The COVID-19 pandemic

[ijmorlan]

Good grief Dan, that is ignorant as hell. There are plenty more things more dangerous to children than covid-19, and I don't see anyone here saying anything about it. But clearly YOU'RE willing to risk a child's health with a vaccine that might be more risky than the disease itself. Only reason why they even vaccinated youngsters is to protect old people like you, not the other way round.

It sounds like you’ve read about this. Can you share with us information which suggests that there is a possibility the vaccine could be more dangerous than Covid to children? My understanding up to this point is that this is about as likely as blowing up the kitchen with wrong proportions in a cake recipe; scientists who work on vaccines actually do know something about immunology.

The reason to vaccinate as many people as possible is to end the pandemic. This means reducing transmissions everywhere, including among those who don’t suffer from it themselves. This is the same reason that smart jurisdictions are promoting the HPV vaccine for children of both sexes, not just the girls who can actually get cervical cancer.

[danbrotherston]

Good grief Dan, that is ignorant as hell. There are plenty more things more dangerous to children than covid-19, and I don't see anyone here saying anything about it. But clearly YOU'RE willing to risk a child's health with a vaccine that might be more risky than the disease itself. Only reason why they even vaccinated youngsters is to protect old people like you, not the other way round.

It sounds like you’ve read about this. Can you share with us information which suggests that there is a possibility the vaccine could be more dangerous than Covid to children? My understanding up to this point is that this is about as likely as blowing up the kitchen with wrong proportions in a cake recipe; scientists who work on vaccines actually do know something about immunology.

The reason to vaccinate as many people as possible is to end the pandemic. This means reducing transmissions everywhere, including among those who don’t suffer from it themselves. This is the same reason that smart jurisdictions are promoting the HPV vaccine for children of both sexes, not just the girls who can actually get cervical cancer.

Fun fact, and this is totally aside and not meant to challenge the point you are making at all, HPV causes more than just cervical cancer, HPV vaccine can also prevent cancers in men.

[ac3r]

Quite a toxic turn this thread took. Therefore, I think it's time to link this short essay: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/oh-m...king-fucks

Get vaccinated, fuckers.

[tomh009]

For reference: 16 children (and young adults), ages 0-19 have died of covid-19 in Canada. This is versus 26,739 for all other age groups (combined) -- in Canada.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228...da-by-age/

In the USA, they have had 486 deaths (0-18) out of 643,857 (total).
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-CO.../nr4s-juj3

Estimated death rate for vaccination is 0.00002 (US stats), so based on 73,000,000 children, that works out to 1,460 possible deaths. This excludes any other health issues (like myocarditis and pericarditis) which mostly affect the young (which is why Moderna was shelved for 18 and under). Likely very similar rate for unvaccinated.

So who is the government trying to save by vaccinating children? It's not the kids. They are, and so far have been, extremely low risk. They're only doing this to save old people like yourself.

First, be careful how you mix up the numbers. You are looking at the number of 0-18 deaths in the USA to date and comparing to the entire population. If 25% of Americans have had COVID (about 12% in the official stats) to date, that number of 0-18 deaths would go up to about 2,000 once everyone has been infected.

As to vaccines, according to CDC data, so far, 12.5M Americans under 18 have been vaccinated, and there have been 14 post-vaccine deaths (notably some may not be related to the vaccination) in that age group. Assuming 73M total in that age group, that would indicate maybe 80 possible deaths after vaccination.

Also, death from COVID isn't the only risk for children: there is also Long COVID, which might last a lifetime (as you said, long-term effects unknown).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01935-7

[tomh009]

FRIDAY 2021-09-10

Waterloo Region reported 31 new cases for today (16.3% of the active cases) and zero additional for yesterday for 27; 166 new cases for the week (+9 from yesterday and +12 from last week), averaging 13.3% of active cases. 199 active cases, +25 in the last seven days.

An average of only 629 tests/day for the past seven days; this automatically pulls up the positivity rate, which ended up at 3.77%.

