10 ms·

I kind of regret even mentioning the effects of COVID in my original comment as I figured there would be a reply like yours and you're not wrong! But it wasn't

I kind of regret even mentioning the effects of COVID in my original comment as I figured there would be a reply like yours and you're not wrong! But it wasn't the main point I was trying to make. My main point is that everyone just seems to have moved on from under 5s. We've adopted a stance of "vaxxed and done" for adults and older children and paid no attention to the vax trials for under 5s taking forever. It's barely even mentioned. So we have parents across the country relying on the generosity of their employer in handling shutdowns, illnesses and so on. I'm lucky, my employer has been flexible and understanding. But I know that's not the case for a lot of people.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
I'm in the same place with my kids and I feel similarly. I feel you on the replies here too. I get it, there are greater risks, but that doesn't mean this isn't stressful along with everything else going on. Anyway, I hope this is the tail end of these worries and hope your family has a healthy 2022.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I don't think "Vaxxed and done" people are saying your kids getting sick shouldn't feel stressful but rather covid poses a risk to children that is similar to or less than numerous other diseases and ailments we already faced. Just as schools weren't closed (or whatever precaution you'd like to put in here) for the flu or pneumonia there is no reason to close them for covid.
  - bmeski 5y ago
    Fear is the mind killer.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      unfortunately we’re not bene gesserit
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Schools regularly either dismiss classes, or all classes altogether, when there are strep, measles or chicken pox outbreaks. The latter is just an itchy rash.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ycombobreaker 5y ago
    Some of the "Vaxxed and Done" voices that I hear on the WWW sounds like childfree adults telling parents that they should not worry. That is the perfect recipe for confrontation, even if unintentional! As a young adult, I would have happily tried to explain a rational, statistical/data-driven argument to parents. As a parent, I understand and accept a certain amount of irrational protectiveness/risk-aversion. It becomes very easy for us to talk past each other.
asabjorn 5y ago
Covid deaths amongst children was lower in 2020 than from the flu the year before with a severe Covid strain, 400 deaths vs 600 deaths from flu year before, and faced with a tame Omicron variant the FDA decided to skip the science advisory panel for childhood vaccines [1] because they last time denied the request. The way this is handled is unscientific, and has no balance of risk vs reward. Moreover, the government should be representative and derive it's power from the consent of the governed. Not enforce compliance to administrative state edicts. The slide from a representative republic to a technocracy is worrying. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters-to-teens-vacccine-covid-19-omicron-vaxx-requirement-mandate-11640107759 https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters...
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Why are you comparing across years? How many children died of the flu in 2020 during lockdowns and social distancing? Moreover, the governed don't want the actions of others to kill them. That's why they created a government that prevents others from polluting, driving dangerously, and spreading disease.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    > How many children died of the flu in 2020 during lockdowns and social distancing? 400 > Why are you comparing across years? Many seem to have the misconception that covid is risky for children, while they are at low risk, so I highlight that the child covid death numbers from covid was low and comparable to a normal flu season like the one in 2019.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-covid-19-more-pediatric-deaths-than-flu-last-18-months/285-2b3fef00-454b-4b43-a873-573ff6afffe7 https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-... says it's 1, not 400. What is your source? That would make Covid hundreds of times deadlier for children than the flu. If it were a regular flu season without the mitigations that dropped flu deaths to 1, Covid would have killed even more children.
astrange 5y ago
Covid was never thought to be risky for children, especially under 5s, even when we didn't have a vaccine. Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid. I saw one paper claiming the reason is that MMR vaccine gives children some protection against "severe" covid due to overlapping T-cells, but didn't check if it reproduced so wouldn't believe too much in that. (And I saw it on twitter from Dr Feigl-Ding who's an alarmist type.)
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > Covid was never thought to be risky for children, especially under 5s, even when we didn't have a vaccine. This is likely correct, but > Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid. There's some indication (though no solid proof) that the jump in child hospitalizations is due to omicron being _more_ severe in children. The proposed mechanism is that its focus on the upper respiratory system instead of the lungs makes it less severe for us and worse for young children (in line with other childhood diseases that are generally taken somewhat seriously).
georgekv 5y ago
The biggest reason the under 5s vaccine is taking so long is that they don't suffer severe enough symptoms that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus. The same issue was there with the 5-11s but pharma, CDC, & FDA just glossed over that to approve the vaccines.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus I think you meant to type 'vaccine'
- throw6622 5y ago
  The success we’re talking about was an analytical measurement of the antigen response in the body. It wasn’t lack of symptoms which ruled that phase a failure.
  - Sparyjerry 5y ago
    That is incorrect, the decision making numbers used to test vaccine effectiveness having nothing to do with lab antigen numbers, they are based on how much symptomatic illness is avoided. All of the results such as as 95%-96% efficacy for Phizer and Moderna and 66% for J&J are based on the % reduction of symptomatic illness only. Not the reduction in actual illness or based on lab tests of antigen response.
    - hammock 5y ago
      I believe you are incorrect. What you say was true for the initial adult trials but many recommendations for boosters and lower age groups have been based on antibody response, not clinical outcomes.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        Correct or incorrect is sort of irrelevant, because it's a problem itself if they aren't including severity of symptoms in the study. If they are ignoring symptoms to approve a vaccine who's primary remaining benefit is ... reducing severity of symptoms ... then how exactly has the trial proved anything? Since antibodies are no longer a reliable indicator of immunity or of preventing transmission, then reduced severity is the primary remaining benefit. Ideally they'd be looking at a cumulative risk/prevention assessment, but I don't see how they do that while excluding observed symptoms. If they are using antibody levels as a proxy for this when they could just ... directly observe symptoms... then there would be a bigger problem with the study than just a failure to show sufficient efficacy.
analog31 5y ago
Going further, we've moved on from the un-vaccinated in general. My problem is that even though I live in a bubble with 100% vaccination rate among my relatives and friends (most of our kids are older), I can't quite make peace with just letting the un-vax'd kill one another off. And there seems to be no middle ground.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  I'm curious where you get this information from. The unvaxxed won't be killing off each other at a rate much (if any) higher then the vaxed and this is clear as day right now. Numbers. What is it about this disease that is causing otherwise intelligent people to step into this reality of alternate (and untrue) facts? Even US supreme court justices. I don't mean this as an attack, it's just I don't get it.
  - crakhamster01 5y ago
    Not that I agree with the parent comment's sentiment, but from the article: > Preliminary state data suggest that more than 90 percent of today’s deaths are still among unvaccinated people. Source they provided: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status.aspx https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-sta... From the numbers, it seems fairly clear that this virus is much more likely to cause death amongst the unvaccinated - unless I'm misinterpreting.
    - hammock 5y ago
      Do you know what the death rate is today, among either group (vaccinated or unvaccinated)? Your link is pre-omicron, by the way.
      - mythrwy 5y ago
        https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145-countries https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145...
s5300 5y ago
I also like the fact that nobody seems to be concerned with the possible effects this virus could have long-term on the developmental growth of a child under 5… I think I would be much more concerned about that than the symptoms of the initial infection itself. & for those who want to go “buhh we don’t know how duh vaccine will effect their developmental growth either” - I don’t have much to say to you other than I wish you had an education…
- Auracle 5y ago
  Would those effects be any different than what happens with the seemingly never ending viruses children already contract?
- adamiscool8 5y ago
  You don't think the accumulation of lipid nanoparticles from what might be annual vaccinations could impact developmental growth in children? We have decades of research on Coronaviridae even if COVID-19 is a bit different, but we have basically nothing on LNP.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
It boils down to risk v benefits. The under 5s have been relatively very low risk. If a jab can't out do that then there's no room to move forward with that idea. Omincron appears to be even less powerful, less of a threat. Those odds make the current jabs even less likely to be approved.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

