3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    So if a child infects their parent and parent dies but it was avoidable by child vaccination then was vaccinating the child an act of protection or not?
    - peteradio 5y ago
      "Hey kid nobodies gonna be able to protect you if your germs kill your mom!" You want to go in that direction be my guest I suppose, but on its face to me its a direct threat. The marketing departments of these companies are probably pissing their collective pants at what they are getting away with with the governments backing of course.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        I do not know how you managed to come to this conclusion. COVID-19 vaccines are directly beneficial to children because they help them to avoid serious disease. But we can't discount indirect benefits. Drugs are for individuals, vaccines are for societies.
        peteradio 5y ago
        Fortunately the trials for the pfizer child vaccines had no serious disease in sample/control. But that means its misinformation to state that the vaccine is known to prevent serious disease in children.

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.
- nojokes 5y ago
  So if a child infects their parent and parent dies but it was avoidable by child vaccination then was vaccinating the child an act of protection or not?
  - peteradio 5y ago
    "Hey kid nobodies gonna be able to protect you if your germs kill your mom!" You want to go in that direction be my guest I suppose, but on its face to me its a direct threat. The marketing departments of these companies are probably pissing their collective pants at what they are getting away with with the governments backing of course.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      I do not know how you managed to come to this conclusion. COVID-19 vaccines are directly beneficial to children because they help them to avoid serious disease. But we can't discount indirect benefits. Drugs are for individuals, vaccines are for societies.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        Fortunately the trials for the pfizer child vaccines had no serious disease in sample/control. But that means its misinformation to state that the vaccine is known to prevent serious disease in children.