The COVID-19 pandemic

[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“This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].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.