A brief history of vaccination mandates....
-
@lufins-dad said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
Rubella and Chickenpox carry almost no risk to children. The only reason vaccines are required in schools is to eliminate spread, particularly to pregnant women. Both vaccines are very effective against spread. COVID Vaccines? Not so much…So what is the point in giving the vaccine to kids?
See Jolly's post. I'm fine with either outcome of that analysis but sounds like you're saying, without any evidence, that COVID vaccines are more dangerous to kids than COVID and that no COVID vaccine does anything to protect either individual children or society.
Please love yourself.
-
@aqua-letifer said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
@lufins-dad said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
Rubella and Chickenpox carry almost no risk to children. The only reason vaccines are required in schools is to eliminate spread, particularly to pregnant women. Both vaccines are very effective against spread. COVID Vaccines? Not so much…So what is the point in giving the vaccine to kids?
See Jolly's post. I'm fine with either outcome of that analysis but sounds like you're saying, without any evidence, that COVID vaccines are more dangerous to kids than COVID and that no COVID vaccine does anything to protect either individual children or society.
No, I’ve not said anything of the sort. I have said that COVID poses very little risk to children comparatively. We know that an unvaccinated school aged child is at less risk than a vaccinated and boostered adult over 50… We also know that community spread is very low among children. That is established and shown over both significant variants. There are two reasons to give boosters to kids, to increase their protection from a serious disease, and or to prevent them from spreading to adults who are at greater risk. We’ve already seen that these current vaccines don’t do much against community spread. They do a remarkable job at lowering the risk of significant illness. Well, if they aren’t going to help much in preventing spread, and kids are already relatively safe from the worst of this disease, then why are we going to force kids to take it?
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@lufins-dad said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
@aqua-letifer said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
@lufins-dad said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
Rubella and Chickenpox carry almost no risk to children. The only reason vaccines are required in schools is to eliminate spread, particularly to pregnant women. Both vaccines are very effective against spread. COVID Vaccines? Not so much…So what is the point in giving the vaccine to kids?
See Jolly's post. I'm fine with either outcome of that analysis but sounds like you're saying, without any evidence, that COVID vaccines are more dangerous to kids than COVID and that no COVID vaccine does anything to protect either individual children or society.
No, I’ve not said anything of the sort. I have said that COVID poses very little risk to children comparatively. We know that an unvaccinated school aged child is at less risk than a vaccinated and boostered adult over 50… We also know that community spread is very low among children. That is established and shown over both significant variants. There are two reasons to give boosters to kids, to increase their protection from a serious disease, and or to prevent them from spreading to adults who are at greater risk. We’ve already seen that these current vaccines don’t do much against community spread. They do a remarkable job at lowering the risk of significant illness. Well, if they aren’t going to help much in preventing spread, and kids are already relatively safe from the worst of this disease, then why are we going to force kids to take it?
Because you just said that "they do a remarkable job at lowering the risk of significant illness." Kids have died from COVID. Are you saying a higher percentage have died from the vaccines?
-
I am saying the mortality rate for kids with COVID has been lower than the rate of adults that have died from the vaccine. We saw the number last week… .2% I believe. And we’ve seen more serious side effects from the vaccine in younger men and boys.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@lufins-dad said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
I am saying the mortality rate for kids with COVID has been lower than the rate of adults that have died from the vaccine. We saw the number last week… .2% I believe. And we’ve seen more serious side effects from the vaccine in younger men and boys.
In my opinion, if the vaccines pose a greater health threat than COVID itself to children, then we shouldn't mandate child vaccinations. If they don't then this is all crazy talk. I'd like to see numbers and I'm open to either possibility.
-
if you dont trust the FDA, we will have to wait for pfizers publication of the data in a journal. but in the meantime we have the FDA statement dated Oct 29:
ill snip and paste....
"In the U.S., COVID-19 cases in children 5 through 11 years of age make up 39% of cases in individuals younger than 18 years of age. According to the CDC, approximately 8,300 COVID-19 cases in children 5 through 11 years of age resulted in hospitalization. As of Oct. 17, 691 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported in the U.S. in individuals less than 18 years of age, with 146 deaths in the 5 through 11 years age group. "
"The FDA has determined this Pfizer vaccine has met the criteria for emergency use authorization. Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, the known and potential benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in individuals down to 5 years of age outweigh the known and potential risks. "
"The FDA’s model predicts that overall, the benefits of the vaccine would outweigh its risks in children 5 through 11 years of age."
ok now me...so the data is there. true i havent seen the raw numbers...maybe it will take another few weeks to have that published in a Journal like New England.
but in the end, what the hell more does anyone want? yes covid is overwhelmingly mild in kids but can still have serious cases in a small number. yes the vaccine has minor side effects. but in the end, not one pediatric covid death is justified when vaccines are available.
its such a fucking no brainer for me, so forgive me all, but i just cant see why any parent would not jump on this.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@jolly please exlplain
the FDA approved boosters of for above 65 and 18-64 at high risk, or occupational exposure on Sept 22
on OCT 20, the approval was expanded to include Moderna and J and J.
where exactly was the flip flop?
-
IIRC, the FDA's panel had originally voted for no boosters except for those over 65 or at high risk. That didn't last because of political pressure from the Whitehouse and they rapidly (for the FDA) moved to opening up boosters to most of the population.
I still see no advisements on antibody screening or any pertinent discussion on natural immunity.
At this point, I'd like to see some numbers on mortality and side effects in young children. If the vaccine causes more problems than the disease and natural immunity has any place in our discussion, why are we racing to innoculate children?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@jolly hey jolly, u have it ass backwards....
the original announcement on august 18th said they would offer to everyone over 18 pending FDA investigation.
"We have developed a plan to begin offering these booster shots this fall subject to FDA conducting an independent evaluation and determination of the safety and effectiveness of a third dose of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issuing booster dose recommendations based on a thorough review of the evidence. We are prepared to offer booster shots for all Americans beginning the week of September 20 and starting 8 months after an individual’s second dose. "
Then on Sept 22 (link https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-booster-dose-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-certain-populations ) they actually limited it,as per their board meeting.
thats exactly the opposite of what you suggested. you said the FDA originally voted no boosters except above 65 and the gave into political pressure to open top everyone. what happened is the reverse. The FDA stood up to political pressure and kept it limited.
hey im not making this stuff up, its all out there in the links from the FDA
-
@jolly said in A brief history of vaccination mandates....:
. If the vaccine causes more problems than the disease
Well fortunately that data seems to have proven that already or there never would have been FDA approval. Of course the FDA would not approve a vaccine which causes more harm than good.
Ok you can argue the 4000 kids in the study is not a big enough cohort? Just wait. In a short time there will be hundreds of thousands f kids vaccinated. And then the data will be corroborated
I think here we will start in two weeks jabbing kids. Best things that can happen and best chance to beat this thing down
