3 ms·

A tiny fraction of infants react to infant vaccinations. But the harm those children experience is a infintesimal fraction of the harm all children would feel

by Sabinus 3mo ago

A tiny fraction of infants react to infant vaccinations. But the harm those children experience is a infintesimal fraction of the harm all children would feel if there were no infant vaccinations. It's a trade off but it's one that must be made. The parents whose child died did the best thing they could do. Until we can screen for the infants that will react, vaccinations are the best choice.

zoul 3mo ago
They did the best for society, not for their child. Yes, vaccines are the best choice, there is no doubt about that. But the society in question must take much better care of those who sacrifice so much for the whole.
- Sabinus 3mo ago
  No, they did the best for their child. They had no way of knowing their child would react before they gave the vaccine. The harms and risks of illness prevented by vaccination are far greater than the harms and the risks of adverse reaction. Herd immunity arguments can make that calculation more fuzzy but the herd can't tolerate many people opting out and still give group cover. So after a certain amount of people, choosing not to vaccinate is seriously risking illness. Society is built to handle those types of collective action problems. The moral case is still clear IMO.
qsera 3mo ago
> it's a trade off but it's one that must be made. It is a trade off that is fair to the individual and to the society IF the society live up to its end of the bargain and had come up with a method of producing the vaccines without the profit maxxing incentive.
- Sabinus 3mo ago
  Well regulated markets are extremely productive. If there is another country on Earth that produces better vaccines via a better system I'm all ears but this sounds like unrealistic DemSoc complaining to me. Expand Medicare widely. Make private insurance extremely optional. The other Western democracies seem to manage this pretty well.
  - qsera 3mo ago
    I am not even in US. And what I said is in a global context.
idontwantthis 3mo ago
It's a false trade off because without vaccines, the kids that would have died from vaccines are still in danger!
- logifail 3mo ago
  > the kids that would have died from vaccines are still in danger Except that we knew by May 2020 (possibly even earlier) that the data showed that the young and otherwise healthy were at extraordinarily low risk from Covid. I still recall a conversation with child#2 after one of his school friends was at home quarantining after testing positive for Covid. I asked my son if he knew if his friend was feeling better... "Daddy, he's not poorly, he's just got Covid".
  - teamonkey 3mo ago
    Kids spread the virus, whether they’re at risk of dying or not. Vaccines reduce the chance of them spreading it by reducing the symptoms and the time that they they’re infectious. The main benefit of vaccines is that they reduce the transmission of disease. This aspect saves more lives than individual protection.
    - logifail 3mo ago
      > Vaccines reduce the chance of them spreading it [..] "Citation needed"... Covid vaccination did not reliably or durably block SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially after Omicron and as immunity waned. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39971395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39971395/ The overall VE [Vaccine Effectiveness] of the complete primary series against infection with any SARS-CoV-2 variant was 70.7%. VE was lower for Omicron, at 26.1%, than for pre-Omicron strains, at 77.0%. Over time, VE against infection by any variant decreased from 68.9% to 38.9% after 6 months.
      - defrost 3mo ago
        Leaving aside the linked study is looking at vaccine effectiveness WRT infection rather than transmission, ... Low effectiveness still agrees with the point made above about reducing chances of spread and transmission. A reduction is still a reduction, even if is not a 100% total and full stop.
logifail 3mo ago
> It's a trade off but it's one that must be made At the latest by May 2020, we knew that Covid risk was extremely stratified by age and underlying health conditions. To be very clear: this does not mean the virus was harmless to everyone else, but treating the population as if risk were evenly distributed was bad analysis, and policy built on that assumption was deeply flawed. What I would have wanted was a more honest debate about how to protect the old, the frail, and those with major risk factors while also minimising the social, educational, economic, and indirect medical harms caused by restrictions. Yes, that is hard! Policy is supposed to deal with hard problems, not pretend that trade-offs disappear because they are uncomfortable. Instead, much of the public discussion collapsed into a useless binary: "lock down harder and longer" versus "let it rip". With hindsight, both look far too crude for the actual problem we faced.
blub 3mo ago
The Covid vaccine was not recommended in Germany and other EU countries for children. The risk of the vaccine was higher than the benefit for them. It think the guidance was more nuanced for teens, but for kids it was very clear. The vaxmaxxer vs. antivaxxer - like most culture wars - is a US phenomenon.

by Sabinus 3mo ago

zoul 3mo ago

They did the best for society, not for their child. Yes, vaccines are the best choice, there is no doubt about that. But the society in question must take much better care of those who sacrifice so much for the whole.

