12 ms·

>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 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. How does anyone convince themselves that this is actually a problem? Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it. What remaining benefit are people so eager to confer upon their toddlers?

notch656a 5y ago
Well Virtue with a capital 'V' is one big one! And of course they're an excellent source of revenue for Pfizer et al. You wouldn't want to risk it would you? -- writing this while my toddler is banished from daycare for 10 days because a single kid there tested positive.
- dpark 5y ago
  It’s not virtue signaling to be terrified for your children’s health. It might not be rational but it should be perfectly understandable.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Terror is rarely coincident with clear decision making. Hopefully it's transient, soon followed by calm risk-benefit analysis.
chithanh 5y ago
Vaccines still lower disease severity. Also vaccines reduce risk of some post-acute COVID disorders like MIS-C (which can result even from asymptomatic COVID). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease that has long term consequences which we are still learning about. Diabetes hit the news recently in the US, but it is actually been known for a while in other countries. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/e170/35903/New-Onset-Type-1-Diabetes-in-Children-During-COVID https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/e170/35903/N... (UK) https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-2020-321220.abstract https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-20... (Finland) If that wasn't bad enough, diseases that are associated with T1D like celiac disease are on the rise, and show stronger association in COVID patients: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16173 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16173
- notch656a 5y ago
  < https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm The study you cite specifically excludes those under 5.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >Vaccines still lower disease severity. Not for kids under 5. That's why it's not approved. >And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease Breakthrough cases are so common now that the media refuses to use the term anymore. That (lack-of) "preventing-infection" efficacy is baked into the <5 study that showed no benefit. >that has long term consequences which we are still learning about. Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts.
  - cdjk 5y ago
    >>Vaccines still lower disease severity. >Not for kids under 5. That's why it's not approved. Wrong. Per the Pfizer press release [0], the immunogenicity analysis of the trial failed in children ages 2 to 4, but succeeded in children ages six months to two years. Given the small dose (3ug) in that study cohort, there was probably not enough rna in the vaccine for the 2-4 age group to show any effect. >Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts. The risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine is about 100-150 in 5 million [1]. The risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19 is about 150 in 100,000 [2]. I know I'm picking the vaccine for my child. [0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-provide-update-ongoing-studies-covid-19 https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm edited for typos.
    - herbst 5y ago
s5300 5y ago
Having your children’s lungs scarred to 20% function and not getting to realize it’s even happened until they start a sport or something doesn’t sound fun to me, perhaps that’s why.
- dpark 5y ago
  Citation please. What children had this happened to? You can’t throw out fear mongering claims about terrible outcomes with no data. Also, are you aware that children sometimes die from RSV and even the common cold? The problem COVID vaccines for kids are facing is that the problems from COVID in that age are so infrequent that they are essentially in the noise. I think the very young child (<18 months) is at higher risk, though.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The entire point is that the vaccine didn't improve the risk profile for kids under 5. Which means that scenario playing in your head is just as likely to happen (or more likely, not happen) whether your children are vaccinated or not.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it. The unvaccinated get COVID 400% more than the vaccinated, and the unvaccinated die from COVID 1,200% more than the vaccinated[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
- robocat 5y ago
  This thread is about children under 5. It is pointless to quote rates without their context (country, age, virus strain, month, etcetera).
  - boogies 5y ago
    Case in point: fully vaccinated boys without medical comorbidities in the US between ages 12 and 17 from January to June 2021 got myocarditis at 370–610% (ages 12–15) / 210–350% (12–17) higher rates than their risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. (Edit: forgot the source :P) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
    - scionthefly 5y ago
      I have wondered how much of statistics like this are due to the level of observation. Post vaxx kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: Let's check you for this myocarditis thing I've read about. Pre-2020 kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: You're probably fine.
- jopython 5y ago
  That still doesn't disprove the fact, that the 'Vaccine' no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    It doesn't do as good a job as it used to, but we never had a vaccine that was 100% effective at doing either of those things. It's always been a numbers game where vaccines simply increased the odds in your favor. Before delta the vaccines gave a huge boost to your odds of not catching covid at all, but now with omicron vaccines only provide a small boost. Even now it's still better to use vaccines to increase your changes against catching the virus even though the vaccines are most effective at preventing death and hospitalization.
lttlrck 5y ago
> Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it. The vaccines never stopped catching or transmission... they lessen the chances of you developing severe symptoms, your immune system still has to work.
- autoexec 5y ago
  Vaccines were more effective at preventing infection, but their effectiveness in that area has declined with newer variants. Lessening the length and severity of symptoms also plays some role in reducing transmission since coughing, sneezing, and runny noses are a great way to spew virus into the world around you. Although I hope we will see vaccines that do a better job at preventing infection and transmission the benefits we're getting from them right now are enough that everyone who can should be vaccinated and boosted as needed to maintain those benefits.