1,132 doses of vaccine administered yesterday, with a seven-day average at 1,325 (previous week was 1,315). 74.96% of total regional population vaccinated (+0.07% from yesterday, +0.69% from 7 days ago), 69.41% fully vaccinated (+0.11% from yesterday, +0.91% from 7 days ago).

Ontario reported 848 new cases today with a seven-day average of 729 (+6), compared to 732 a week ago -- the first week-over-week drop in a long time. 770 recoveries and five (new) deaths translated to an increase of 67 active cases and a new total of 6,123. +29 active cases and 29 deaths for the week. 28,247 tests with a positivity rate of 3.00%. The positivity rate is averaging 3.11% for the past seven days, compared to 2.99% for the preceding seven.

153 people in the ICU, -7 from yesterday and +9 over the past week. 361 total people hospitalized, +35 over the past week.

35,844 doses of vaccine administered yesterday, with a seven-day average at 32,352 (previous week was 32,866). 74.52% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.11% from yesterday, +0.71% from 7 days ago), 68.81% fully vaccinated (+0.13% from yesterday, +0.83% from 7 days ago).

Cases/100K by region:

• 21 cases in Chatham-Kent: 19.8 per 100K
  
• 74 cases in Windsor-Essex: 19.0 per 100K
  
• 21 cases in Eastern Ontario: 10.4 per 100K
  
• 10 cases in Huron Perth: 10.2 per 100K
  
• 53 cases in Hamilton: 9.2 per 100K
  
• 117 cases in Peel: 8.5 per 100K
  
• 48 cases in Durham: 7.4 per 100K
  
• 77 cases in York: 6.9 per 100K
  
• 35 cases in Halton: 6.4 per 100K
  
• 166 cases in Toronto: 5.7 per 100K
  
• 24 cases in Niagara: 5.4 per 100K
  
• 52 cases in Ottawa: 5.2 per 100K
  
• 27 cases in Simcoe-Muskoka: 5.0 per 100K
  
• 19 cases in Middlesex-London: 4.7 per 100K
  
• 6 cases in Brant: 4.4 per 100K
  
• 26 cases in Waterloo: 4.2 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 10 cases in Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: 3.7 per 100K
  
• 7 cases in Kingston Frontenac: 3.4 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Lambton: 3.1 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Grey Bruce: 2.5 per 100K
  
• 7 cases in Sudbury: 1.8 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Leeds, Grenville & Lanark: 1.8 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 1.5 per 100K
  
• 1 cases in Northwestern: 1.1 per 100K
  

[JoeKW]

To add to the above, long covid is a real thing amongst children and we are still not sure what the incidence rate is amongst kids.

[ijmorlan]

Quite a toxic turn this thread took. Therefore, I think it's time to link this short essay: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/oh-m...king-fucks

Get vaccinated, fuckers.

Good essay! However, I’m not 100% clear about what their position is on vaccination. I think it needs to be more emphatic.

[jeffster]

Good grief Dan, that is ignorant as hell. There are plenty more things more dangerous to children than covid-19, and I don't see anyone here saying anything about it. But clearly YOU'RE willing to risk a child's health with a vaccine that might be more risky than the disease itself. Only reason why they even vaccinated youngsters is to protect old people like you, not the other way round.

It sounds like you’ve read about this. Can you share with us information which suggests that there is a possibility the vaccine could be more dangerous than Covid to children? My understanding up to this point is that this is about as likely as blowing up the kitchen with wrong proportions in a cake recipe; scientists who work on vaccines actually do know something about immunology.

The reason to vaccinate as many people as possible is to end the pandemic. This means reducing transmissions everywhere, including among those who don’t suffer from it themselves. This is the same reason that smart jurisdictions are promoting the HPV vaccine for children of both sexes, not just the girls who can actually get cervical cancer.

Sure, I have been doing a lot of reading on this. Again, this is one reason why those under 12 aren’t vaccinated. Further to that, it’s a reason why Moderna was shelved for those under 18 (despite PHAC and PHU’s saying Moderna and Pfizer are identical).

