We are in a hysteria. We are injecting children with undertested substances that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them. Reporting of the harm is being suppressed in the media. This is a terrible situation and I hate to think about what the future holds.
The mrna have been in development for twenty years. They break down quickly and side effects are quite low statistically. Part of the reason they need frequent boosters.
I can't speak to the poster you're responding to, but I would consider both
"We are injecting children with undertested substances"
and
"that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them."
To fall pretty squarely into the category of nonsense given the amount of testing that's gone into these vaccines as well the fact that the CDC quite clearly considers them beneficial. At the very least such claims should require some sort of support.
Some may interpret the explicit shielding from legal liability of the vaccine manufacturers by the Federal government to be an acknowledgment that risks are high enough to require such protections. Else why implement the liability shield? And why set the standards for establishing harm to qualify for compensation from the Feds so much higher for COVID than for previous vaccine claims? Why the higher court costs and the shorter window to qualify? (NVICP vs. the COVID CICP)
The industry pretty clearly doesn’t want their money at risk from damages resulting from release of their COVID vaccine product. Following the money is often an insightful strategy in these complicated issues. It “cuts to the chase” and rarely leads to nonsense.
Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”.
And that’s OK if the vaccine is voluntary and you are a knowledgeable adult. You assess the benefits and risks and make your choice. And we can be grateful to the pharmas for their hard work in making the option of vaccines available.
Not so OK if you are a child and there is a government mandate. There was a neologism back in our day…Califascist. Seems applicable.
No it doesn't. That just shows that the manufacturers want to minimize their risk of being sued. Harm is shown by _studies_ looking at harm. The feds have looked at these studies and concluded that the vaccines are worth it. What do you have other than irrelevant arguments about legal liability?
Children are already the group least likely to be harmed by covid. Couple this with the data showing vaccines don’t prevent spread, but rather reduce symptoms in groups most affected, what is the point of doing this to children? An 80 year old diabetic, sure, but a perfectly healthy 5 year old? Why?
Children _die_ of covid. Studies have shown that the complications due to the vaccine are basically nothing other than arm pain and do decrease that chance of death. Studies have shown it's worth it for children to take the vaccine regardless of questions of spread.
Beyond that I've never seen that vaccines don't prevent spread. Sure they are not "sterilizing" vaccines and they don't prevent 100% of spread, but nowhere have I seen anything saying they don't decrease the likelihood of spread.
> Studies have shown that the complications due to the vaccine are basically nothing other than arm pain and do decrease that chance of death. Studies have shown it's worth it for children to take the vaccine regardless of questions of spread.
Not sure if the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinating children is so clear-cut. A pre-print study from University of California, for example, "suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, [might be] four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period" [1].
The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) "is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms [...] but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms." [2]
That's also why Pfizer announced that "long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis." [3]
> Not sure if the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinating children is so clear-cut.
That's a totally reasonable position. There is a line that needs be drawn somewhere. Some people will consider the benefits here outweighing the risks while others might conclude the opposite. That's fine. For example there isn't a current recommendation in the US for boosters for the majority of the healthy population for exactly those reasons.
But claims here like covid vaccines "certainly will not benefit" children are quite clearly untrue. Or taking statements like "children are already the group least likely to be harmed by covid" to mean that they shouldn't be vaccinated even if the likelihood of vaccine complications is even lower.
The fact is that children are harmed by covid and that vaccines will reduce the risk of that harm. Is it worth it overall? Maybe, maybe not. That's a risk analysis question worth having. But acting like we're in a hysteria because of recommendations to get vaccinated drawn from studies showing it makes sense is itself hysteria.
> Some people will consider the benefits here outweighing the risks while others might conclude the opposite. That's fine.
> But acting like we're in a hysteria because of recommendations to get vaccinated drawn from studies showing it makes sense is itself hysteria.
IMO, the emotional response (or hysteria) stems from the fact that debatable recommendations are currently being used to justify mandates ("SF will soon require everyone 5 and older to show vaccination proof for restaurants, theaters, Warriors games"), therefore prohibiting people from outweighing the risks on their own.
Reading the same studies, health officials could come to the creative conclusion that, due to the "considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms", all children should be banned from getting a vaccine or be forced to pay higher insurance rates.
This is child abuse to benefit the elderly. Exactly backwards from how it should be IMO. This vaccine does nothing to improve health outcomes for children as the virus almost always spares the young. There are a vanishingly small number of children who have died from COVID, unless they had other underlying conditions. This isn't based on science. It is based on politics and dogma.
20 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 44.3 ms ] threadAm vaxxed but don’t think I’d comply with this order for restaurants, it’s too far and too late for this.
"We are injecting children with undertested substances"
and
"that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them."
To fall pretty squarely into the category of nonsense given the amount of testing that's gone into these vaccines as well the fact that the CDC quite clearly considers them beneficial. At the very least such claims should require some sort of support.
The industry pretty clearly doesn’t want their money at risk from damages resulting from release of their COVID vaccine product. Following the money is often an insightful strategy in these complicated issues. It “cuts to the chase” and rarely leads to nonsense.
Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”.
And that’s OK if the vaccine is voluntary and you are a knowledgeable adult. You assess the benefits and risks and make your choice. And we can be grateful to the pharmas for their hard work in making the option of vaccines available.
Not so OK if you are a child and there is a government mandate. There was a neologism back in our day…Califascist. Seems applicable.
No it doesn't. That just shows that the manufacturers want to minimize their risk of being sued. Harm is shown by _studies_ looking at harm. The feds have looked at these studies and concluded that the vaccines are worth it. What do you have other than irrelevant arguments about legal liability?
Beyond that I've never seen that vaccines don't prevent spread. Sure they are not "sterilizing" vaccines and they don't prevent 100% of spread, but nowhere have I seen anything saying they don't decrease the likelihood of spread.
Not sure if the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinating children is so clear-cut. A pre-print study from University of California, for example, "suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, [might be] four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period" [1].
The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) "is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms [...] but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms." [2]
That's also why Pfizer announced that "long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis." [3]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-se...
[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download
That's a totally reasonable position. There is a line that needs be drawn somewhere. Some people will consider the benefits here outweighing the risks while others might conclude the opposite. That's fine. For example there isn't a current recommendation in the US for boosters for the majority of the healthy population for exactly those reasons.
But claims here like covid vaccines "certainly will not benefit" children are quite clearly untrue. Or taking statements like "children are already the group least likely to be harmed by covid" to mean that they shouldn't be vaccinated even if the likelihood of vaccine complications is even lower.
The fact is that children are harmed by covid and that vaccines will reduce the risk of that harm. Is it worth it overall? Maybe, maybe not. That's a risk analysis question worth having. But acting like we're in a hysteria because of recommendations to get vaccinated drawn from studies showing it makes sense is itself hysteria.
> But acting like we're in a hysteria because of recommendations to get vaccinated drawn from studies showing it makes sense is itself hysteria.
IMO, the emotional response (or hysteria) stems from the fact that debatable recommendations are currently being used to justify mandates ("SF will soon require everyone 5 and older to show vaccination proof for restaurants, theaters, Warriors games"), therefore prohibiting people from outweighing the risks on their own.
Reading the same studies, health officials could come to the creative conclusion that, due to the "considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms", all children should be banned from getting a vaccine or be forced to pay higher insurance rates.