8 ms·

It also seems like, in the absence of assurance of long-term safety, you would recommend the vaccine for at-risk groups only. It's known now that the risk to yo

It also seems like, in the absence of assurance of long-term safety, you would recommend the vaccine for at-risk groups only. It's known now that the risk to young people (under 19) is minimal: IFR < 3/1,000,000. And that was during the much more dangerous early strain of Covid-19, not the ones circulating now. Yet here we are in 2022 with a recommendation from the CDC to vaccinate ages 5 and up, regardless of health condition.

xracy 4y ago
It is wild to me that people look at a number like 3/1,000,000 and don't think wow, that's 1900 Children who could die from something we have a vaccine for, that actively prevents the cause. Also, can you imagine losing a child to something that was preventable? You can play numbers and statistics all day, but we're talking about children's lives. You're probably not a parent? But for reference, go find examples of people who are parents that have lost children to some cause, and see what they're doing now? I would bet 9/10 times they're trying to prevent that from happening to others.
- dwmbt 4y ago
  same. it's also interesting that many of the folks commenting are not likely to be in the most vulnerable group at risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine [0] -- that unfortunate category is one that i belong to. as a young man, i spoke about this risk nearly a year ago to the tee [1]. since then, i've also found out i am particularly vulnerable, as i had a history of heart issues as a young child (heart murmer -> arrhythmia). it will be nice to see more data available, but i don't regret any of the vaccines in the slightest. there are plenty of comments here that speak to the general age recommendation other countries have provided, but i have yet to see people connect the other MAJOR group of people that should, by all means, totally, 100% consider getting their nth vaccination -> anyone with a comorbidity! if you are a young man with diabetes, the risks you face from the vaccine vs a covid infection are no longer as murky. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480849 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221924#29223881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221924#29223881
- mach1ne 4y ago
  It's not a case where no children die if everyone takes the vaccine and 1900 children die if nobody does. There are numerous other variables at play, each of which contains some unknowns and affects quality of life or even the continuity of it. I can't say that I know what the currently best course of action for children is, but the problem is far from black and white.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  You are ignoring the parents that lost children due to the vaccine, or now have children with ongoing medical issues. Children are not dying from covid. So there is no need to vaccinate them unless they are in a high risk category. The NY Times reported "For children without a serious medical condition, the danger of severe Covid is so low as to be difficult to quantify."
  - xracy 4y ago
    "Children are not dying from covid." Is a strong claim. And it would be just as backed up as if I were to say "Children are not dying from covid vaccines."
- ckw 4y ago
  There are 5 reports of death following Covid-19 vaccination in VAERS for children 0.5-5, and ‘1.6 million US children ages 6 months-4 years have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine’ as of 11-2-22. This is 3.125 deaths per million, and VAERS notoriously undercounts. There are 31 reports of death following Covid-19 vaccination for children 5-12, and ‘10.9 million US children ages 5-11 have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine’ as of 11-2-22. This is 2.84 deaths per million. Again, VAERS notoriously undercounts. https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/ https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
  - xracy 4y ago
    EDIT: I wasn't kidding when I said I can play numbers and statistics all day. When you say "VAERS notoriously undercounts", I think you're probably referring to the flu vaccine (where we would have historical data), but I don't think it's fair to say that would be true for the Covid vaccine. Specifically because at the onset of this new vaccine, people are much more likely to report that a death happened after a covid vaccine. There is a segment of the population that has never trusted the covid vaccine, so they are a lot more likely to report a death after vaccination of a loved one. Also as the vaccine is new, there's probably a lot more data gathering around it because scientists would definitely like to know if the vaccine causes death. Lastly, it's an event you're much more likely to have talked to with your loved ones before you passed away, than with the flu vaccine. My family knows I got a covid vaccine. My family has no idea about my flu vaccine status. Lastly, and most importantly, the numbers for those are not intrinsically linked. There's not actually any implied causal link in any of those numbers "VAERS Covid/Flu Vaccine Reported Deaths by Days to Onset all Ages". They are all just correlated. If you want to look for a causal link you'd have to compare against the total number of people who got vaccines on that day. And then compare against total number of deaths for the whole population.