Here is one more recent study (September 8): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21262866v1

Main talking points:

Results A total of 257 CAEs were identified. Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.

Conclusions Post-vaccination CAE rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence. Further research into the severity and long-term sequelae of post-vaccination CAE is warranted. Quantification of the benefits of the second vaccination dose and vaccination in addition to natural immunity in this demographic may be indicated to minimize harm.

My opinion is, and likely always will be this: don’t vaccinate those that are of very low risk of hospitalization from Covid-19. If the study above is correct, than the risk in certain age groups of hospitalization is significantly higher for vaccinated youngsters versus the same group unvaccinated.

Risks starts to even out around 20 or so, and than falls quickly as you get older. That’s not to say the vaccine isn’t risky (though in many cases, it is less risky in older groups than younger, for some reason).

Besides all that, I got my AZ (1 shot) when it was still safe. Then it was considered risky, so I had to get the Moderna shot. J&J isn’t even being used. We personally had a family contact die after receiving Moderna, though an older male.

With our government and PHU’s and PHAC recommending this, than that, and changing to that and this, as a parent, I sure the hell wouldn’t risk my child’s life on some vaccine they don’t need.

Now, to your point, the reason to vaccinate as many people is to end the pandemic is fair game. But that was not what we were told at the beginning. We were told 70%, then 80%, of those eligible, (it was 18 and up, then 12 and up) to end the pandemic, but we have reached those numbers and here we still are.

But to say we vaccinate children to protect them, as some are suggesting, is disingenuous. The vaccine is of higher risk to children than the disease. That’s the issue. Maybe that changes if we have another variant that affects the young.

Either way, back to my original point: if this virus was as destructive to those over 18 as it is to those under 18, and if the vaccine was as risky to those over 18 as it is to those under 18, the vaccine wouldn’t be used. In fact, there would have never been a vaccine, and this covid-19 would never had made the news.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the children being left out.

[ijmorlan]

It sounds like you’ve read about this. Can you share with us information which suggests that there is a possibility the vaccine could be more dangerous than Covid to children? My understanding up to this point is that this is about as likely as blowing up the kitchen with wrong proportions in a cake recipe; scientists who work on vaccines actually do know something about immunology.

The reason to vaccinate as many people as possible is to end the pandemic. This means reducing transmissions everywhere, including among those who don’t suffer from it themselves. This is the same reason that smart jurisdictions are promoting the HPV vaccine for children of both sexes, not just the girls who can actually get cervical cancer.

Sure, I have been doing a lot of reading on this. Again, this is one reason why those under 12 aren’t vaccinated. Further to that, it’s a reason why Moderna was shelved for those under 18 (despite PHAC and PHU’s saying Moderna and Pfizer are identical).

Here is one more recent study (September 8): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21262866v1

“This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”

It talks about one risk factor from vaccines vs. from the infection itself. It does not deal with the issue of Covid being infectious and needing to stop transmission. And so on.

It may be a perfectly fine study, but it’s weak sauce for justifying defiance of vaccination recommendations from experts.

Besides all that, I got my AZ (1 shot) when it was still safe. Then it was considered risky, so I had to get the Moderna shot. J&J isn’t even being used. We personally had a family contact die after receiving Moderna, though an older male.

After, or because of?

Now, to your point, the reason to vaccinate as many people is to end the pandemic is fair game. But that was not what we were told at the beginning. We were told 70%, then 80%, of those eligible, (it was 18 and up, then 12 and up) to end the pandemic, but we have reached those numbers and here we still are.

Yeah, turns out epidemiologists aren’t omniscient, and have to learn as they go along.

But to say we vaccinate children to protect them, as some are suggesting, is disingenuous.  The vaccine is of higher risk to children than the disease. That’s the issue. Maybe that changes if we have another variant that affects the young.

