FDA authorizes Pfizer vaccine for kids age 12 to 15(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
FDA authorizes Pfizer vaccine for kids age 12 to 15
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/health/pfizer-covid-vaccine-teens.html
176 comments
Helps with herd immunity.
For example, Rubella is a vaccine commonly given to kids, but it is isn't really a severe disease even if kids catch it. If a pregnant woman contracts Rubella in her first trimester however, it can lead to severe complications for the unborn child. Just vaccinating women of child bearing age against Rubella works a little, but vaccinating kids as well means that that transmission vector is removed, and really improves the overall outcome.
For example, Rubella is a vaccine commonly given to kids, but it is isn't really a severe disease even if kids catch it. If a pregnant woman contracts Rubella in her first trimester however, it can lead to severe complications for the unborn child. Just vaccinating women of child bearing age against Rubella works a little, but vaccinating kids as well means that that transmission vector is removed, and really improves the overall outcome.
> Helps with herd immunity
That is true and it's a good thing in it's own right, but it's orthogonal to the responsibility a doctor has to their patient first and foremost.
That is true and it's a good thing in it's own right, but it's orthogonal to the responsibility a doctor has to their patient first and foremost.
your faulty line of logic, that you can’t both serve an individual and a group, just condemned most vaccines. Why bother giving kids a chicken pox vaccine when the infection is usually mild for them. Or from the GP, why give them rubella vaccine when it mainly hurts pregnant women.
I think the big argument here is: Is doling out medical advice to an individual to protect the group ethical? Or should the medical advice for the individual be directed at the potential outcomes for the individual.
This conversation of individual vs communal rights is much simpler when we tell smokers they should keep it to designated areas or their private property.
It's a bit of a different animal when we're essentially encouraging and coercing people into taking potentially unnecessary medication for OTHER people's benefit.
It's not an easy question, if you're being intellectually honest. People who are hardliners on one side or the other on this debate, i feel aren't honest about the problems this poses. They're so wrapped up in their side of the individualism/tribialism or collective-safety/freedom dynamic, that they're not giving the other side a fair look.
This is a problem that plague the human species. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. Both our nature as collective/tribal animals, but with a deep since of contradictory individualism leads us to success and survival and wellness, but both of those aspects of us lead to great tyranny.
it's the communism vs capitalism debate - both sides have tons of blood on their hands. Tons of oppression too.
It's the debate played out between Kirk and Spock about the needs of the one vs the many.
And it's an honest, real debate that i don't feel will ever be solved because of the myriad of ways it plays out in a complex society.
This conversation of individual vs communal rights is much simpler when we tell smokers they should keep it to designated areas or their private property.
It's a bit of a different animal when we're essentially encouraging and coercing people into taking potentially unnecessary medication for OTHER people's benefit.
It's not an easy question, if you're being intellectually honest. People who are hardliners on one side or the other on this debate, i feel aren't honest about the problems this poses. They're so wrapped up in their side of the individualism/tribialism or collective-safety/freedom dynamic, that they're not giving the other side a fair look.
This is a problem that plague the human species. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. Both our nature as collective/tribal animals, but with a deep since of contradictory individualism leads us to success and survival and wellness, but both of those aspects of us lead to great tyranny.
it's the communism vs capitalism debate - both sides have tons of blood on their hands. Tons of oppression too.
It's the debate played out between Kirk and Spock about the needs of the one vs the many.
And it's an honest, real debate that i don't feel will ever be solved because of the myriad of ways it plays out in a complex society.
> Helps with herd immunity.
It's highly probable that it helps but I thought we don't have the data proving it yet?
It's highly probable that it helps but I thought we don't have the data proving it yet?
COVID has many other long-term side-effects besides death (fatigue, muscle and joint pain, respiratory problems, etc). These side-effects are present in younger people as well. For me, mere possibility of these side-effects outweigh the risks, which are negligible for MRNA vaccines.
Vaccines help to reduce risk of hospitalisation and death, But are there studies that show that vaccination prevents long covid, too?
Besides nearly eliminating the risk of hospitalization and death, the vaccines also greatly reduce the odds of contracting COVID-19 in the first place which logically would lead to a reduction in long covid. (contracting covid is a prerequisite for experiencing long-covid)
Long covid is also more likely to result from more severe initial cases.
I thought many people with mild symptoms got long covid, too.
Not quite yet. The work has just started [1]. There's anecdotal evidence [2] that some people report improvements in long COVID symptoms after taking the vaccine (I have 0 background in chemistry/biology so I'll defer to domain experts to determine whether there's even a plausible mechanism of action for that).
I thought there were preliminary studies showing the vaccine is effective at prevention of infection, not just in reduction of severity of symptoms. Assuming that, a good prior to hold IMO (until we have such research) would be that it also prevents long COVID. However, since I can't find where I heard this, may be smart to withhold judgement one way or the other. That being said, what the sibling commentor pointed out seems plausible also to me to put into the prior (i.e. if long COVID is correlated with serious illness, then plausibly the vaccine would also prevent long COVID by reducing the serious response in the first place)
[1] https://news.yale.edu/2021/05/10/study-determine-how-covid-1...
[2] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid
I thought there were preliminary studies showing the vaccine is effective at prevention of infection, not just in reduction of severity of symptoms. Assuming that, a good prior to hold IMO (until we have such research) would be that it also prevents long COVID. However, since I can't find where I heard this, may be smart to withhold judgement one way or the other. That being said, what the sibling commentor pointed out seems plausible also to me to put into the prior (i.e. if long COVID is correlated with serious illness, then plausibly the vaccine would also prevent long COVID by reducing the serious response in the first place)
[1] https://news.yale.edu/2021/05/10/study-determine-how-covid-1...
[2] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid
I assume one main benefit is that vaccinated kids are less likely to spread it to more vulnerable populations. Also some kids have preexisting conditions that put them at risk.
Soon the vast majority of vulnerable populations left in the US will be deniers. Should kids have the responsibility to protect those folks at their own small risk? Open question as the numbers are still coming in.
I don't think it's black and white. The vaccines aren't 100% effective (and yes, I know this applies both for the kids who can spread it and those at risk who can receive).
People who can't get vaccinated don't deserve protection less because people who won't get vaccinated outnumber them. And the vaccines aren't 100% effective.
