7 ms·
The arguments they make regarding children's vaccines don't make much sense to me. The end target for the pediatric vaccine trials was immunobridging, which has
by strangeloops85 4y ago
The arguments they make regarding children's vaccines don't make much sense to me. The end target for the pediatric vaccine trials was immunobridging, which has widely been used for other common childhood vaccines. Are they arguing against those as well? If so, that goes against a widely accepted and validated strategy to bridge adult vaccines down to pediatric age groups. Efficacy is a very complicated thing to measure as variants change. The symptomatic disease efficacy seen for the pediatric trials compare well vs. Omicron to what we've seen for adults, so it's all consistent and makes sense. Also, would they argue against the annual flu shots? We don't even run efficacy trials for those every year for different strain compositions.
Also, a bit of perspective: we vaccinate children for many illnesses that would result in comparatively "small" numbers of pediatric deaths (lower than Covid even!). The reason is that even rare pediatric deaths, if preventable, are terrible given the life-years lost. And there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths by our modern standards for pediatric infectious diseases. If Covid only affected kids, the absolute numbers of deaths would be a very worrisome thing. Second, the possibility of long-term complications from even non-fatal illnesses. For pediatric COVID, MIS-C and potential super antigen links to the recent spread of pediatric hepatitis are more than sufficient to meet that bar.
Finally - there was no safety signal seen in the 5-12 year old pediatric vaccines that have been given out to millions for ~year already, and no signal in the under 5 trials as well. The myocarditis risk primarily seems in teenage and older groups and linked to puberty/adolescent hormones.
There may be contrarian voices in the FDA and CDC as there will be in any large organization. But to believe their voices over the consensus requires a heavy dose of motivated reasoning and not engaging with some basic facts about the goals of pediatric vaccines and the ways vaccine trials work. There's a reason every pediatrician parent I know was first in line to get their kids vaccinated.
- darkerside 4y ago> We don't even run efficacy trials for those every year for different strain compositions. Now I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind pediatric flu shots? Is it dangerous to the child?
- Vecr 4y agoMight be dangerous, might not be. It changes with the antigen and if the vaccine is adjuvented (not a real word, but if it has an adjuvent in it, mostly done in a pandemic situation like 2009). The dose probably matters too, but I don't know much about that. Flu vaccines in the past have caused GBS, etc. permanent narcolepsy (no one uses that one anymore, but there might be something else that has the same issue). The whole thing is a fuzzy statistical risk calculation, so what's the risk of getting vaccinated vs the risk of not getting vaccinated. Nasal mist flu vaccines could be better for children, because it produces a better T-cell response and LAIV4 at least has no adjuvents.
- darkerside 4y agoI guess that wasn't clear but I meant to ask if the flu was dangerous for children.
- dredmorbius 4y agoThat information is readily available from reliable sources: Children younger than 5 years old–especially those younger than 2– are at higher risk of developing serious flu-related complications. A flu vaccine offers the best defense against flu and its potentially serious consequences and also can reduce the spread of flu to others. Getting vaccinated against flu has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed work and school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm
- landemva 4y ago> there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths Let's see your numbers of <6 years and <8 etc. > If Covid only affected kids In all age groups, it affected children the least. 'In total, 540,305 people were tested for SARS-COV-2 and 129,704 (24.0%) were positive. In children aged <16 years, 35,200 tests were performed and 1408 (4.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19.1%–34.9% adults.' https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/12/1180 https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/12/1180
- n8henrie 4y agoI'm not too sure about the "your" part, but it looks like the CDC says 453 for 0-4y. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
- imperio59 4y agoDied WITH COVID, not OF COVID. Let's be clear about what they are counting. More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
- landemva 4y agoCDC says, 'Every year in the United States there are an estimated: 3,960* fatal unintentional drownings' https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html With enough amplification from drown child's noses some virus fragments might be found. But vaccines won't help with drowning or car crashes, which each kill more children.
- strangeloops85 4y agoWell if there was a vaccine that reduced the risk of dying from drowning I think you’d definitely want to add it to the childhood vaccination schedule. Again, death rate is not the only metric by which we decide what to vaccinate children for.
- cf141q5325 4y agoI fail to see how you could use your argument to vaccinate the ~75% who already have natural immunity. And even for the rest, becoming a severe covid case isnt a lottery. Risk groups are a very real thing.