5 ms·

The Dangerous Push to Give Boosters to Teens

16 points by amznbyebyebye 5y ago

amznbyebyebye 5y ago
FTA >> The U.S. government is pushing Covid-19 vaccine boosters for 16- and 17-year-olds without supporting clinical data. A large Israeli population study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month, found that the risk of Covid death in people under 30 with two vaccine shots was zero.
- ouid 5y ago
  There are many reasons to get a vaccine other than risk of death. For instance, lessening the severity of symptoms. The vaccines themselves are very safe.
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    Also, protecting those around you. It's very much in a teen's own self interest to not bring COVID home and put their parents (who support them) at risk.
    - tharkun__ 5y ago
      Disclaimer: Double vaxxed here w/ kids in the process. Too bad that doesn't seem to actually work out that way. People that are vaccinated still get sick enough to spread the virus it seems, especially w/ Omicron, even if they either don't have enough symptoms to notice it might be Covid or don't get sick enough to require hospitalization. That is not to say vaccination isn't necessarily a good idea but it's not a no brainer either because it only has upsides. Unfortunately it also seems that there's no good way to talk about any of this. If you look and talk about the facts, it seems like the anti-vaxxer will hate you and you will simultaneously be stamped an anti-vaxxer by everyone else. Sad days but I guess that's what social pressures do.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        I know only one vaccine that might have 100% efficacy after 4 shots. It is polio vaccine. COVID-19 has been so far a scourge - when we get enough people vaccinated in developed countries, another variant appears from developing countries. The vaccine deployments has been just too slow around the world. My hope is that the developing world has seen now enough of the virus and is mainly immune or will be after Omicron has swept over (being hopefully milder than previous variants).
        logic_beats_pro 5y ago
        Highly unlikely that your 100% statistic is true. Polio rages on today in Africa because of one reason: the oral polio vaccine. Wild type polio has actually been eliminated but sixteen African nations are battling outbreaks of what's called "vaccine-derived polio." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/25/905884740/africa-declares-wild-polio-is-wiped-out-yet-it-persists-in-vaccine-derived-cases https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/25/9058847...
        nojokes 5y ago
        Well, this is what CDC claims https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... Yes, I know about this mutated live vaccine. It for sure looked like a great idea on paper.
    - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
      The vaccine does not prevent transmission. You can still contract, get sick from and pass on covid-19 even being triple vaxxed. Unless you're talking about you having a reduction in symptoms == less probability of spread. That's frequently claimed but lacks proof. If you've found any science on that, please post it. I haven't.
    - yz1ruhzh 5y ago
      Double vaccinated coworker caught COVID twice, and the second time he told me it was hell. It's not protecting people around you when there is a breakthrough: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
  - WaitWaitWha 5y ago
    > The vaccines themselves are very safe. Most drug development takes from initial research to FDA approval about 10 years[1]. Even with Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, or Fast Track programs, the time is in several years. I do not believe you have the scientific evidence to make your statement with great assurance. [1]https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/clinical-trials/drug-approval-process.asp https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/clinical-trials/drug-approval...
    - amznbyebyebye 5y ago
      Exactly, there is no study on the long term effects of these vaccines because they are so new. The good news is we have one in the process in the US with about 300 million people.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Sure, lets wait till highly infectious new disease has infected everyone because we clearly have plenty of data about its long term effects. /s If you can point out where did they cut short with the vaccine approval, please point it out. One thing is clear - they did not wait till planned AE period was completed but we do have now even more data about AE than we have for any other vaccine so far. I think that the opposite is true - the vaccines have not been deployed fast enough around the world and this has allowed new more infectious variants to emerge.
      - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
        >I think that the opposite is true - the vaccines have not been deployed fast enough around the world and this has allowed new more infectious variants to emerge. Or, the incredibly narrow focus of the mRNA vaccines put enormous evolutionary pressure on the virus to mutate. All too often you hear the misconception that only the unvaccinated can act like a petrie dish for mutations, but this can happen just as easily in anyone vaccinated.
        nojokes 5y ago
        Now how many people where there vaccinated with mRNA vaccines in South-Africa? I propose that if there would have been more, we would possibly not have this variant. We do not see new variants popping up in highly vaccinated areas.
Vecr 5y ago
As of December 17, Paul Offit (on the FDA advisory committee that voted against boosters) thinks that for young, healthy people the risk of getting the third dose is higher than the risk of not getting it. He also opposes third dose mandates. Go to 46 minutes on TWiV 844[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhN4rC19RI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhN4rC19RI
- amznbyebyebye 5y ago
  Any more details available on why the vaccines are risky? If FDA is saying this, it really makes you wonder.
  - Vecr 5y ago
    Offit's not the FDA, he's on the advisory committee that was ignored (the same one as in the article). The mRNA vaccines cause heart inflammation in some cases that is probably more risk than COVID-19 in a young healthy person already fully vaccinated with two doses. The FDA and CDC might disagree about that, but not calling VRBPAC and the ACIP back to look at data you might have to back that up looks quite suspicious. He goes on a bit of a rant about being ignored (twice apparently? Not sure the exact details.) at 25:20.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      I am not sure from where he is getting this vaccines produce more hearth issues than COVID-19. Pfizer vaccines for sure do not and Moderna vaccine is not approved in US for 16-17 year olds. Sound like a complete anti-vax nutjob to me regardless that he claims to be not one (how surprising).
      - Vecr 5y ago
        Are you saying Offit is the nutjob, or the author of the article? Because I don't think Offit is, see [0]. As for the author, I don't know. To be clear, Offit is talking about the third dose, not the first two, he thinks you should get those. See, if the first two doses pretty much get rid of the risk of severe disease, why would you risk myocarditis from a third dose? See [1] for his reasoning, but if you don't trust Epoch, you can watch the TWiV episode above, where there's no edits or time pressure, and he can respond to all comments by the hosts. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit [1]: https://archive.md/zw3il#selection-1375.0-1379.115 https://archive.md/zw3il#selection-1375.0-1379.115
nojokes 5y ago
He claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer but for sure sounds like one. Can somebody please point me out how Pfizer vaccine is causing more hearth AE in young people than COVID-19 does?
- londgine 5y ago
  That depends on how you define anti-vaxxer. If you use webster's month old definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" Then a whole lot of supposedly "reasonable" people (including myself) are anti-vaxxers. If however, you use the traditional definition, then the author is against boosters for under 18 year olds, but pro vaccines for all and boosters for 18+. That would make him a pro-vaxxer
  - nojokes 5y ago
    For me a clear separation is spreading false information about vaccine effectiveness and safety. I could not see how any US approve COVID-19 vaccine for 16-17 year old is causing more hearth issues than COVID-19 does - quite opposite appears to be true based on the referenced Oxford study. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the study?
    - londgine 5y ago
      In order to determine that you have to determine 1: How much harm the vaccine is causing 16-17 yo 2: How much harm the virus is causing 16-17 yo Regarding 1, we know that mRNA vaccines can cause heart inflammation. As for, how much for 16-17 yo, I don't know if that has been tested. Regarding 2, I am unaware of a test that has been preformed on 16-17 yo. But the test on under 11 yo was unsuccessful, because even those getting the placebo did not develop serious symptoms of the virus. If you believe that the burden of proof should be on whoever wants someone to take the vaccine, then they would have to preform a trial that determines 1 and 2. Until that is done, the philosophical default is not to claim that boosters should be given to 17-18 yo.
fizzledbits 5y ago
The charlatan also “predicted” we would achieve herd immunity in April 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731 https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-apri... His Twitter feed is a cesspool of motivated reasoning. Lazy people posting crap like this to HN is what is bringing down the quality of this site.

