3 ms·

> You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. Pediatrics covers tee

> You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. Pediatrics covers teens. You clearly value a political process higher than the scientific method when you don’t distrust a vaccine approval entity that cut scientific advisory committees, cut required steps from the process, ignore extremely elevated myocarditis cases amongst boys etc In what seem politically instead of scientifically motivated you invent hypothesis such as “ 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.” which the best science indicate is wrong for covid. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... You are both severely overestimating how much myocarditis covid gives and underestimating how irregular the vaxx myocarditis numbers are. These seem designed to fit your motivated reasoning that the mitigations worked as desired. > This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that? According to this nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid, so you are severely overestimating the effectiveness of the mitigations. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 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. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from in a population when 1/3 already had the virus by end of 2020, way before mid 2021 that the 400 deaths cover?

asabjorn 5y ago
To add detail of the parents motivated reasoning. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means "flu as the one officially detected in 2020 instead of the around 200 that is normal" it's disingenuous as you need to compare to normal flu death numbers of time (we seem to be going back to normal official flu numbers). Unmitigated covid had pediatric deaths at the level of the normal flu, and the heuristic here is that people are not worried about the flu for healthy kids. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means relative to the normal flu, around 200, (s)he is claiming at least 20k+ deaths are mitigated despite us only seeing 400 pediatric covid deaths over 1.5 years after already by the end of 2020 1/3 of the american population had covid. The parent may be threading this needle by severely underestimating how many had covid. This kind of thinking is used to argue for it being a-ok that the FDA blatantly break vaccine approval process standards because of a pediatric severity that is manufactured. And this is for vaccines we know will be mandated or taken without informed consent, vaccines that have known to ruin lives or kill otherwise healthy children while it doesn't even work well for omicron. Maybe the parent is caught up in the mass transformation? A lot of otherwise smart people has been scared into this state.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
You said, "the FDA science advisory panel rejected vaccine for kids." It did not. It unanimously approved the vaccine for kids. You said the PCR test confuses the flu with Covid. It never did. You said the flu caused 400 child deaths in 2020. It did not. I'm tired of correcting you, especially because you never admit your mistakes. Instead of considering the evidence, you have chosen a belief, and then you misread articles to fit your beliefs. I will no longer try to correct you because you are not interested in facts. Good luck.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  "Child" is common parlance for pediatric, a teenager is both a child and pediatric, and the pediatric covid death number includes teens. Also, you keep not addressing why it’s safe or scientifically credible for the FDA to break long-standing vaccine approval processes. The cited CDC source document said they certified a new covid test because it unlike the decertified one can distinguish influenza from covid. Sometimes I ask myself if the FDA and CDC credibility died with covid, or because of covid. Likewise with my fellow acadmics that has failed to defend the scientific method and instead defend "Science" administrative institutional processes even after obvious corruption that make them unscientific. To make matters worse administrative institutional representatives often obviously misrepresent the core document, contributing to misinformation for political aims and profit. E.g. making it seem like approved vaxx is injected while approval doc reissue Emergency Use Authorization that has a liability shield and only EUA vaxx is injected (see FDA approval page 3 [1]). People that defend health and science organizations that break the scientific method as well as best practices, all while having revolving doors with those they regulate, are enablers. It's like living in a house infected with termites with people that ignore the signs. Without you guys defending them in forums like this their bullshit would be much harder to pull off, and we could have nice things such as a healthy scientific discourse and probably many fewer covid deaths. Many like myself will pry science back out of "Science" hands, because it's annoying to get political answers to scientific questions. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

asabjorn 5y ago

To add detail of the parents motivated reasoning. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means "flu as the one officially detected in 2020 instead of the around 200 that is normal" it's disingenuous as you need to compare to normal flu death numbers of time (we seem to be going back to normal official flu numbers). Unmitigated covid had pediatric deaths at the level of the normal flu, and the heuristic here is that people are not worried about the flu for healthy kids. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means relative to the normal flu, around 200, (s)he is claiming at least 20k+ deaths are mitigated despite us only seeing 400 pediatric covid deaths over 1.5 years after already by the end of 2020 1/3 of the american population had covid. The parent may be threading this needle by severely underestimating how many had covid. This kind of thinking is used to argue for it being a-ok that the FDA blatantly break vaccine approval process standards because of a pediatric severity that is manufactured. And this is for vaccines we know will be mandated or taken without informed consent, vaccines that have known to ruin lives or kill otherwise healthy children while it doesn't even work well for omicron. Maybe the parent is caught up in the mass transformation? A lot of otherwise smart people has been scared into this state.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

You said, "the FDA science advisory panel rejected vaccine for kids." It did not. It unanimously approved the vaccine for kids. You said the PCR test confuses the flu with Covid. It never did. You said the flu caused 400 child deaths in 2020. It did not. I'm tired of correcting you, especially because you never admit your mistakes. Instead of considering the evidence, you have chosen a belief, and then you misread articles to fit your beliefs. I will no longer try to correct you because you are not interested in facts. Good luck.

asabjorn 5y ago
"Child" is common parlance for pediatric, a teenager is both a child and pediatric, and the pediatric covid death number includes teens. Also, you keep not addressing why it’s safe or scientifically credible for the FDA to break long-standing vaccine approval processes. The cited CDC source document said they certified a new covid test because it unlike the decertified one can distinguish influenza from covid. Sometimes I ask myself if the FDA and CDC credibility died with covid, or because of covid. Likewise with my fellow acadmics that has failed to defend the scientific method and instead defend "Science" administrative institutional processes even after obvious corruption that make them unscientific. To make matters worse administrative institutional representatives often obviously misrepresent the core document, contributing to misinformation for political aims and profit. E.g. making it seem like approved vaxx is injected while approval doc reissue Emergency Use Authorization that has a liability shield and only EUA vaxx is injected (see FDA approval page 3 [1]). People that defend health and science organizations that break the scientific method as well as best practices, all while having revolving doors with those they regulate, are enablers. It's like living in a house infected with termites with people that ignore the signs. Without you guys defending them in forums like this their bullshit would be much harder to pull off, and we could have nice things such as a healthy scientific discourse and probably many fewer covid deaths. Many like myself will pry science back out of "Science" hands, because it's annoying to get political answers to scientific questions. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download