months. Nope, it's a rush to vaccinate kids right now. (*) At this moment vaccines are good at preventing severe infection, this is not a post to discourage adults, especially older adults, from getting vaccinated.
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Wow, in the same post the vaccines are both good and bad at preventing severe infection. We’re safe but at high risk. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
        angelzen 5y ago
        Good point. I'm attempting to summarize the position of the total vaxers as best I can. Some incoherency may be unavoidable. I personally find the logic bordering the absurd... Perhaps "some vaccinated people are still at severe risk" vs. "population level risk of severe infection is reduced by vaccines" may clarify the issue you raised.
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Riding a car is not really a problem but some people (that get into an accident) are at risk of injury? The whole idea of risks is that for some it turns out fine, for others it doesn’t. That’s life, it’s unavoidable.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  Also since you have so many adults who aren't grown up and won't get the shot, you have to vaccinate kids in search of herd immunity.
  - 650 5y ago
    BC Canada. 86% Vaccinated with 2 doses. 90%+ with 1 dose. Still going to be vaxxing kids. Cases are higher now than a few months ago (Seasonal?).
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  I vote that grandma dies over little Timmy.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    Even though your wording is a bit crude, I agree. Children (a group with less than 0.0001% COVID mortality rate) should not take outsized risks just to protect people that have mostly lived complete and full lives. Many vaccinated children will have to live with permanent vaccine induced cardiovascular issues for the rest of their lives, which in my opinion is unacceptable.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Perhaps you are not aware of children having life long cardiovascular issues because their parents were too stupid to understand that COVID-19 will have multiple orders of magnitude higher risk of adverse effects. But they do exist.
      - ashwagary 5y ago
        My understanding is that healthy children have the largest asymptomatic infection rate (over 50%). I assume this also means significantly lower long term adverse reactions to COVID when compared to the general population and especially people over 60. If you have seen any studies that show otherwise please do feel free to share. >We found a statistically significant trend toward a lower asymptomatic percentage with increasing age >Our results indicate that children have greater asymptomaticity compared to the elderly. We also found that cases with comorbidities have lower asymptomaticity compared with cases with no underlying medical conditions. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118
        nojokes 5y ago
        Only about 5% of polio cases in children are symptomatic.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > it’s not because the kids are going to die from COVID, but so that they don’t infect mom, dad, granma, or grandpa and accidentally kill them. So when you see someone claim we are vaccinating children to protect them, do you call that out as misinformation?
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Not currently. Should I? What misinformation do you call out?
    - ashwagary 5y ago
      To answer that we have to know, can healthy kids build natural immunity with minimal or no long term health issues?
      - nojokes 5y ago
        Do you realize that the death is not the only possible adverse outcome of COVID-19? Vaccines are not only for preventing death. They are to prevent many forms of serious illness: MIS-C, myocarditis, multiple organ failures, brain damage, chronic fatigue syndrome to name few. Beside not infecting and potentially killing their only care takers is hugely beneficial to a child. In addition reduced effect to the healthcare and economy is directly beneficial to a child. So you can take your BS about building up natural immunity and stick it into your end of your digestive track.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >Do you realize that the death is not the only possible adverse outcome of COVID-19? >Vaccines are not only for preventing death. Nothing in my comment implied death was the only adverse outcome. I didn't even mention death. Are you replying to the wrong person?
    - peteradio 5y ago
      It's certainly an interesting question. If someone explained they were going to do something you thought they should do, but they were doing it with mistaken motivation (i.e. protecting their child), is it ethical to just say nothing? I guess some would say this is an unquestionably good thing, I'm a bit more skeptical of that.
- angelzen 5y ago
  FWIW, the article is too long and rambly for my taste. But, they estimate NNTV to save a life in 5-11 age range at 1 : 1,261,550. It so happens that Pfizer themselves estimated NNTV at 1 : 1,000,000 in their FDA application (table 14, page 34). "garbage" is a a poor word choice, especially from someone that seems to disapprove of strong language. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    ”garbage" is a a poor word choice, especially from someone that seems to disapprove of strong language. It’s the paranoid ramblings of an antivaxxer that could have entirely been replaced with the link in your comment. It’s garbage. No idea what you mean about strong language. I run a fucking slang dictionary website. :)
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Now that gave me a chuckle. I'll defer to the experts then. :)

5 points by hncurious 5y ago

As has been repeated in the comments on every HN submission related to vaccinating kids, it’s not because the kids are going to die from COVID, but so that they don’t infect mom, dad, granma, or grandpa and accidentally kill them. Edit: This is a garbage article even beyond that. “Pharma sent a swarm of trolls in to attack me and Pharma goons published hits pieces on me outside of Twitter to punish me for even asking the question.” …k.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Out with the old fantasy: * vaccination prevents serious illness In with the new: * if enough people are vaccinated others can’t be infected
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Vaccination dramatically reduces the chance of serious illness. If enough people are vaccinated, others are less likely to be infected. Who is claiming the falsehoods in your comment?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    If vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of serious illness, who cares if old people get infected. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other things they have to face all the time.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      Are you being serious or sarcastic?
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        Let me quote mr Fauci: > Specifically, at the congressional hearing, the NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent. This [Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2] has a mortality rate of 10 times that. Now, if the vaccines are 95% effective at preventing serious illness, as claimed, the result is that now, for the people who chose to take them, Covid-19 has half the mortality rate of the flu. Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19!
        pcwalton 5y ago
        > Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19! This is antivax propaganda which has no place on this site. Your math is absurd and not worth rebutting.
        nojokes 5y ago
        Was there a slightest possibility that an idea of a flu vaccine that also effectively prevents serious illness from flu could have been under consideration for this person?
