4 ms·

> This is why my very first comment called out your misleading comparison of flu deaths before mitigations vs. Covid deaths after mitigations. We are talking a

> This is why my very first comment called out your misleading comparison of flu deaths before mitigations vs. Covid deaths after mitigations. We are talking about how severe covid is for children. A comparison to a normal flu year is very relevant, because people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1? Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents. But that is not a way to live and not worth the reward in mitigating a low risk. > We could expect the number of pediatric Covid deaths to be higher still without those mitigations. A lot of kids already had covid due to how infectious it is. How much more severe than 400 deaths amongst 73 million US kids over 1.5 years do you claim it would be and on what grounds? 20 or 20k more deaths? Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown. How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid?

lern_too_spel 5y ago
> people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. People in a normal year vaccinate children against the flu. > When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1? When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. > Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents. That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. > Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown. Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-cause-of-myocarditis-in-children-experts-offer-guidance https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-... https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-rare-condition/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-ra... > long term risks are unknown They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. > How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid? Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel, which concluded unanimously that vaccinating kids is better than letting them contract Covid.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  > They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. Quote from the scientist in [1] showing you are wrong on long term effects: "One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. " Reproductive damage would also only show up once the kids grow up and try to have kids. Cancers other than the one in the quote also take a while to develop. The scientists that wrote [1] are concerned about long term adverse effects as well as the short term we know: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a dept chair > What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. The pre-print article below [2] is backed up by solid data that observes for young men, the risk of myocarditis is greater with the mRNA vaccines than from natural infection. > When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. According to this [3] nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from? > That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. For Polio this makes sense as the reward is higher than risk, but low pediatric covid risk coupled with so much risk and uncertainty around the mRNA gene therapy vaccines makes the reward not worth it. Plus, it seems like the vaccines are ineffective against new variants such as omicron and wears off pretty fast. Boosters have not worked for variants so far, which is especially clear in highly boosted Israel and Singapore. Some hope further boosters will solve the vaccine effectivenes, but "European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible" [4]. So again, risk vs reward is off and part of the damage would only show up long-term (and being immuno compromised is no fun). [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-brakes-on-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccination/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-br... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-bo...

lern_too_spel 5y ago

> people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. People in a normal year vaccinate children against the flu. > When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1? When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. > Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents. That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. > Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown. Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-cause-of-myocarditis-in-children-experts-offer-guidance https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-... https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-rare-condition/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-ra... > long term risks are unknown They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. > How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid? Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel, which concluded unanimously that vaccinating kids is better than letting them contract Covid.

asabjorn 5y ago
> They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. Quote from the scientist in [1] showing you are wrong on long term effects: "One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. " Reproductive damage would also only show up once the kids grow up and try to have kids. Cancers other than the one in the quote also take a while to develop. The scientists that wrote [1] are concerned about long term adverse effects as well as the short term we know: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a dept chair > What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine. The pre-print article below [2] is backed up by solid data that observes for young men, the risk of myocarditis is greater with the mRNA vaccines than from natural infection. > When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations. You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. According to this [3] nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from? > That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on. For Polio this makes sense as the reward is higher than risk, but low pediatric covid risk coupled with so much risk and uncertainty around the mRNA gene therapy vaccines makes the reward not worth it. Plus, it seems like the vaccines are ineffective against new variants such as omicron and wears off pretty fast. Boosters have not worked for variants so far, which is especially clear in highly boosted Israel and Singapore. Some hope further boosters will solve the vaccine effectivenes, but "European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible" [4]. So again, risk vs reward is off and part of the damage would only show up long-term (and being immuno compromised is no fun). [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-brakes-on-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccination/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-br... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-bo...