    - ckw 4y ago
      When I say VAERS notoriously undercounts, I’m referring to the literature on the subject. For example, the Harvard report Electronic Support for Public Health - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-sup...: Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative. See also ‘The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events’ https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.85.12.1706 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.85.12.... Regarding VAERS: Sensitivities ranged from 72% for poliomyelitis after the oral poliovirus vaccine to less than 1% for rash and thrombocytopenia after the MMR vaccine. Regarding your speculation that deaths associated with the Covid-19 vaccines are probably reported at rates higher than that of other vaccines: I have a hard time believing that the report rate is higher than poliomyelitis after the oral poliovirus vaccine which is itself underreported. And regarding the protestation that correlation does not imply causation, it’s not on me to prove that the treatment is harmful, and otherwise it’s safe and thus administered—-it’s on you to prove that it confers an all cause mortality benefit. I am aware of no evidence to suggest that such a benefit obtains in children, and suggest that this dearth of evidence explains the failure to approve the vaccines for children in many European countries.
- nradov 4y ago
  The COVID-19 fatality risk for children is very low overall (0.002% estimated by the CDC). Those deaths have almost all been in patients with severe pre-existing health conditions such as obesity. For pediatric patients without pre-existing conditions, the death rate is virtually zero. So from a public health perspective it's most important to focus vaccination campaigns on those at greatest risk. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052273 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052273 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fijpo.12920 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fijpo.12920 To be clear, I am not telling anyone to avoid vaccination for themselves or their children. Vaccination is a good option for the vast majority of patients. Talk to your doctor. And ironically, school closures and lockdowns during the pandemic actually increased the rate of childhood obesity. The purported "cure" was not only worse than the disease, it actually made the disease worse by placing children at greater risk. https://www.cureus.com/articles/107920-increased-incidence-of-obesity-in-children-and-adolescents-post-covid-19-pandemic-a-review-article https://www.cureus.com/articles/107920-increased-incidence-o...
- dekhn 4y ago
  You're trying to do "appeal to emotion" argument, doesn't work super well here.
  - xracy 4y ago
    If you want my "appeal to numbers" argument, you can see it all over this thread. It seems like I'm getting a continual -2 on votes for all of my arguments just cause I'm coming off as "pro-vaccine". So it doesn't actually seem to matter what appeals I make. Also though, I don't really believe I'm changing anyone's mind on this. I'm just inviting people consider the humanity of things like "child deaths". Which, is much easier to consider as a number than it is as an actual concept.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I have a couple kids (teens). I'm worried about many other things, not COVID; it's just far down on my list of things that I consider active risks to my children that I have the power to impact. I don't really have time to cross reference all your different comments, but when you post a comment that is just appeal to emotion, I tend to mention it.
      - xracy 4y ago
        <s> I mean, it's definitely the kind of good constructive criticism that really helps improve the discussion. </s> In all honesty, I will say that pointing out rhetorical styles is probably the least constructive internet discussion you can have. Mostly because even if you can point to a logical fallacy, doing so doesn't negate the underlying argument unless you can actually explain it.
        peteradio 4y ago
        Your logical fallacy is that those 1900 kids are indistinguishable from the other millions.
  - xracy 4y ago
    Also, brief note, that you might think you're an emotionless rational machine, but very few people actually respond well to that. So it's important to use everything in your rhetorical toolbox including appeals to emotion to try and convince the wide range of responses people might have.
- spfzero 4y ago
  I am a parent. It's not that I don't think some children should be vaccinated; some should. Overweight, diabetic, etc. We know where the risk is, and we know the vaccine reduces serious outcomes. It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to. Now if your argument is "what's the harm?, why not vaccinate everyone?" my answer would be we don't actually know what the harm might be to these kids later in life. No one does. Probably no harm, I guess? Maybe a 3/1,000,000 chance of harm? no one knows.
  - xracy 4y ago
    > It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to. Early on, the goal was to reach herd immunity while we still had vaccines that were fairly effective at reducing transmission against the variants we had had, before they mutated. But also, I don't know how familiar you are with gov't messaging. But the more widespread you make a message, the less nuanced you can make it. People at large don't take nuance very well, and people at large are bad at evaluating circumstances. So if you give them a message like "People over the age of 65 should get 3 doses, and people over 30 should get 2 doses, etc." You're going to end up with most of the people not knowing what to do. To add to that, you have people "doing their own research" who have no idea what the requirements for actual peer-reviewed research is, screaming from the rooftops that you can't trust anything coming out of anyone's mouth. And they will latch onto any piece of nuance and tear it to shreds. Now, I still think that American institutions have done a bad job communicating, but considering they were undermined at every step of the process, I'm inclined to believe that it's more reasonable for them to give a blanket across-the-board recommendation than it is to destroy their own goal by adding confusion of "nuanced recommendations".