Again, is it worth the risk to potentially millions of kids for a small % of folks that could quarantine? Not obvious.
Are you suggesting people who can't get vaccinated should quarantine forever? And how would vaccinated people know they're vulnerable?
They will have to if near 100% vaccinations rates are your standard. This isn’t our problem ultimately, we don’t bleach the whole world because the boy in the bubble exists. Risks must be factored.
Also, the number of folks who are vaccinated and have needed intensive hospitalization has been found to be approximately zero.
Also, the number of folks who are vaccinated and have needed intensive hospitalization has been found to be approximately zero.
Good thing herd immunity doesn't require 100% vaccination.
Intensive hospitalization isn't the only bad outcome for individuals. And the potential for vaccine resistant variants is everyone's problem.
The risk of serious adverse events wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either. The evidence we have says the risks of getting vaccinated are things like temporary fatigue.
Intensive hospitalization isn't the only bad outcome for individuals. And the potential for vaccine resistant variants is everyone's problem.
The risk of serious adverse events wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either. The evidence we have says the risks of getting vaccinated are things like temporary fatigue.
is it ethical to coerce and encourage people to take potentially unnecessary medication for other people's benefit?
The risk of death from covid is low for this age group, but almost certainly much higher than the risk of death from the vaccine. The risk-benefit analysis seems to weigh pretty obviously in favor of vaccination.
Three out of almost a hundred million is not significantly lower than the risks outlined here, truth is we don't have enough info on the risks to decide:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27111071
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27111071
Presumably, the cost-benefit analysis here is being done on a population-wide basis--leaving a large portion of the population unvaccinated lets them act as a reservoir for the virus, hindering progress towards herd immunity (recall that not every [willing] adult can get vaccinated, nor is the vaccine 100% effective, especially against some of the mutations we're already seeing, so achieving herd immunity is a meaningful public health goal), as well as increasing the mutation rate of the virus.
I get being cautious, but it isn't like there's a strong concrete reason not to do it. Plus we still have the potential for mutations, and kids can still spread covid even if they aren't dying from it.
Kids are overwhelmingly asymptomatic. The post above mentions some risks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27111071
The point of vaccinating kids is:
1. They still get sick, even if asymptomatic, and can bring it home to the house where older people live 2. I don't know if there are published case report / data yet, but anecdotally the new strains are much more likely to cause complications and require hospitalizations for younger children. 3. Even asymptomatic infectious seem to cause "long covid" (Something like a third of long covid cases were asymptomatic). Potentially life-long alterations to lung or heart function doesn't sound like fun
1. They still get sick, even if asymptomatic, and can bring it home to the house where older people live 2. I don't know if there are published case report / data yet, but anecdotally the new strains are much more likely to cause complications and require hospitalizations for younger children. 3. Even asymptomatic infectious seem to cause "long covid" (Something like a third of long covid cases were asymptomatic). Potentially life-long alterations to lung or heart function doesn't sound like fun
But aren't older people vaccinated?
Not necessarily, you could have an immuno-compromised parent/grandparent
But according to CDC, both people have to be vaccinated to talk to each other inside. This means that if one person is vaccinated you can't see you're immuno-compromised grandparent anyway.
Yes, but if your child is school age -- schools which are now increasingly going to in person instruction -- and you are immunocompromised, what are you going to do? Same question if you live in a multi-generational household, but now there are grandkids going to school and kids going to work.
I see elsewhere you're claiming that long Covid isn't a thing. It is, full stop. Unless you're suggesting that living with lung and heart damage caused by Covid isn't a complication of Covid?
I see elsewhere you're claiming that long Covid isn't a thing. It is, full stop. Unless you're suggesting that living with lung and heart damage caused by Covid isn't a complication of Covid?
Lung and heart damage can be the result of any virus. Just look at any article pre 2020.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717150302.h...
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/45/5/1463
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000329090639.h...
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/heartdisease.htm#:~:text=St....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8142/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0945053X1...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717150302.h...
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/45/5/1463
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000329090639.h...
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/heartdisease.htm#:~:text=St....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8142/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0945053X1...
Long COVID is post viral fatigue syndrome. Really sucks when you have it, nothing singularly new about it as far as any available evidence shows. A bunch of people are experiencing it all at the same time, hence the prominence in the media. "Long flu" is much more diffuse in time, so not media-worthy. Mine was 3 months of hell at 18 years old.
The only concern isnt just death, but also longer term issue such as long covid (which may be a bigger concern for this group).
Deaths are a proxy for the total impact, which is incredibly low for healthy kids.
Long Covid is likely a psychological phenomenon. Mainly due to 24/7 news cycle and social medial
I don’t agree with that, it lingered for me for at least six months. Don’t own a tv and block most soc media.
Then you have post viral syndrome which is common with viruses. If you've ever had a common cold or flu you would know. I had a simple cold and had fatigue for months. It just lingered and lingered
That's a remarkably quick and easy diagnosis. And over the internet too. Most doctors examine their patients before making a concrete diagnosis.
Actually some things are easy to diagnose remotely. Which is why remote doctor visits are becoming more common. If you feel like crap and only your throat hurts you most likely have strep. Since bacterias attack only one area. If you feel like crap and your nose is running, head hurts and have a sore throat, you have a virus. Yet doctors still prescribe antibiotics for viruses. No wonder we have a problem.
[deleted]
These discussions seem to revolve around "one hundred and one flavors of shortsightedness".
The aim of vaccinating everyone is so these kids can grow up in a world without Covid - so they don't die 5-10 too early when do get old. (You've heard kids get older, right?). And as people mention, kids not giving it to their parents, etc.
The aim of vaccinating everyone is so these kids can grow up in a world without Covid - so they don't die 5-10 too early when do get old. (You've heard kids get older, right?). And as people mention, kids not giving it to their parents, etc.
Parents, elders, and compromised folks are vaccinated already in these parts.
Forcing kids to pick up the slack to protect those who refused is not fair or a good use of resources, imho.
Certainly technology will be better in ten years as well.
Forcing kids to pick up the slack to protect those who refused is not fair or a good use of resources, imho.
Certainly technology will be better in ten years as well.