Is that really true? How do the numbers compare overall? The study you quoted just talks about one specific adverse event that is significantly less bad than death, so it doesn’t actually evaluate overall risk. I mean, it doesn’t even try — that’s not what it’s about. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad study, but it’s only studying one thing.

Remember, if we vaccinate everybody and eliminate the disease, then all the deaths will be from the vaccine. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do.

Either way, back to my original point: if this virus was as destructive to those over 18 as it is to those under 18, and if the vaccine was as risky to those over 18 as it is to those under 18, the vaccine wouldn’t be used. In fact, there would have never been a vaccine, and this covid-19 would never had made the news.

Right, and it would have killed almost nobody so wouldn’t be a big deal.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the children being left out.

Unless epidemiologists agree with you, I’ll go with the opinion of informed people, thank you very much.

[tomh009]

But to say we vaccinate children to protect them, as some are suggesting, is disingenuous.  The vaccine is of higher risk to children than the disease.

Based on what data? Please see my earlier reply with the CDC data. Based on my rough calculation, the COVID death risk for the under-18 group is 25x the post-vaccination death risk. And that's not even considering the risk of Long COVID.

[tomh009]

10-day averages for key regions in Ontario, plus the weekly trend as of 2021-09-11 (posting this every Saturday).

Region	Cases today	per 100K	10-day average	per 100K	Weekly trend
Windsor-Essex	50	12.9	67	17.1	-15%
Chatham-Kent	24	22.6	16	14.9	+35%
Brant	23	16.9	14	10.0	-20%
Hamilton	55	9.5	56	9.6	-39%
Niagara	29	6.5	31	6.9	-10%
Peel	100	7.2	93	6.8	-25%
York	77	6.9	74	6.7	-23%
Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph	26	9.6	15	5.6	-3%
Simcoe-Muskoka	33	6.1	30	5.5	-17%
Middlesex-London	24	5.9	22	5.4	+3%
Toronto	170	5.8	156	5.3	-6%
Huron Perth	4	4.1	5	5.2	-2%
Durham	29	4.5	32	5.0	-6%
Eastern Ontario	3	1.5	10	4.8	-47%
Ottawa	73	7.3	46	4.6	+44%
Halton	18	3.3	24	4.4	+6%
Waterloo	29	4.7	23	3.8	+16%
Southwestern Ontario	15	7.5	6	3.1	+58%
Kingston Frontenac	7	3.4	5	2.2	+75%
Lambton	3	2.3	2	1.8	+221%
Northwestern	4	4.6	2	1.7	-13%
Grey Bruce	2	1.2	3	1.5	+16%
Thunder Bay	3	2.0	2	1.3	+70%
Leeds, Grenville & Lanark	5	2.9	2	1.2	+194%
Sudbury	8	2.1	4	1.1	+169%
Ontario total					-7%

The provincial trend is now heading down. Dare we hope that this will hold?

[tomh009]

SATURDAY 2021-09-11

Waterloo Region reported 25 new cases for today (12.6% of the active cases) and zero additional for yesterday for 31; 169 new cases for the week (+3 from yesterday and +19 from last week), averaging 13.3% of active cases. 189 active cases, +20 in the last seven days.

Next testing report on Tuesday.

Next vaccination report on Monday.

Ontario reported 857 new cases today with a seven-day average of 716 (-13), compared to 747 a week ago. 756 recoveries and eight (new) deaths translated to an increase of 86 active cases and a new total of 6,209. -92 active cases and 33 deaths for the week. 26,268 tests with a positivity rate of 3.26%. The positivity rate is averaging 3.06% for the past seven days, compared to 3.08% for the preceding seven -- a small drop here, too, now.

154 people in the ICU, +1 from yesterday and +5 over the past week. 363 total people hospitalized, +54 over the past week.

40,220 doses of vaccine administered yesterday, with a seven-day average at 31,542 (previous week was 34,033). 74.63% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.11% from yesterday, +0.67% from 7 days ago), 68.97% fully vaccinated (+0.16% from yesterday, +0.83% from 7 days ago).