I'm in the same place with my kids and I feel similarly. I feel you on the replies here too. I get it, there are greater risks, but that doesn't mean this isn't stressful along with everything else going on. Anyway, I hope this is the tail end of these worries and hope your family has a healthy 2022.

ALittleLight 5y ago
I don't think "Vaxxed and done" people are saying your kids getting sick shouldn't feel stressful but rather covid poses a risk to children that is similar to or less than numerous other diseases and ailments we already faced. Just as schools weren't closed (or whatever precaution you'd like to put in here) for the flu or pneumonia there is no reason to close them for covid.
- bmeski 5y ago
  Fear is the mind killer.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    unfortunately we’re not bene gesserit
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Schools regularly either dismiss classes, or all classes altogether, when there are strep, measles or chicken pox outbreaks. The latter is just an itchy rash.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ycombobreaker 5y ago
  Some of the "Vaxxed and Done" voices that I hear on the WWW sounds like childfree adults telling parents that they should not worry. That is the perfect recipe for confrontation, even if unintentional! As a young adult, I would have happily tried to explain a rational, statistical/data-driven argument to parents. As a parent, I understand and accept a certain amount of irrational protectiveness/risk-aversion. It becomes very easy for us to talk past each other.

asabjorn 5y ago

Covid deaths amongst children was lower in 2020 than from the flu the year before with a severe Covid strain, 400 deaths vs 600 deaths from flu year before, and faced with a tame Omicron variant the FDA decided to skip the science advisory panel for childhood vaccines [1] because they last time denied the request. The way this is handled is unscientific, and has no balance of risk vs reward. Moreover, the government should be representative and derive it's power from the consent of the governed. Not enforce compliance to administrative state edicts. The slide from a representative republic to a technocracy is worrying. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters-to-teens-vacccine-covid-19-omicron-vaxx-requirement-mandate-11640107759 https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters...