It would also be more like 30 years before they enter a significant risk age, not 10.
Yes, I didn’t want to predict that far, but could be even higher, right?
Kids can spread it. Strength of vaccination program is having high vaccination rates to prevent spread and risk of mutations. There’s a bunch on immunocompromised people that can’t get vaccinated or the vaccine has little effect on them like people who had an organ transplant.
Isn't the risk for kids more transmission related? Kids (usually) won't die from COVID, but they'll transmit to people who can, was my understanding.
The Pfizer vaccine is looking pretty safe at this point, so there is a benefit to the vaccine, taking risk from very low down towards 0.
I mean we have Chicken Pox, Measles, and Rubella vaccine. Soooooooo. Either way I won't give this to my kids. No need to take any risk. I'll wait 10 years. I love how the CDC had scope creep. I turned into slow the spread to save every human ever in existence even if they're 80 years old.
Laugh now, in India they also said no need and survive the fittest, and now it's everyone losing their parents.
Ill give it to my kid, I dont see a downside. She won't die of a vaccine.
Ill give it to my kid, I dont see a downside. She won't die of a vaccine.
Of course she won't die of the vaccine. She'll just have a lifetime of autoimmune diseases. Which might be worse
You commented 7 days ago noting you vaccinated all your kids and now your shaming someone's decision for vaccinating theirs? Rich. As for the rest of your comments on this article.
You're right. Emotion is high. I did say my kids are vaccinated, but I meant with non emergency approved vaccines.
[deleted]
There are bad outcomes other than death.
2-4 children dying per week of a communicable disease is a pretty big deal.
Please provide a citation for these stats.
We had more kids dying of the flu before, so this reasoning is not really accurate: https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/covid-19/true-or-false-de...
We had more kids dying of the flu before, so this reasoning is not really accurate: https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/covid-19/true-or-false-de...
The stats come from the cdc link at the top.
The approval letter and supporting data is here:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
(EDIT: side-effect data for 12-15yo are pages 25-27 in this: https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download)
I have to be honest...this strikes me as poor risk analysis by the FDA. This approval is based on a study of ~1100 children over two months, of which the absolute risk reduction was ~1.6% (16 cases -> 0). However, about 2% of kids had severe reactions to the vaccine itself.
(EDIT 2: a further 0.4% had life-threatening reactions, which are labeled as "severe adverse events")
They don't report the number of severe infections, but I'm guessing that the number is zero, based on what we know about Covid in children.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
(EDIT: side-effect data for 12-15yo are pages 25-27 in this: https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download)
I have to be honest...this strikes me as poor risk analysis by the FDA. This approval is based on a study of ~1100 children over two months, of which the absolute risk reduction was ~1.6% (16 cases -> 0). However, about 2% of kids had severe reactions to the vaccine itself.
(EDIT 2: a further 0.4% had life-threatening reactions, which are labeled as "severe adverse events")
They don't report the number of severe infections, but I'm guessing that the number is zero, based on what we know about Covid in children.
I'm looking at the table you cite, and it's listing side effects such as headache, fatigue, and chills. "Severe reactions" makes it sounds like they had serious adverse events. If 2% of kids get severe headache, fatigue, or chills for a day or so, so what? And I say that as the mother of a 14-year-old who is planning to get vaccinated as soon as possible.
So what? The chance of getting severe reactions from the actual virus is much lower for kids. Why would you make your children take something that is riskier than the thing it protects against?
Because Covid kills grandma.
Then grandma can get the vaccine. Why is this still an issue? Everyone in the US that wanted a vaccine, got it. Only a tiny portion of people are incapable of receiving it. The death toll dropped immediately. We don’t need herd immunity since the vaccine is so effective.
But that's the thing. If everyone isn't helping, then this virus continues to mutate and spread through the human reservoir. We won't reach herd immunity.
By not vaccinating, you're contributing to the problem at some nonzero level. Unless you're on an island away from the world.
By not vaccinating, you're contributing to the problem at some nonzero level. Unless you're on an island away from the world.
From what I understand, this ain’t going away. All the medical experts are saying this will be a seasonal thing like the flu.
One of the primary reasons experts are predicting that herd immunity won't happen because too many people are reluctant to get the vaccine. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunit...
1. The virus has less of an impact (~0% fatal and very likely to have minimal to no symptoms)
2. We don’t know the long term effects of the vaccine. But we do know the long term effects of corona viruses (not specifically COVID19, but we can infer).
3. The vaccine isn’t 100% effective as it is, so while you mitigate short term risk, long term is likely higher with the vaccine given the estimated short term protection (implying multiple / yearly vaccines necessary) and relative risk of the virus (basically 0%) vs the vaccine (2% risk of severe incident)
2. We don’t know the long term effects of the vaccine. But we do know the long term effects of corona viruses (not specifically COVID19, but we can infer).
3. The vaccine isn’t 100% effective as it is, so while you mitigate short term risk, long term is likely higher with the vaccine given the estimated short term protection (implying multiple / yearly vaccines necessary) and relative risk of the virus (basically 0%) vs the vaccine (2% risk of severe incident)
[deleted]
> not specifically COVID19, but we can infer
You can’t do this with the vaccines too? Especially in the realm of long-term-sleeper side effects?
> relative risk of the virus (basically 0%) vs the vaccine (2% risk of severe incident)
I guess the problem here is your time frame is one month, rather than years out.
You can’t do this with the vaccines too? Especially in the realm of long-term-sleeper side effects?
> relative risk of the virus (basically 0%) vs the vaccine (2% risk of severe incident)
I guess the problem here is your time frame is one month, rather than years out.
mRNA is a new vaccine type, need at least 3-5 years imo
Careful using the word 'approval'. That isn't the same thing as Emergency Use Authorization. The PDF states:
> The issuance of an EUA is not an FDA approval (licensure) of a vaccine.
> The issuance of an EUA is not an FDA approval (licensure) of a vaccine.
Very true. Though given the number of children who will now get the vaccine, I think it's a distinction without much practical meaning.
From a regulatory perspective, you are saying that the FDA has done something that they did not do. “Approved”, “cleared”, “granted”, and “authorized” all have distinct meanings.
This is a pedantic debate. The door is now open for millions of kids to get the vaccine. This was not possible yesterday.