notch656a 5y ago

Well Virtue with a capital 'V' is one big one! And of course they're an excellent source of revenue for Pfizer et al. You wouldn't want to risk it would you? -- writing this while my toddler is banished from daycare for 10 days because a single kid there tested positive.

dpark 5y ago
It’s not virtue signaling to be terrified for your children’s health. It might not be rational but it should be perfectly understandable.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Terror is rarely coincident with clear decision making. Hopefully it's transient, soon followed by calm risk-benefit analysis.

chithanh 5y ago

Vaccines still lower disease severity. Also vaccines reduce risk of some post-acute COVID disorders like MIS-C (which can result even from asymptomatic COVID). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease that has long term consequences which we are still learning about. Diabetes hit the news recently in the US, but it is actually been known for a while in other countries. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/e170/35903/New-Onset-Type-1-Diabetes-in-Children-During-COVID https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/e170/35903/N... (UK) https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-2020-321220.abstract https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-20... (Finland) If that wasn't bad enough, diseases that are associated with T1D like celiac disease are on the rise, and show stronger association in COVID patients: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16173 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16173

notch656a 5y ago
< https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm The study you cite specifically excludes those under 5.
beerandt 5y ago
>Vaccines still lower disease severity. Not for kids under 5. That's why it's not approved. >And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease Breakthrough cases are so common now that the media refuses to use the term anymore. That (lack-of) "preventing-infection" efficacy is baked into the <5 study that showed no benefit. >that has long term consequences which we are still learning about. Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts.
- cdjk 5y ago
  >>Vaccines still lower disease severity. >Not for kids under 5. That's why it's not approved. Wrong. Per the Pfizer press release [0], the immunogenicity analysis of the trial failed in children ages 2 to 4, but succeeded in children ages six months to two years. Given the small dose (3ug) in that study cohort, there was probably not enough rna in the vaccine for the 2-4 age group to show any effect. >Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts. The risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine is about 100-150 in 5 million [1]. The risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19 is about 150 in 100,000 [2]. I know I'm picking the vaccine for my child. [0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-provide-update-ongoing-studies-covid-19 https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm edited for typos.
  - herbst 5y ago

s5300 5y ago

Having your children’s lungs scarred to 20% function and not getting to realize it’s even happened until they start a sport or something doesn’t sound fun to me, perhaps that’s why.

dpark 5y ago
Citation please. What children had this happened to? You can’t throw out fear mongering claims about terrible outcomes with no data. Also, are you aware that children sometimes die from RSV and even the common cold? The problem COVID vaccines for kids are facing is that the problems from COVID in that age are so infrequent that they are essentially in the noise. I think the very young child (<18 months) is at higher risk, though.
beerandt 5y ago
The entire point is that the vaccine didn't improve the risk profile for kids under 5. Which means that scenario playing in your head is just as likely to happen (or more likely, not happen) whether your children are vaccinated or not.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it. The unvaccinated get COVID 400% more than the vaccinated, and the unvaccinated die from COVID 1,200% more than the vaccinated[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

robocat 5y ago
This thread is about children under 5. It is pointless to quote rates without their context (country, age, virus strain, month, etcetera).
- boogies 5y ago
  Case in point: fully vaccinated boys without medical comorbidities in the US between ages 12 and 17 from January to June 2021 got myocarditis at 370–610% (ages 12–15) / 210–350% (12–17) higher rates than their risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. (Edit: forgot the source :P) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
  - scionthefly 5y ago
    I have wondered how much of statistics like this are due to the level of observation. Post vaxx kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: Let's check you for this myocarditis thing I've read about. Pre-2020 kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: You're probably fine.
jopython 5y ago
That still doesn't disprove the fact, that the 'Vaccine' no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it.
- autoexec 5y ago
  It doesn't do as good a job as it used to, but we never had a vaccine that was 100% effective at doing either of those things. It's always been a numbers game where vaccines simply increased the odds in your favor. Before delta the vaccines gave a huge boost to your odds of not catching covid at all, but now with omicron vaccines only provide a small boost. Even now it's still better to use vaccines to increase your changes against catching the virus even though the vaccines are most effective at preventing death and hospitalization.

lttlrck 5y ago

> Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it. The vaccines never stopped catching or transmission... they lessen the chances of you developing severe symptoms, your immune system still has to work.

autoexec 5y ago
Vaccines were more effective at preventing infection, but their effectiveness in that area has declined with newer variants. Lessening the length and severity of symptoms also plays some role in reducing transmission since coughing, sneezing, and runny noses are a great way to spew virus into the world around you. Although I hope we will see vaccines that do a better job at preventing infection and transmission the benefits we're getting from them right now are enough that everyone who can should be vaccinated and boosted as needed to maintain those benefits.