    - spfzero 4y ago
      It does not need to be that nuanced. It's basically if you (think you might) have these X conditions, get vaccinated. You can give the detailed recommendations to doctors and other caregivers, and refer the public to them and the CDC website to check more in case they don't know.
      - 4y ago

xracy 4y ago

It is wild to me that people look at a number like 3/1,000,000 and don't think wow, that's 1900 Children who could die from something we have a vaccine for, that actively prevents the cause. Also, can you imagine losing a child to something that was preventable? You can play numbers and statistics all day, but we're talking about children's lives. You're probably not a parent? But for reference, go find examples of people who are parents that have lost children to some cause, and see what they're doing now? I would bet 9/10 times they're trying to prevent that from happening to others.

dwmbt 4y ago
same. it's also interesting that many of the folks commenting are not likely to be in the most vulnerable group at risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine [0] -- that unfortunate category is one that i belong to. as a young man, i spoke about this risk nearly a year ago to the tee [1]. since then, i've also found out i am particularly vulnerable, as i had a history of heart issues as a young child (heart murmer -> arrhythmia). it will be nice to see more data available, but i don't regret any of the vaccines in the slightest. there are plenty of comments here that speak to the general age recommendation other countries have provided, but i have yet to see people connect the other MAJOR group of people that should, by all means, totally, 100% consider getting their nth vaccination -> anyone with a comorbidity! if you are a young man with diabetes, the risks you face from the vaccine vs a covid infection are no longer as murky. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480849 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221924#29223881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221924#29223881
mach1ne 4y ago
It's not a case where no children die if everyone takes the vaccine and 1900 children die if nobody does. There are numerous other variables at play, each of which contains some unknowns and affects quality of life or even the continuity of it. I can't say that I know what the currently best course of action for children is, but the problem is far from black and white.
hitpointdrew 4y ago
You are ignoring the parents that lost children due to the vaccine, or now have children with ongoing medical issues. Children are not dying from covid. So there is no need to vaccinate them unless they are in a high risk category. The NY Times reported "For children without a serious medical condition, the danger of severe Covid is so low as to be difficult to quantify."
- xracy 4y ago
  "Children are not dying from covid." Is a strong claim. And it would be just as backed up as if I were to say "Children are not dying from covid vaccines."
ckw 4y ago
There are 5 reports of death following Covid-19 vaccination in VAERS for children 0.5-5, and ‘1.6 million US children ages 6 months-4 years have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine’ as of 11-2-22. This is 3.125 deaths per million, and VAERS notoriously undercounts. There are 31 reports of death following Covid-19 vaccination for children 5-12, and ‘10.9 million US children ages 5-11 have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine’ as of 11-2-22. This is 2.84 deaths per million. Again, VAERS notoriously undercounts. https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/ https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
- xracy 4y ago
  EDIT: I wasn't kidding when I said I can play numbers and statistics all day. When you say "VAERS notoriously undercounts", I think you're probably referring to the flu vaccine (where we would have historical data), but I don't think it's fair to say that would be true for the Covid vaccine. Specifically because at the onset of this new vaccine, people are much more likely to report that a death happened after a covid vaccine. There is a segment of the population that has never trusted the covid vaccine, so they are a lot more likely to report a death after vaccination of a loved one. Also as the vaccine is new, there's probably a lot more data gathering around it because scientists would definitely like to know if the vaccine causes death. Lastly, it's an event you're much more likely to have talked to with your loved ones before you passed away, than with the flu vaccine. My family knows I got a covid vaccine. My family has no idea about my flu vaccine status. Lastly, and most importantly, the numbers for those are not intrinsically linked. There's not actually any implied causal link in any of those numbers "VAERS Covid/Flu Vaccine Reported Deaths by Days to Onset all Ages". They are all just correlated. If you want to look for a causal link you'd have to compare against the total number of people who got vaccines on that day. And then compare against total number of deaths for the whole population.