Cases/100K by regional health unit:

• 24 cases in Chatham-Kent: 22.6 per 100K
  
• 23 cases in Brant: 16.9 per 100K
  
• 50 cases in Windsor-Essex: 12.9 per 100K
  
• 26 cases in Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: 9.6 per 100K
  
• 55 cases in Hamilton: 9.5 per 100K
  
• 15 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 7.5 per 100K
  
• 73 cases in Ottawa: 7.3 per 100K
  
• 100 cases in Peel: 7.2 per 100K
  
• 77 cases in York: 6.9 per 100K
  
• 29 cases in Niagara: 6.5 per 100K
  
• 33 cases in Simcoe-Muskoka: 6.1 per 100K
  
• 24 cases in Middlesex-London: 5.9 per 100K
  
• 170 cases in Toronto: 5.8 per 100K
  
• 29 cases in Waterloo: 4.7 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 4 cases in Northwestern: 4.6 per 100K
  
• 29 cases in Durham: 4.5 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Huron Perth: 4.1 per 100K
  
• 7 cases in Kingston Frontenac: 3.4 per 100K
  
• 18 cases in Halton: 3.3 per 100K
  
• 5 cases in Leeds, Grenville & Lanark: 2.9 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Lambton: 2.3 per 100K
  
• 8 cases in Sudbury: 2.1 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Thunder Bay: 2.0 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Eastern Ontario: 1.5 per 100K
  
• 2 cases in Grey Bruce: 1.2 per 100K
  

[JoeKW]

It should be noted that the children's dose is going to be smaller than regular so it's hard to extrapolate things from the current vaccine's safety profile.

[jeffster]

Late info…

Saturdays 7-day Covid-19 cases per 100k

• Windsor-Essex County Health Unit 101.7
• Chatham-Kent Public Health 101.6
• City of Hamilton Public Health Services 55.7
• Brant County Health Unit 54.1
• Niagara Region Public Health 45.3
• York Region Public Health 36.8
• Peel Public Health 35.8
• Peterborough Public Health 33.8
• Toronto Public Health 33.1
• Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit 32.5

• Region of Waterloo Public Health and Emergency Services 27.7

• Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health 14.1
• Hastings Prince Edward Public Health 13.7
• Northwestern Health Unit 11.4
• Grey Bruce Health Unit 11.2
• Thunder Bay District Health Unit 10.7
• Algoma Public Health 10.5
• Leeds, Grenville & Lanark District Health Unit 9.2
• Porcupine Health Unit 4.8
• Renfrew County and District Health Unit 4.6
• Timiskaming Health Unit 0.0

• TOTAL ONTARIO 33.7

[jeffster]

Maybe a better idea is just to vaccinate children (if ever approved) that have serious health issues, and are more likely to benefit from a disease that, for the most part, ignores children.

That’s about as far as I believe it should go.

One thing I do find odd about some folks here:

I had mistakenly thought many of you were on the socially liberal side (occasionally it’s more obvious who’s economically liberal, but that’s nothing to do with this topic).

What I have realized now, is, that most of you are willing to fight for young children being vaccinated, even if the risk of serious illness is tiny (more so that random deaths, in fact). As I mentioned above, I am OK with vaccinating young children if they have certain health conditions.

But I can’t believe how selfish of a country we have come, that we’d think of vaccine low risk individuals rather than share our resources (and vaccine) for developing nations that need it 100x more than us. Not a word of this is being discussed. Y’all talk about wanting to protect children from a horrible disease that, in all likelihood, will never do anything to them. Yet 100% with this so-called generous nation holding onto vaccines from the less fortunate.

I mean, I don’t even thing the PPC candidates would be that greedy, come to think of it.

You will offer your children better protection from this virus, and variants of concern (potentially new ones), by convincing yourselves, your leaders, and other countries, to stop peddling this vaccine for children and giving generously do poor nations.

Stop with the greed. It’s disgusting.