[deleted]
Did you read their analysis on page 27?
0.4% had severe adverse events, with no pattern.
0.4% had severe adverse events, with no pattern.
Yes, I read it. I also read the data on pages 25-27. "Severe adverse event" is different than what I'm referring to, and are defined on page 9:
> Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above.
It would not take very many such "serious adverse events" in a trial of 1100 before I'd argue that the vaccine is not safe for children.
> Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above.
It would not take very many such "serious adverse events" in a trial of 1100 before I'd argue that the vaccine is not safe for children.
Right, you're are making a big deal out of a kid getting a headache sometime in a month.
Not "sometime in a month". Immediately after the vaccine.
And yes -- for an illness that is essentially asymptomatic in children, that's a legitimate concern.
Another way of putting it: this vaccine will make at least as many children as sick as getting Covid itself.
And yes -- for an illness that is essentially asymptomatic in children, that's a legitimate concern.
Another way of putting it: this vaccine will make at least as many children as sick as getting Covid itself.
Yes, I misremembered the 30 day follow period.
But it was indeed the 7 days following administration, not immediately after.
I guess I don't see a headache or fever from the vaccine as the same kind of sick as Covid, so no need to pursue the conversation if we disagree on that.
But it was indeed the 7 days following administration, not immediately after.
I guess I don't see a headache or fever from the vaccine as the same kind of sick as Covid, so no need to pursue the conversation if we disagree on that.
0.4% had life threatening side effects... more than a headache
A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
Sure, other poster is not talking about 0.4%.
I’m having trouble finding where the numbers for severe reactions are given. Can you point me in the right direction?
Page 26 in this: https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
It’s important to be clear here—these “severe” side effects are not life-threatening. We’re talking about a really bad headache or bout of diarrhea. Unpleasant, for sure, but not likely to have any long-term consequences.
As a parent, I’m ok with those odds even if my kids don’t get much direct benefit. Contributing to reduced community transmission is worth it.
As a parent, I’m ok with those odds even if my kids don’t get much direct benefit. Contributing to reduced community transmission is worth it.
Well, 0.4% of trial participants actually did have life-threatening reactions, so there's that. The risk is small, but not zero.
As far as mild side-effects go, another way of putting it is that at least as many kids will experience side effects from the vaccine as from Covid itself.
...and millions of kids are going to get this vaccine in the coming months.
As far as mild side-effects go, another way of putting it is that at least as many kids will experience side effects from the vaccine as from Covid itself.
...and millions of kids are going to get this vaccine in the coming months.
A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
My understanding is that Serious Adverse Events are not necessarily reactions that can easily be attributed to the vaccine (unlike a headache occurring soon after the vaccination), so we have to check whether these results are statistically significant and/or whether any patterns can be found in terms of what these events actually are.
I don't think 0.4% vs. 0.1% with n=1127 is significant, and the study mentions no patterns were observed.
We still have systems like VAERS to ensure side-effects that are too rare to be caught by a study of this size still get caught.
I don't think 0.4% vs. 0.1% with n=1127 is significant, and the study mentions no patterns were observed.
We still have systems like VAERS to ensure side-effects that are too rare to be caught by a study of this size still get caught.
[deleted]
Did you see all of the side effects from the vaccine vs the placebo? Here it is in percentages:
* Redness 5.8 vs 1.1
* Swelling 6.9 vs 1
* Pain 86 vs 23
* Fever 10 vs 1
* Fatigue 60 vs 46
* Headache 55 vs 35
* Chills 28 vs 10
* Vomiting 3 vs 1
* Use of pain med 37 vs 10
Only 1100 kids in the study and only 660 of them were followed up at least 2 months after the 2nd dose. These numbers seem unreasonably low.
This means that hundreds of kids had worse reactions than the placebo. All of this to prevent 11 symptomatic cases. I couldn't find the prognosis of these 11 symptomatic cases, but its highly likely that all of them were mild. To me, it seems like the overall health and well being of the vaccinated group was less than the placebo.
* Redness 5.8 vs 1.1
* Swelling 6.9 vs 1
* Pain 86 vs 23
* Fever 10 vs 1
* Fatigue 60 vs 46
* Headache 55 vs 35
* Chills 28 vs 10
* Vomiting 3 vs 1
* Use of pain med 37 vs 10
Only 1100 kids in the study and only 660 of them were followed up at least 2 months after the 2nd dose. These numbers seem unreasonably low.
This means that hundreds of kids had worse reactions than the placebo. All of this to prevent 11 symptomatic cases. I couldn't find the prognosis of these 11 symptomatic cases, but its highly likely that all of them were mild. To me, it seems like the overall health and well being of the vaccinated group was less than the placebo.
Thanks! I appreciate it
That 0.4% category includes simply taking a sick day from work/school. I would hardly call that life-threatening. You are also using the word “reaction” when it’s not clear that the SAEs were due to the vaccine and not something else.
Where did you see it includes simply taking a sick day?
Page 9, “A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions”
VAERS forms sometimes have more wording for that category: https://medcom.uiowa.edu/theloop/covid-19-vaccination-requir...
VAERS forms sometimes have more wording for that category: https://medcom.uiowa.edu/theloop/covid-19-vaccination-requir...
The fact sheet doesn't define substantial. The University of Iowa page says a sick day counts though. Thanks.
Doubters are like “you don’t know the long term effects!”
But you also don’t know the long term effects of covid lol. At least this has been clinically studied for a year.
But you also don’t know the long term effects of covid lol. At least this has been clinically studied for a year.
we have year old results for Covid too.
Mayo Clinic has an article about COVID's long term effects
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
do you know if they break these long term affects into age groups or other demographics?
Yeah exactly my point lol. So the 5-10-15 year impact of both is unknown. Thus it’s a mute point of consideration for a logical person.
Getting the virus and entering the risk pool for long term affects has a probability below 100%. Maybe you never get the virus.
Choosing to get the vaccine gives you 100% chance of getting in the risk pool for its side affects.
The third category is you already had the virus without long term issues, but getting the vaccine introduces new risks (allergies is the obvious easy one).
I don't know the compounded statistics here and I don't claim to know the "right choice" for everyone, including myself. In general, I never get the latest update in software. I never get the first model years in cars. Without a case of urgency, this seems like a good path forward for this too, but YMMV.