16 points by amznbyebyebye 5y ago

FTA >> The U.S. government is pushing Covid-19 vaccine boosters for 16- and 17-year-olds without supporting clinical data. A large Israeli population study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month, found that the risk of Covid death in people under 30 with two vaccine shots was zero.

ouid 5y ago
There are many reasons to get a vaccine other than risk of death. For instance, lessening the severity of symptoms. The vaccines themselves are very safe.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  Also, protecting those around you. It's very much in a teen's own self interest to not bring COVID home and put their parents (who support them) at risk.
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    Disclaimer: Double vaxxed here w/ kids in the process. Too bad that doesn't seem to actually work out that way. People that are vaccinated still get sick enough to spread the virus it seems, especially w/ Omicron, even if they either don't have enough symptoms to notice it might be Covid or don't get sick enough to require hospitalization. That is not to say vaccination isn't necessarily a good idea but it's not a no brainer either because it only has upsides. Unfortunately it also seems that there's no good way to talk about any of this. If you look and talk about the facts, it seems like the anti-vaxxer will hate you and you will simultaneously be stamped an anti-vaxxer by everyone else. Sad days but I guess that's what social pressures do.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      I know only one vaccine that might have 100% efficacy after 4 shots. It is polio vaccine. COVID-19 has been so far a scourge - when we get enough people vaccinated in developed countries, another variant appears from developing countries. The vaccine deployments has been just too slow around the world. My hope is that the developing world has seen now enough of the virus and is mainly immune or will be after Omicron has swept over (being hopefully milder than previous variants).
      - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
        Highly unlikely that your 100% statistic is true. Polio rages on today in Africa because of one reason: the oral polio vaccine. Wild type polio has actually been eliminated but sixteen African nations are battling outbreaks of what's called "vaccine-derived polio." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/25/905884740/africa-declares-wild-polio-is-wiped-out-yet-it-persists-in-vaccine-derived-cases https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/25/9058847...
        nojokes 5y ago
        Well, this is what CDC claims https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... Yes, I know about this mutated live vaccine. It for sure looked like a great idea on paper.
  - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
    The vaccine does not prevent transmission. You can still contract, get sick from and pass on covid-19 even being triple vaxxed. Unless you're talking about you having a reduction in symptoms == less probability of spread. That's frequently claimed but lacks proof. If you've found any science on that, please post it. I haven't.
  - yz1ruhzh 5y ago
    Double vaccinated coworker caught COVID twice, and the second time he told me it was hell. It's not protecting people around you when there is a breakthrough: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
- WaitWaitWha 5y ago
  > The vaccines themselves are very safe. Most drug development takes from initial research to FDA approval about 10 years[1]. Even with Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, or Fast Track programs, the time is in several years. I do not believe you have the scientific evidence to make your statement with great assurance. [1]https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/clinical-trials/drug-approval-process.asp https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/clinical-trials/drug-approval...
  - amznbyebyebye 5y ago
    Exactly, there is no study on the long term effects of these vaccines because they are so new. The good news is we have one in the process in the US with about 300 million people.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Sure, lets wait till highly infectious new disease has infected everyone because we clearly have plenty of data about its long term effects. /s If you can point out where did they cut short with the vaccine approval, please point it out. One thing is clear - they did not wait till planned AE period was completed but we do have now even more data about AE than we have for any other vaccine so far. I think that the opposite is true - the vaccines have not been deployed fast enough around the world and this has allowed new more infectious variants to emerge.
    - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
      >I think that the opposite is true - the vaccines have not been deployed fast enough around the world and this has allowed new more infectious variants to emerge. Or, the incredibly narrow focus of the mRNA vaccines put enormous evolutionary pressure on the virus to mutate. All too often you hear the misconception that only the unvaccinated can act like a petrie dish for mutations, but this can happen just as easily in anyone vaccinated.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        Now how many people where there vaccinated with mRNA vaccines in South-Africa? I propose that if there would have been more, we would possibly not have this variant. We do not see new variants popping up in highly vaccinated areas.