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Antivax propaganda which doesn’t say anything about the vaccines than what the manufacturers say. That’s a new one! Your cries are absurd and devoid of argument and not worth rebutting.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      The argument is that because vaccinated people are still at severe risk (*), it follows we should vaccinate everyone to reduce the risk of severe infection in the vaccinated population (we have written off the unvaccinated). Following the logic, the worse the vaccine performs, the higher the risk of severe infection, thus the more we should vaccinate. All predicated on unproven models fed aging data, no public longterm VE studies, known unknowns and possibly unknown unknowns. A glaring ethical problem is that there is no "buffer of safety" allowed to account for future evolution of vaccine effectiveness, either waning (documented in the literature) or mutations (documented in the literature, e.g. Delta). There have been a couple studies showing VE agains infection in negative territory after the 6 months mark. Not claiming they are some sort of authoritative gold standard, but the possibility exists. One more thing. It is entirely unclear, given the minuscule risk for children and the tenuous link between potential child infections and potential severe covid in adults, why we can't wait a year or two to gather more clinical data. Like we did with every vaccine until covid. The clinical trial norm used to be ~10 years and not 6 months. Nope, it's a rush to vaccinate kids right now. (*) At this moment vaccines are good at preventing severe infection, this is not a post to discourage adults, especially older adults, from getting vaccinated.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        Wow, in the same post the vaccines are both good and bad at preventing severe infection. We’re safe but at high risk. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
        angelzen 5y ago
        Good point. I'm attempting to summarize the position of the total vaxers as best I can. Some incoherency may be unavoidable. I personally find the logic bordering the absurd... Perhaps "some vaccinated people are still at severe risk" vs. "population level risk of severe infection is reduced by vaccines" may clarify the issue you raised.
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        Riding a car is not really a problem but some people (that get into an accident) are at risk of injury? The whole idea of risks is that for some it turns out fine, for others it doesn’t. That’s life, it’s unavoidable.
PaulHoule 5y ago
Also since you have so many adults who aren't grown up and won't get the shot, you have to vaccinate kids in search of herd immunity.
- 650 5y ago
  BC Canada. 86% Vaccinated with 2 doses. 90%+ with 1 dose. Still going to be vaxxing kids. Cases are higher now than a few months ago (Seasonal?).
captainredbeard 5y ago
I vote that grandma dies over little Timmy.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Even though your wording is a bit crude, I agree. Children (a group with less than 0.0001% COVID mortality rate) should not take outsized risks just to protect people that have mostly lived complete and full lives. Many vaccinated children will have to live with permanent vaccine induced cardiovascular issues for the rest of their lives, which in my opinion is unacceptable.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Perhaps you are not aware of children having life long cardiovascular issues because their parents were too stupid to understand that COVID-19 will have multiple orders of magnitude higher risk of adverse effects. But they do exist.
    - ashwagary 5y ago
      My understanding is that healthy children have the largest asymptomatic infection rate (over 50%). I assume this also means significantly lower long term adverse reactions to COVID when compared to the general population and especially people over 60. If you have seen any studies that show otherwise please do feel free to share. >We found a statistically significant trend toward a lower asymptomatic percentage with increasing age >Our results indicate that children have greater asymptomaticity compared to the elderly. We also found that cases with comorbidities have lower asymptomaticity compared with cases with no underlying medical conditions. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118
      - nojokes 5y ago
        Only about 5% of polio cases in children are symptomatic.
peteradio 5y ago
> it’s not because the kids are going to die from COVID, but so that they don’t infect mom, dad, granma, or grandpa and accidentally kill them. So when you see someone claim we are vaccinating children to protect them, do you call that out as misinformation?
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Not currently. Should I? What misinformation do you call out?
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    To answer that we have to know, can healthy kids build natural immunity with minimal or no long term health issues?
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Do you realize that the death is not the only possible adverse outcome of COVID-19? Vaccines are not only for preventing death. They are to prevent many forms of serious illness: MIS-C, myocarditis, multiple organ failures, brain damage, chronic fatigue syndrome to name few. Beside not infecting and potentially killing their only care takers is hugely beneficial to a child. In addition reduced effect to the healthcare and economy is directly beneficial to a child. So you can take your BS about building up natural immunity and stick it into your end of your digestive track.
      - ashwagary 5y ago
        >Do you realize that the death is not the only possible adverse outcome of COVID-19? >Vaccines are not only for preventing death. Nothing in my comment implied death was the only adverse outcome. I didn't even mention death. Are you replying to the wrong person?
  - peteradio 5y ago
    It's certainly an interesting question. If someone explained they were going to do something you thought they should do, but they were doing it with mistaken motivation (i.e. protecting their child), is it ethical to just say nothing? I guess some would say this is an unquestionably good thing, I'm a bit more skeptical of that.
angelzen 5y ago
FWIW, the article is too long and rambly for my taste. But, they estimate NNTV to save a life in 5-11 age range at 1 : 1,261,550. It so happens that Pfizer themselves estimated NNTV at 1 : 1,000,000 in their FDA application (table 14, page 34). "garbage" is a a poor word choice, especially from someone that seems to disapprove of strong language. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
- WalterGR 5y ago
  ”garbage" is a a poor word choice, especially from someone that seems to disapprove of strong language. It’s the paranoid ramblings of an antivaxxer that could have entirely been replaced with the link in your comment. It’s garbage. No idea what you mean about strong language. I run a fucking slang dictionary website. :)
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Now that gave me a chuckle. I'll defer to the experts then. :)