I don't know the compounded statistics here and I don't claim to know the "right choice" for everyone, including myself. In general, I never get the latest update in software. I never get the first model years in cars. Without a case of urgency, this seems like a good path forward for this too, but YMMV.
The P.1 variant is extremely contagious, with an unmitigated R somewhere in the range of 6-12. That's close to Measles. Unless a very large percentage of the population gets vaccinated, it's essentially inevitable for the unvaccinated to be infected at some point, as well as a small portion of the vaccinated population.
Your choices are either get vaccinated, get COVID (and possibly transmit it), or take extreme precautions indefinitely. Unless you have reason to believe that the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID, and you're not willing to live your life as a shut-in or wear a respirator for the rest of your life, you might as well get vaccinated.
Your choices are either get vaccinated, get COVID (and possibly transmit it), or take extreme precautions indefinitely. Unless you have reason to believe that the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID, and you're not willing to live your life as a shut-in or wear a respirator for the rest of your life, you might as well get vaccinated.
“Maybe not getting the virus” is mostly because your fellow citizens got vaccinated.
If everybody followed your logic, everybody would’ve had covid by now.
Of course we know that there are some healthy under 40’s that died from covid. If they got the vaccine, would they have died?
How many have died directly from the vaccine?
Answer those last two and you will see.
If everybody followed your logic, everybody would’ve had covid by now.
Of course we know that there are some healthy under 40’s that died from covid. If they got the vaccine, would they have died?
How many have died directly from the vaccine?
Answer those last two and you will see.
But why would you expect long side effect of an immunity triggering vaccine?
I don't personally have any expectations. I strongly suspect that there are not any long term affects. I am not familiar with mRNA tech in general, nor am I familiar with the various vaccine vectors. I do have a vivid imagination though.
None of this is real - just "science fiction". 1) the mRNA triggers latent gene expression which causes some form of cancer. 2) the mRNA causes some new slow protein generation which accumulates in the blood like cholesterol and has long term health affects.
is this possible? probably as possible as buying a winning lottery ticket and being struck by lightning at the exact same time!
None of this is real - just "science fiction". 1) the mRNA triggers latent gene expression which causes some form of cancer. 2) the mRNA causes some new slow protein generation which accumulates in the blood like cholesterol and has long term health affects.
is this possible? probably as possible as buying a winning lottery ticket and being struck by lightning at the exact same time!
moot, not mute
I think that was the point
[deleted]
Forget long-term effects. One only needs to point out that more kids had "severe" reactions to the vaccine (>2%) than had Covid in the trial (1.6%). This approval was based on a tiny sample (1100 kids) over 2 months.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
(Edit - side-effect data starts on page 25 here: https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download)
There are legitimate reasons to question the rapid approval of this vaccine in children. It's certainly not something worth mocking. And I say that as someone who is fully vaccinated.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
(Edit - side-effect data starts on page 25 here: https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download)
There are legitimate reasons to question the rapid approval of this vaccine in children. It's certainly not something worth mocking. And I say that as someone who is fully vaccinated.
Again, the severe reactions documented here are not all that bad.
OK so if you take into account almost any transmission rate we've seen that seems like it easily balances out, even not taking into account potential for mutations and the classification of severe.
I have a "severe" reaction to alcohol every time I drink too much.
I have a "severe" reaction to alcohol every time I drink too much.
Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero.
Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger...this is a choice that can be made, but I think it's a tougher decision than you do.
Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger...this is a choice that can be made, but I think it's a tougher decision than you do.
> Vaccination of children is not required to reduce the number of deaths from Covid-19 to a number asymptotically approaching zero.
> Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit.
So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years.
> Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger.
That’s not all the vaccine is for. Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
> Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit.
So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years.
> Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger.
That’s not all the vaccine is for. Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
> So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years.
Now you're just fear-mongering.
> Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
There have been 3200 cases of MIS-C in the US. 36 have died.
https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html
The rate of MIS-C is exceptionally low -- possibly lower than the rate of severe adverse events for the vaccine itself: "Overall, MIS-C is a rare complication of SARS-CoV-2. A May 2020 systematic review from 26 countries reported a MIS-C incidence of 0.14% among all children with SARS-CoV-2 infection"
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385
Give this vaccine to 1M children, and at a rate of 0.4% serious adverse (i.e. life-threatening) reactions, you would expect 4000. An unknowable portion of those will die. Moreover, there will be 20,000 reactions severe enough to put a child out of school for a few days. There are about 25M kids age 12-17 in the US.
Your sense of risk is seriously miscalibrated.
Now you're just fear-mongering.
> Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
There have been 3200 cases of MIS-C in the US. 36 have died.
https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html
The rate of MIS-C is exceptionally low -- possibly lower than the rate of severe adverse events for the vaccine itself: "Overall, MIS-C is a rare complication of SARS-CoV-2. A May 2020 systematic review from 26 countries reported a MIS-C incidence of 0.14% among all children with SARS-CoV-2 infection"
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385
Give this vaccine to 1M children, and at a rate of 0.4% serious adverse (i.e. life-threatening) reactions, you would expect 4000. An unknowable portion of those will die. Moreover, there will be 20,000 reactions severe enough to put a child out of school for a few days. There are about 25M kids age 12-17 in the US.
Your sense of risk is seriously miscalibrated.
A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114261
The definition:
"Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above."
So 4 out of the 6 criteria are, in fact, life-threatening, one is "your life is permanently altered, sorry", and the final one is irrelevant.
(and no, despite your link to the other thread, "persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day")
> And there was no pattern either.
They didn't release the raw data, so there's no way for you to know that.
"Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above."
So 4 out of the 6 criteria are, in fact, life-threatening, one is "your life is permanently altered, sorry", and the final one is irrelevant.
(and no, despite your link to the other thread, "persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day")
> And there was no pattern either.
They didn't release the raw data, so there's no way for you to know that.
>"persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day"
It does, actually. From the UI Medcom link: "symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
It does, actually. From the UI Medcom link: "symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
I gave you the definition, from the approval document itself. This is the definitive answer, not some unrelated article about VAERS.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
The question is what substantial means. I believe hvac's credible source over your forceful assertion.
