3 ms·

Speaking for myself and I think generally in my region of the US, we tend to think of “children” as the kids under 12. Kids 12 and over we consider “teens”. T

Speaking for myself and I think generally in my region of the US, we tend to think of “children” as the kids under 12. Kids 12 and over we consider “teens”. That’s how I read that comment, perhaps that is what the commenter meant.

eesmith 5y ago
Children's hospitals usually admit patients up to about 20. No Child Left Behind included high school students, who may be 18. US child pornography laws include 17 year olds. Setting those counter-examples aside - in the relevant interview we know Rogan said, quoting https://www.thewrap.com/joe-rogan-slammed-for-deeply-irresponsible-anti-vaccine-comments/ https://www.thewrap.com/joe-rogan-slammed-for-deeply-irrespo... : > “People are worried about them doing it for their children…. both my children got the virus. It was nothing,” he said. “I mean, I hate to say that if someone’s children died from this. I’m very sorry that that happened. I’m not in any way diminishing that. But I’m saying the personal experience that my children had with COVID was nothing. He appears to be using the term "children" to mean "minors who are not able to make medical decisions on their own." His oldest child is 12 years old, which is old enough that the Swedish health authority recommends she be vaccinated. And remember, this was immediately after saying that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise don't need to get vaccinated - again, counter to the recommendation of the Swedish health authority. I'll let icare_1er explain how the stance on the JRE matches the Sweden's so well that Joni Mitchell and others should correspondingly stop sales in Sweden. Because I just don't see it.
- kcplate 5y ago
  I merely explained a local colloquialism. I am vaccinated and boosted and no longer have minors that I have to make medical decisions for, but if I did I would be weighing all information on the subject available to me before I made a decision to vaccinate my children against Covid-19. The rate of severe disease in healthy children was already so low and—if I am being perfected honest—the fact that the pharma companies behind the vaccines in the US are completely indemnified against lawsuits arising from harm that their vaccines may do would be a big factor in my decision making. It’s one thing to take a risk with a newly developed medication with my own body, it’s quite another for me to take an unnecessary risk with a new medication with my children’s body.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    I merely pointed out that that interpretation doesn't seem correct. Since your definition of "children" is 11-and-younger, you appear to agree with the recommendation of Sweden's health authority to vaccinate all teens, and you appear to disagree with the recommendation mentioned on the JRE. While you may doubt the US medical system, does not the combined views of the rest of the world's medical systems provide a backstop significantly stronger than your and Rogan's non-expert opinion?
    - kcplate 5y ago
      I said what I said, If I needed to vaccinate my children I would want all information I can get available to me before I make the decision, pro, con, and otherwise. Since it’s a decision I don’t have to make, my opinion whether I agree with the US medical system, Sweden, or Joe Rogan doesn’t matter. However, it is undeniable that the manufacturers have indemnification against any harm their vaccines may cause. If the vaccines are statistically safe, the manufacturers don’t need indemnification. If they are not statistically safe, or if their safety is unknown…they do, otherwise they would not release the product. That fact has to be considered. These companies are making billions at zero risk to them. Healthcare providers have zero risk in the recommendation. Government has zero risk at recommendations. At this point the only person assuming any risk is the patient getting the shot. And if that patient is young and healthy and statistically unlikely to have severe disease from Covid that risk assessment is important, especially for a parent.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        But we aren't talking about you, and your extraordinary ability - far beyond mine! - to read and understand all of the information about every vaccine, medicine, and medical treatment your child might receive. Instead, we're talking about two musicians exercising their right of free association to no longer be affiliated with a company who hosts an interview show recommending medical treatment that is at odds with the medical advice of a large number of independent medical systems. And we're talking about the presumed hypocrisy of those musicians selling songs in Sweden based on the (IMO very wrong) assertion that the position presented in the JRE is the same as that of the Swedish medical authorities. But if you want to talk about you - what is your solution to the DTP issue that introduced the vaccine courts in the first place? And why do you think the adversarial court model is a better solution than the no-fault system we have?

eesmith 5y ago

Children's hospitals usually admit patients up to about 20. No Child Left Behind included high school students, who may be 18. US child pornography laws include 17 year olds. Setting those counter-examples aside - in the relevant interview we know Rogan said, quoting https://www.thewrap.com/joe-rogan-slammed-for-deeply-irresponsible-anti-vaccine-comments/ https://www.thewrap.com/joe-rogan-slammed-for-deeply-irrespo... : > “People are worried about them doing it for their children…. both my children got the virus. It was nothing,” he said. “I mean, I hate to say that if someone’s children died from this. I’m very sorry that that happened. I’m not in any way diminishing that. But I’m saying the personal experience that my children had with COVID was nothing. He appears to be using the term "children" to mean "minors who are not able to make medical decisions on their own." His oldest child is 12 years old, which is old enough that the Swedish health authority recommends she be vaccinated. And remember, this was immediately after saying that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise don't need to get vaccinated - again, counter to the recommendation of the Swedish health authority. I'll let icare_1er explain how the stance on the JRE matches the Sweden's so well that Joni Mitchell and others should correspondingly stop sales in Sweden. Because I just don't see it.

kcplate 5y ago
I merely explained a local colloquialism. I am vaccinated and boosted and no longer have minors that I have to make medical decisions for, but if I did I would be weighing all information on the subject available to me before I made a decision to vaccinate my children against Covid-19. The rate of severe disease in healthy children was already so low and—if I am being perfected honest—the fact that the pharma companies behind the vaccines in the US are completely indemnified against lawsuits arising from harm that their vaccines may do would be a big factor in my decision making. It’s one thing to take a risk with a newly developed medication with my own body, it’s quite another for me to take an unnecessary risk with a new medication with my children’s body.
- eesmith 5y ago
  I merely pointed out that that interpretation doesn't seem correct. Since your definition of "children" is 11-and-younger, you appear to agree with the recommendation of Sweden's health authority to vaccinate all teens, and you appear to disagree with the recommendation mentioned on the JRE. While you may doubt the US medical system, does not the combined views of the rest of the world's medical systems provide a backstop significantly stronger than your and Rogan's non-expert opinion?
  - kcplate 5y ago
    I said what I said, If I needed to vaccinate my children I would want all information I can get available to me before I make the decision, pro, con, and otherwise. Since it’s a decision I don’t have to make, my opinion whether I agree with the US medical system, Sweden, or Joe Rogan doesn’t matter. However, it is undeniable that the manufacturers have indemnification against any harm their vaccines may cause. If the vaccines are statistically safe, the manufacturers don’t need indemnification. If they are not statistically safe, or if their safety is unknown…they do, otherwise they would not release the product. That fact has to be considered. These companies are making billions at zero risk to them. Healthcare providers have zero risk in the recommendation. Government has zero risk at recommendations. At this point the only person assuming any risk is the patient getting the shot. And if that patient is young and healthy and statistically unlikely to have severe disease from Covid that risk assessment is important, especially for a parent.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      But we aren't talking about you, and your extraordinary ability - far beyond mine! - to read and understand all of the information about every vaccine, medicine, and medical treatment your child might receive. Instead, we're talking about two musicians exercising their right of free association to no longer be affiliated with a company who hosts an interview show recommending medical treatment that is at odds with the medical advice of a large number of independent medical systems. And we're talking about the presumed hypocrisy of those musicians selling songs in Sweden based on the (IMO very wrong) assertion that the position presented in the JRE is the same as that of the Swedish medical authorities. But if you want to talk about you - what is your solution to the DTP issue that introduced the vaccine courts in the first place? And why do you think the adversarial court model is a better solution than the no-fault system we have?