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Why are you comparing across years? How many children died of the flu in 2020 during lockdowns and social distancing? Moreover, the governed don't want the actions of others to kill them. That's why they created a government that prevents others from polluting, driving dangerously, and spreading disease.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  > How many children died of the flu in 2020 during lockdowns and social distancing? 400 > Why are you comparing across years? Many seem to have the misconception that covid is risky for children, while they are at low risk, so I highlight that the child covid death numbers from covid was low and comparable to a normal flu season like the one in 2019.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-covid-19-more-pediatric-deaths-than-flu-last-18-months/285-2b3fef00-454b-4b43-a873-573ff6afffe7 https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-... says it's 1, not 400. What is your source? That would make Covid hundreds of times deadlier for children than the flu. If it were a regular flu season without the mitigations that dropped flu deaths to 1, Covid would have killed even more children.

astrange 5y ago

Covid was never thought to be risky for children, especially under 5s, even when we didn't have a vaccine. Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid. I saw one paper claiming the reason is that MMR vaccine gives children some protection against "severe" covid due to overlapping T-cells, but didn't check if it reproduced so wouldn't believe too much in that. (And I saw it on twitter from Dr Feigl-Ding who's an alarmist type.)

wutbrodo 5y ago
> Covid was never thought to be risky for children, especially under 5s, even when we didn't have a vaccine. This is likely correct, but > Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid. There's some indication (though no solid proof) that the jump in child hospitalizations is due to omicron being _more_ severe in children. The proposed mechanism is that its focus on the upper respiratory system instead of the lungs makes it less severe for us and worse for young children (in line with other childhood diseases that are generally taken somewhat seriously).

georgekv 5y ago

The biggest reason the under 5s vaccine is taking so long is that they don't suffer severe enough symptoms that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus. The same issue was there with the 5-11s but pharma, CDC, & FDA just glossed over that to approve the vaccines.

dataflow 5y ago
> that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus I think you meant to type 'vaccine'
throw6622 5y ago
The success we’re talking about was an analytical measurement of the antigen response in the body. It wasn’t lack of symptoms which ruled that phase a failure.
- Sparyjerry 5y ago
  That is incorrect, the decision making numbers used to test vaccine effectiveness having nothing to do with lab antigen numbers, they are based on how much symptomatic illness is avoided. All of the results such as as 95%-96% efficacy for Phizer and Moderna and 66% for J&J are based on the % reduction of symptomatic illness only. Not the reduction in actual illness or based on lab tests of antigen response.
  - hammock 5y ago
    I believe you are incorrect. What you say was true for the initial adult trials but many recommendations for boosters and lower age groups have been based on antibody response, not clinical outcomes.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Correct or incorrect is sort of irrelevant, because it's a problem itself if they aren't including severity of symptoms in the study. If they are ignoring symptoms to approve a vaccine who's primary remaining benefit is ... reducing severity of symptoms ... then how exactly has the trial proved anything? Since antibodies are no longer a reliable indicator of immunity or of preventing transmission, then reduced severity is the primary remaining benefit. Ideally they'd be looking at a cumulative risk/prevention assessment, but I don't see how they do that while excluding observed symptoms. If they are using antibody levels as a proxy for this when they could just ... directly observe symptoms... then there would be a bigger problem with the study than just a failure to show sufficient efficacy.

analog31 5y ago

Going further, we've moved on from the un-vaccinated in general. My problem is that even though I live in a bubble with 100% vaccination rate among my relatives and friends (most of our kids are older), I can't quite make peace with just letting the un-vax'd kill one another off. And there seems to be no middle ground.

mythrwy 5y ago
I'm curious where you get this information from. The unvaxxed won't be killing off each other at a rate much (if any) higher then the vaxed and this is clear as day right now. Numbers. What is it about this disease that is causing otherwise intelligent people to step into this reality of alternate (and untrue) facts? Even US supreme court justices. I don't mean this as an attack, it's just I don't get it.
- crakhamster01 5y ago
  Not that I agree with the parent comment's sentiment, but from the article: > Preliminary state data suggest that more than 90 percent of today’s deaths are still among unvaccinated people. Source they provided: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status.aspx https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-sta... From the numbers, it seems fairly clear that this virus is much more likely to cause death amongst the unvaccinated - unless I'm misinterpreting.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Do you know what the death rate is today, among either group (vaccinated or unvaccinated)? Your link is pre-omicron, by the way.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145-countries https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145...

s5300 5y ago

I also like the fact that nobody seems to be concerned with the possible effects this virus could have long-term on the developmental growth of a child under 5… I think I would be much more concerned about that than the symptoms of the initial infection itself. & for those who want to go “buhh we don’t know how duh vaccine will effect their developmental growth either” - I don’t have much to say to you other than I wish you had an education…

Auracle 5y ago
Would those effects be any different than what happens with the seemingly never ending viruses children already contract?
adamiscool8 5y ago
You don't think the accumulation of lipid nanoparticles from what might be annual vaccinations could impact developmental growth in children? We have decades of research on Coronaviridae even if COVID-19 is a bit different, but we have basically nothing on LNP.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

It boils down to risk v benefits. The under 5s have been relatively very low risk. If a jab can't out do that then there's no room to move forward with that idea. Omincron appears to be even less powerful, less of a threat. Those odds make the current jabs even less likely to be approved.