Serious adverse events have to be reported to VAERS. I think the FDA would notice if Pfizer lied about there being no pattern.
Serious adverse events have to be reported to VAERS. I think the FDA would notice if Pfizer lied about there being no pattern.
I quoted directly from the approval document on the FDA website. The other poster is linking to some unrelated thing about VAERS.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
You quoted the part of the fact sheet about reporting serious adverse events to VAERS. The University of Iowa page is about the same thing exactly. They quoted the same definition. The only differences were they abbreviated adverse event and gave examples.
"A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; e.g. symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
"A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; e.g. symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
[deleted]
Yeah no one is forcing them, so what’s your point?
Vaccination of children wouldn’t be needed if most adults got it. But they don’t because they’re dumb. So now they’re saying children can get it if they’re parents want. It’s a choice to do your part to reduce the spread. Pretty simple.
Vaccination of children wouldn’t be needed if most adults got it. But they don’t because they’re dumb. So now they’re saying children can get it if they’re parents want. It’s a choice to do your part to reduce the spread. Pretty simple.
> But they don’t because they’re dumb
Given that some of the the lowest vaccination uptake rates are in black and latino communities who have historically strained relationships with the medical system -- as well as some of the highest prior infection rates -- your comment is misinformed.
Whatever the current level of immunity may be, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all rapidly declining across the US. Moreover, the vaccines are all close to 100% effective at preventing severe illness. There are a great many reasons to be optimistic about our current trajectory, and no immediate need to put children at risk to get where we need to go.
Given that some of the the lowest vaccination uptake rates are in black and latino communities who have historically strained relationships with the medical system -- as well as some of the highest prior infection rates -- your comment is misinformed.
Whatever the current level of immunity may be, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all rapidly declining across the US. Moreover, the vaccines are all close to 100% effective at preventing severe illness. There are a great many reasons to be optimistic about our current trajectory, and no immediate need to put children at risk to get where we need to go.
Vaccine refusal is more partisan than racial.[1]
[1] https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#...
[1] https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#...
The numbers you're citing say that 19% of black and 30% of hispanic people surveyed don't plan to get vaccinated. The equivalent number is 24% for white people.
Moreover, empirical reality differs from polling. In New York City, for example (a big, liberal, multi-ethnic city), Latino people lag whites by 12% in vaccination rate; black people lag by 17%:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p...
Whatever people are telling pollsters, it differs from their actions. Maybe they have "plans" to get vaccinated, but they're not doing it right now.
Moreover, empirical reality differs from polling. In New York City, for example (a big, liberal, multi-ethnic city), Latino people lag whites by 12% in vaccination rate; black people lag by 17%:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p...
Whatever people are telling pollsters, it differs from their actions. Maybe they have "plans" to get vaccinated, but they're not doing it right now.
I didn't say not racial at all. I said more partisan. 45% of 1 major party. 7% of the other. Independents in between.
A different poll said Hispanic people are the most inclined to get vaccinated. But politics was the strongest correlation still.[1]
Cumulative vaccination rates reflect earlier hesitation. Also scheduling difficulties, transportation difficulties, and wanting to get vaccinated by a trusted provider.[2] But targeted efforts have closed or nearly closed the gaps in many places.[3]
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coron...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620...
[3] https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open
A different poll said Hispanic people are the most inclined to get vaccinated. But politics was the strongest correlation still.[1]
Cumulative vaccination rates reflect earlier hesitation. Also scheduling difficulties, transportation difficulties, and wanting to get vaccinated by a trusted provider.[2] But targeted efforts have closed or nearly closed the gaps in many places.[3]
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coron...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620...
[3] https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/2388/open
> more kids had "severe" reactions to the vaccine (>2%)
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but where are you seeing this in the news release?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but where are you seeing this in the news release?
Sorry, It starts on page 25 here:
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
Yea we mostly do. Covid behaves like other similar viruses. Every side effect the media has portrayed about this virus like it's the only virus that has these effects exists in other viruses.
So you mostly do, but not completely.
We mostly know this vaccine is fine, since it completely leaves the body in a few days anyway… but not completely.
Same thing, mute point in consideration.
We mostly know this vaccine is fine, since it completely leaves the body in a few days anyway… but not completely.
Same thing, mute point in consideration.
1.6% of the placebo group getting symptomatic covid seems crazy high for this age group in a short period of time, kind of unclear but it sounded like a 2 week a period
Was there a super-spreader event in the placebo group?
Was there a super-spreader event in the placebo group?
It’s over a much longer period than that.
[deleted]
According to this paper published recently in Nature Immunology, around 4 out of 5 people already have pre-existing immunity to SARS-COV-2.
> Of the SARS donors, 100% showed T cell responses to cross-reactive and/or specific ECs (HLA class I 86%, HLA-DR 100%; Fig. 5d,e), whereas 81% of PRE donors showed HLA class I (16%) and/or HLA-DR (77%) T cell responses to cross-reactive ECs (Fig. 5d).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x.pdf
> Of the SARS donors, 100% showed T cell responses to cross-reactive and/or specific ECs (HLA class I 86%, HLA-DR 100%; Fig. 5d,e), whereas 81% of PRE donors showed HLA class I (16%) and/or HLA-DR (77%) T cell responses to cross-reactive ECs (Fig. 5d).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x.pdf
Having reactive antibodies isn't the same thing as immunity.
Pre-print for that paper was published 7 months ago and the sample collection date was from April-May 2020. Obviously there have been huge spikes in cases across the world since May 2020 with majority of infections occurring after that timeframe.
> Sample collection date Apr–May 2020
> Sample collection date Apr–May 2020
Does anyone know the case fatality rate for children in this age range?
Yeah. Nil.
It’s small, but I don’t believe it’s zero, and there’s concern about long-term organ damage even for those who survive.
My kids will be getting the vaccine.
My kids will be getting the vaccine.
I'm looking into it too. Can you provide more information on the long term organ damage? Do you know what the incidence of this kind of damage in children is?
I think commenter is referring to Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) that specifically impacts children.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
Nil != 0
:-p
:-p
282 deaths according to CDC.