Vecr 5y ago

As of December 17, Paul Offit (on the FDA advisory committee that voted against boosters) thinks that for young, healthy people the risk of getting the third dose is higher than the risk of not getting it. He also opposes third dose mandates. Go to 46 minutes on TWiV 844[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhN4rC19RI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhN4rC19RI

amznbyebyebye 5y ago
Any more details available on why the vaccines are risky? If FDA is saying this, it really makes you wonder.
- Vecr 5y ago
  Offit's not the FDA, he's on the advisory committee that was ignored (the same one as in the article). The mRNA vaccines cause heart inflammation in some cases that is probably more risk than COVID-19 in a young healthy person already fully vaccinated with two doses. The FDA and CDC might disagree about that, but not calling VRBPAC and the ACIP back to look at data you might have to back that up looks quite suspicious. He goes on a bit of a rant about being ignored (twice apparently? Not sure the exact details.) at 25:20.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    I am not sure from where he is getting this vaccines produce more hearth issues than COVID-19. Pfizer vaccines for sure do not and Moderna vaccine is not approved in US for 16-17 year olds. Sound like a complete anti-vax nutjob to me regardless that he claims to be not one (how surprising).
    - Vecr 5y ago
      Are you saying Offit is the nutjob, or the author of the article? Because I don't think Offit is, see [0]. As for the author, I don't know. To be clear, Offit is talking about the third dose, not the first two, he thinks you should get those. See, if the first two doses pretty much get rid of the risk of severe disease, why would you risk myocarditis from a third dose? See [1] for his reasoning, but if you don't trust Epoch, you can watch the TWiV episode above, where there's no edits or time pressure, and he can respond to all comments by the hosts. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit [1]: https://archive.md/zw3il#selection-1375.0-1379.115 https://archive.md/zw3il#selection-1375.0-1379.115

nojokes 5y ago

He claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer but for sure sounds like one. Can somebody please point me out how Pfizer vaccine is causing more hearth AE in young people than COVID-19 does?

londgine 5y ago
That depends on how you define anti-vaxxer. If you use webster's month old definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" Then a whole lot of supposedly "reasonable" people (including myself) are anti-vaxxers. If however, you use the traditional definition, then the author is against boosters for under 18 year olds, but pro vaccines for all and boosters for 18+. That would make him a pro-vaxxer
- nojokes 5y ago
  For me a clear separation is spreading false information about vaccine effectiveness and safety. I could not see how any US approve COVID-19 vaccine for 16-17 year old is causing more hearth issues than COVID-19 does - quite opposite appears to be true based on the referenced Oxford study. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the study?
  - londgine 5y ago
    In order to determine that you have to determine 1: How much harm the vaccine is causing 16-17 yo 2: How much harm the virus is causing 16-17 yo Regarding 1, we know that mRNA vaccines can cause heart inflammation. As for, how much for 16-17 yo, I don't know if that has been tested. Regarding 2, I am unaware of a test that has been preformed on 16-17 yo. But the test on under 11 yo was unsuccessful, because even those getting the placebo did not develop serious symptoms of the virus. If you believe that the burden of proof should be on whoever wants someone to take the vaccine, then they would have to preform a trial that determines 1 and 2. Until that is done, the philosophical default is not to claim that boosters should be given to 17-18 yo.

fizzledbits 5y ago

The charlatan also “predicted” we would achieve herd immunity in April 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731 https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-apri... His Twitter feed is a cesspool of motivated reasoning. Lazy people posting crap like this to HN is what is bringing down the quality of this site.