Sabinus 3mo ago
No, they did the best for their child. They had no way of knowing their child would react before they gave the vaccine. The harms and risks of illness prevented by vaccination are far greater than the harms and the risks of adverse reaction. Herd immunity arguments can make that calculation more fuzzy but the herd can't tolerate many people opting out and still give group cover. So after a certain amount of people, choosing not to vaccinate is seriously risking illness. Society is built to handle those types of collective action problems. The moral case is still clear IMO.

qsera 3mo ago

> it's a trade off but it's one that must be made. It is a trade off that is fair to the individual and to the society IF the society live up to its end of the bargain and had come up with a method of producing the vaccines without the profit maxxing incentive.

Sabinus 3mo ago
Well regulated markets are extremely productive. If there is another country on Earth that produces better vaccines via a better system I'm all ears but this sounds like unrealistic DemSoc complaining to me. Expand Medicare widely. Make private insurance extremely optional. The other Western democracies seem to manage this pretty well.
- qsera 3mo ago
  I am not even in US. And what I said is in a global context.

idontwantthis 3mo ago

It's a false trade off because without vaccines, the kids that would have died from vaccines are still in danger!

logifail 3mo ago
> the kids that would have died from vaccines are still in danger Except that we knew by May 2020 (possibly even earlier) that the data showed that the young and otherwise healthy were at extraordinarily low risk from Covid. I still recall a conversation with child#2 after one of his school friends was at home quarantining after testing positive for Covid. I asked my son if he knew if his friend was feeling better... "Daddy, he's not poorly, he's just got Covid".
- teamonkey 3mo ago
  Kids spread the virus, whether they’re at risk of dying or not. Vaccines reduce the chance of them spreading it by reducing the symptoms and the time that they they’re infectious. The main benefit of vaccines is that they reduce the transmission of disease. This aspect saves more lives than individual protection.
  - logifail 3mo ago
    > Vaccines reduce the chance of them spreading it [..] "Citation needed"... Covid vaccination did not reliably or durably block SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially after Omicron and as immunity waned. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39971395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39971395/ The overall VE [Vaccine Effectiveness] of the complete primary series against infection with any SARS-CoV-2 variant was 70.7%. VE was lower for Omicron, at 26.1%, than for pre-Omicron strains, at 77.0%. Over time, VE against infection by any variant decreased from 68.9% to 38.9% after 6 months.
    - defrost 3mo ago
      Leaving aside the linked study is looking at vaccine effectiveness WRT infection rather than transmission, ... Low effectiveness still agrees with the point made above about reducing chances of spread and transmission. A reduction is still a reduction, even if is not a 100% total and full stop.

logifail 3mo ago

> It's a trade off but it's one that must be made At the latest by May 2020, we knew that Covid risk was extremely stratified by age and underlying health conditions. To be very clear: this does not mean the virus was harmless to everyone else, but treating the population as if risk were evenly distributed was bad analysis, and policy built on that assumption was deeply flawed. What I would have wanted was a more honest debate about how to protect the old, the frail, and those with major risk factors while also minimising the social, educational, economic, and indirect medical harms caused by restrictions. Yes, that is hard! Policy is supposed to deal with hard problems, not pretend that trade-offs disappear because they are uncomfortable. Instead, much of the public discussion collapsed into a useless binary: "lock down harder and longer" versus "let it rip". With hindsight, both look far too crude for the actual problem we faced.

blub 3mo ago

The Covid vaccine was not recommended in Germany and other EU countries for children. The risk of the vaccine was higher than the benefit for them. It think the guidance was more nuanced for teens, but for kids it was very clear. The vaxmaxxer vs. antivaxxer - like most culture wars - is a US phenomenon.