In context, Israel had 9 (for 1/40 of US population - similar rate) and a reporter that actually inquired about each case, reported that every single one of them died while PCR positive but corona was not implicated in death (e.g. one had terminal cancer at a “dying any day” stage and in fact recovered from corona before dying; another was a traffic accident casualty, etc)
Also 40 cases of MIS-C; corona isn’t benign, but by all counts it’s less harmful than the flu at ages 0-19, though much more harmful for older people.
And a couple of cases of heart attacks and life threatening thrombosis at 16 associated and almost surely resulting from the vaccine. It’s safe, but not perfectly safe as many believe.
In such small numbers, it is incredibly hard to compare short term safety of disease and of vaccine. (And of course impossible to assess long term effects of either as well)
Also 40 cases of MIS-C; corona isn’t benign, but by all counts it’s less harmful than the flu at ages 0-19, though much more harmful for older people.
And a couple of cases of heart attacks and life threatening thrombosis at 16 associated and almost surely resulting from the vaccine. It’s safe, but not perfectly safe as many believe.
In such small numbers, it is incredibly hard to compare short term safety of disease and of vaccine. (And of course impossible to assess long term effects of either as well)
282 for all of 0-17 ages
Pretty much none.
Go USA! What is the current standard of review for these authorizations since complete clinical trials are not possible, and a convenient point of contention for people that opt-out of taking the vaccine (most of them would move the goal post to something else even with successful clinical trials with a relatable list of side effects, but I was wondering about this process)
Isn't it reasonable to have the option to opt-out of taking these vaccines, in the absence of more complete data and longer-term trials?
Yes, I think that at this point putting your own life at risk is acceptable. You'll probably have to wear a mask since you could make other people sick (who could then pass it on to someone immunocompromised). Of course you could face a civil suit, if someone get's sick or dies, and you can be shown as the proximate cause of illness. Your employer may choose not to take that risk.
If you're licensed in many states (e.g. medical, etc.) you're already required to be vaccinated against flu/TB. With EUA they've put this off, but with full authorization, why treat it differently?
One question, what long term effect of the vaccines are you concerned about, that wouldn't be far less severe than actually being infected?
If you're licensed in many states (e.g. medical, etc.) you're already required to be vaccinated against flu/TB. With EUA they've put this off, but with full authorization, why treat it differently?
One question, what long term effect of the vaccines are you concerned about, that wouldn't be far less severe than actually being infected?
For healthy, young people, I can see many of them making a not-irrational judgement that with the reports of blood-clot side effects above the population expectancy [from AZ’s vaccine], coupled with a lack of full authorization for any of them, to conclude that waiting is reasonable for them. I support what I believe is their right to make that choice particularly in advance of a full approval for use.
(I’m fully vaccinated as of today, just as context for what I said above. I came to a different [and I believe rational] calculation of my own risk-balance of complications from the vaccine versus fading the COVID risk unvaccinated for me and my family/colleagues and signed up for the very first shot I could get, a 75 minute drive away.)
(I’m fully vaccinated as of today, just as context for what I said above. I came to a different [and I believe rational] calculation of my own risk-balance of complications from the vaccine versus fading the COVID risk unvaccinated for me and my family/colleagues and signed up for the very first shot I could get, a 75 minute drive away.)
I would love to be wrong, but I think the vast majority of people with vaccine hesitancy will feel no different once non-emergency authorization is granted
I also don't totally agree that it's rational to hold out on vaccination due to blood clot concerns. From the stats I've seen, (even for young people) death from post-vax blood clots seems to be rarer than death from COVID. Although I suppose there's an element of "if everyone else gets vaccinated, maybe I don't need to". It would be ironic if that attitude means that, instead of being eradicated, COVID will be floating around for decades until those now young people become at-risk due to age.
I also don't totally agree that it's rational to hold out on vaccination due to blood clot concerns. From the stats I've seen, (even for young people) death from post-vax blood clots seems to be rarer than death from COVID. Although I suppose there's an element of "if everyone else gets vaccinated, maybe I don't need to". It would be ironic if that attitude means that, instead of being eradicated, COVID will be floating around for decades until those now young people become at-risk due to age.
Age is a risk factor. Many European countries recommend AZ only above age 50 (Britain above 30) because of the risk/reward profile.
Also, the Pandemrix history teaches us that although adverse effects manifest within 2 months, it can take over a year to figure out problems (spoiler: pandemrix was touted as safe including by Fauci but was associated with 5X increase in Narcolepsy, a deveatatig life altering disease. There is a suspected mechanism but no certainty, so you can’t even say “we incorporated the lessons from that”)
Also, the Pandemrix history teaches us that although adverse effects manifest within 2 months, it can take over a year to figure out problems (spoiler: pandemrix was touted as safe including by Fauci but was associated with 5X increase in Narcolepsy, a deveatatig life altering disease. There is a suspected mechanism but no certainty, so you can’t even say “we incorporated the lessons from that”)
The problem with this angle is that, if antibodies to the spike protein cause an immune response related disorder... what do you think the virus will do? It presents many more (and likely much less stable/useful) immune response targets any number of which might cause life altering diseases, even in young people! The H1N1 disease would have almost certainly had similar effects on autoimmune disorders (as Pandemris) since it looks like this was a genetic predisposition.
There is a fundamental problem with all of the hesitancy/risk issues, which is that the risk of not being vaccinated is much higher, unless you can personally count on never getting exposed to the virus, which at this point (for people alive now) seems highly unlikely. The classic example is the blood disorders for J&J, which are about as risky as driving 20-100mi (depending on where). It's not that driving is so dangerous (it's certainly not perfectly safe), but that the issues are so rare, and the alternative is worse.
There is a fundamental problem with all of the hesitancy/risk issues, which is that the risk of not being vaccinated is much higher, unless you can personally count on never getting exposed to the virus, which at this point (for people alive now) seems highly unlikely. The classic example is the blood disorders for J&J, which are about as risky as driving 20-100mi (depending on where). It's not that driving is so dangerous (it's certainly not perfectly safe), but that the issues are so rare, and the alternative is worse.
That’s making an awful lot of assumptions, and is contradicted by a counter example with Pandemrix.
There is no equivalence between naturally getting it and artificially getting it. Almost everything is different about the process.