  - ckw 4y ago
    When I say VAERS notoriously undercounts, I’m referring to the literature on the subject. For example, the Harvard report Electronic Support for Public Health - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-sup...: Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative. See also ‘The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events’ https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.85.12.1706 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.85.12.... Regarding VAERS: Sensitivities ranged from 72% for poliomyelitis after the oral poliovirus vaccine to less than 1% for rash and thrombocytopenia after the MMR vaccine. Regarding your speculation that deaths associated with the Covid-19 vaccines are probably reported at rates higher than that of other vaccines: I have a hard time believing that the report rate is higher than poliomyelitis after the oral poliovirus vaccine which is itself underreported. And regarding the protestation that correlation does not imply causation, it’s not on me to prove that the treatment is harmful, and otherwise it’s safe and thus administered—-it’s on you to prove that it confers an all cause mortality benefit. I am aware of no evidence to suggest that such a benefit obtains in children, and suggest that this dearth of evidence explains the failure to approve the vaccines for children in many European countries.
nradov 4y ago
The COVID-19 fatality risk for children is very low overall (0.002% estimated by the CDC). Those deaths have almost all been in patients with severe pre-existing health conditions such as obesity. For pediatric patients without pre-existing conditions, the death rate is virtually zero. So from a public health perspective it's most important to focus vaccination campaigns on those at greatest risk. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052273 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052273 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fijpo.12920 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fijpo.12920 To be clear, I am not telling anyone to avoid vaccination for themselves or their children. Vaccination is a good option for the vast majority of patients. Talk to your doctor. And ironically, school closures and lockdowns during the pandemic actually increased the rate of childhood obesity. The purported "cure" was not only worse than the disease, it actually made the disease worse by placing children at greater risk. https://www.cureus.com/articles/107920-increased-incidence-of-obesity-in-children-and-adolescents-post-covid-19-pandemic-a-review-article https://www.cureus.com/articles/107920-increased-incidence-o...
dekhn 4y ago
You're trying to do "appeal to emotion" argument, doesn't work super well here.
- xracy 4y ago
  If you want my "appeal to numbers" argument, you can see it all over this thread. It seems like I'm getting a continual -2 on votes for all of my arguments just cause I'm coming off as "pro-vaccine". So it doesn't actually seem to matter what appeals I make. Also though, I don't really believe I'm changing anyone's mind on this. I'm just inviting people consider the humanity of things like "child deaths". Which, is much easier to consider as a number than it is as an actual concept.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    I have a couple kids (teens). I'm worried about many other things, not COVID; it's just far down on my list of things that I consider active risks to my children that I have the power to impact. I don't really have time to cross reference all your different comments, but when you post a comment that is just appeal to emotion, I tend to mention it.
    - xracy 4y ago
      <s> I mean, it's definitely the kind of good constructive criticism that really helps improve the discussion. </s> In all honesty, I will say that pointing out rhetorical styles is probably the least constructive internet discussion you can have. Mostly because even if you can point to a logical fallacy, doing so doesn't negate the underlying argument unless you can actually explain it.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        Your logical fallacy is that those 1900 kids are indistinguishable from the other millions.
- xracy 4y ago
  Also, brief note, that you might think you're an emotionless rational machine, but very few people actually respond well to that. So it's important to use everything in your rhetorical toolbox including appeals to emotion to try and convince the wide range of responses people might have.
spfzero 4y ago
I am a parent. It's not that I don't think some children should be vaccinated; some should. Overweight, diabetic, etc. We know where the risk is, and we know the vaccine reduces serious outcomes. It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to. Now if your argument is "what's the harm?, why not vaccinate everyone?" my answer would be we don't actually know what the harm might be to these kids later in life. No one does. Probably no harm, I guess? Maybe a 3/1,000,000 chance of harm? no one knows.
- xracy 4y ago
  > It's recommending it across-the-board that I object to. Early on, the goal was to reach herd immunity while we still had vaccines that were fairly effective at reducing transmission against the variants we had had, before they mutated. But also, I don't know how familiar you are with gov't messaging. But the more widespread you make a message, the less nuanced you can make it. People at large don't take nuance very well, and people at large are bad at evaluating circumstances. So if you give them a message like "People over the age of 65 should get 3 doses, and people over 30 should get 2 doses, etc." You're going to end up with most of the people not knowing what to do. To add to that, you have people "doing their own research" who have no idea what the requirements for actual peer-reviewed research is, screaming from the rooftops that you can't trust anything coming out of anyone's mouth. And they will latch onto any piece of nuance and tear it to shreds. Now, I still think that American institutions have done a bad job communicating, but considering they were undermined at every step of the process, I'm inclined to believe that it's more reasonable for them to give a blanket across-the-board recommendation than it is to destroy their own goal by adding confusion of "nuanced recommendations".
  - spfzero 4y ago
    It does not need to be that nuanced. It's basically if you (think you might) have these X conditions, get vaccinated. You can give the detailed recommendations to doctors and other caregivers, and refer the public to them and the CDC website to check more in case they don't know.
    - 4y ago