And everything you say had been said about pandemrix at the time, including the chance of getting the disease vs the vaccine - and historically was wrong.
There is no equivalence between naturally getting it and artificially getting it. Almost everything is different about the process.
And everything you say had been said about pandemrix at the time, including the chance of getting the disease vs the vaccine - and historically was wrong.
Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology.
They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. Although some people make up long term effects, many other people are just acknowledging the absence of history to tell, and thats valid.
(Very few of the people opting out are distinguishing between any vaccine technology though. But some are.)
They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. Although some people make up long term effects, many other people are just acknowledging the absence of history to tell, and thats valid.
(Very few of the people opting out are distinguishing between any vaccine technology though. But some are.)
> Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology.
> They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown.
To be a reasonable concern it has to be weighed against the alternatives. People have essentially four options assuming the virus does't just go away soon: get vaccinated using a new technology, wait for an older technology vaccine to be available, mask/isolate until the new vaccines have sufficient long-term data for their ill-defined concerns, get COVID.
Well COVID has high risk for long-term effects for all age-groups including death so any reasonable person will exclude that option. Older technology vaccines for many regions of the world may never be available or be sufficiently efficacious so that and masking/isolating indefinitely and maybe even getting COVID are the same option. Plus, there is no data showing any long-term effects for vaccines that don't become apparent in the first year or 100 million people receiving them.
COVID vaccine hesitancy is no longer a reasonable position to hold.
To be a reasonable concern it has to be weighed against the alternatives. People have essentially four options assuming the virus does't just go away soon: get vaccinated using a new technology, wait for an older technology vaccine to be available, mask/isolate until the new vaccines have sufficient long-term data for their ill-defined concerns, get COVID.
Well COVID has high risk for long-term effects for all age-groups including death so any reasonable person will exclude that option. Older technology vaccines for many regions of the world may never be available or be sufficiently efficacious so that and masking/isolating indefinitely and maybe even getting COVID are the same option. Plus, there is no data showing any long-term effects for vaccines that don't become apparent in the first year or 100 million people receiving them.
COVID vaccine hesitancy is no longer a reasonable position to hold.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA and it is currently available in the United States.
There were adult women under the age of 50 who had some medical problems with it but, it is much better than getting COVID. If the mRNA vaccine are the obstacle in getting vaccinated I’d go with the J&J.
(Note: I am not a medical doctor and this is not medical advice)
There were adult women under the age of 50 who had some medical problems with it but, it is much better than getting COVID. If the mRNA vaccine are the obstacle in getting vaccinated I’d go with the J&J.
(Note: I am not a medical doctor and this is not medical advice)
> The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA
It uses DNA delivered via a non-replicating adenovirus vector, it's the first vaccine of its kind to be given any form of approval in humans in the United States and maybe the fourth in the world all in the last year. It is still "new technology" in a similar fashion to the mRNA vaccines. For the new=scary=bad crowd it isn't much of an improvement.
It uses DNA delivered via a non-replicating adenovirus vector, it's the first vaccine of its kind to be given any form of approval in humans in the United States and maybe the fourth in the world all in the last year. It is still "new technology" in a similar fashion to the mRNA vaccines. For the new=scary=bad crowd it isn't much of an improvement.
Isn't "the mRNA technology" decades old at this point? Yes, this might be the first wide spread human deployment, but they've been researching the technique in animals for over thirty years.
What's the bar for when a technology is no longer "new"?
What's the bar for when a technology is no longer "new"?
Come on, I did it last week but after weeks of hesitancy between mrna and the chinese deactivated alternative (I live in China).
Im a scientific, rational, atheist moderate person, I fight all day long against idiots spouting conspiracy theories, but still.
This vaccine is the first time I get an mrna vaccine, and I just have this one life. I understand why vaccination is important but in a world where people lie and cheat, I have only one shot. Be nice about it. This is new.
Im a scientific, rational, atheist moderate person, I fight all day long against idiots spouting conspiracy theories, but still.
This vaccine is the first time I get an mrna vaccine, and I just have this one life. I understand why vaccination is important but in a world where people lie and cheat, I have only one shot. Be nice about it. This is new.
You’re joking right? This reads like a parody
No? The first mRNA tests were conducted in 1990 in mice -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/
We figured out the basics in 2005, specifically two scientists Karikó and Weissman.
A decade ago there were discussions about how to develop more complex vaccines -- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269
Given the immense potential to address everything from parasites (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/) to cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/) to allergies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/), tons of research is being done on this technology.
Scientists have been working on and reporting on dosing strategies, managing immune responses, monitoring long term effects on animals, etc. for a long time now.
Which part is parody? Just because something is new to you doesn't mean it's new.
We figured out the basics in 2005, specifically two scientists Karikó and Weissman.
A decade ago there were discussions about how to develop more complex vaccines -- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269
Given the immense potential to address everything from parasites (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/) to cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/) to allergies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/), tons of research is being done on this technology.
Scientists have been working on and reporting on dosing strategies, managing immune responses, monitoring long term effects on animals, etc. for a long time now.
Which part is parody? Just because something is new to you doesn't mean it's new.
I mean you literally typed “yeah it’s only been widely tested in animals and this is the first large scale human application of it, why are people thinking this is new?”
Sure, if you want to get into a semantic argument. The point is that the mechanism isn't complex, there is decades of research and multiple studies showing us it's likely safe, and still people are out here saying things like, "It's totally untested!"
Like, at some point we have to trust science and accept that studies and test groups will give us some reliable safety guesses. People generally have no idea how much research has already gone into this vaccine because they've been taken in by all the media coverage around the mRNA vaccines claiming the technology is new.
Let me try explaining via an analogy. It's like the folks who are really worried about 5G signals because they are new. On the one hand, yes, humankind has not had long term exposure to 5G signals. On the other hand science has a fairly complete understanding of various electromagnetic spectrums and is the phenomena of using electromagnetic phenomena is hardly new.
So yes, mRNA vaccines are 'new', but only in the way 5G is 'new'. We may not have deployed it widely before, but we're pretty dang sure we understand it.
Like, at some point we have to trust science and accept that studies and test groups will give us some reliable safety guesses. People generally have no idea how much research has already gone into this vaccine because they've been taken in by all the media coverage around the mRNA vaccines claiming the technology is new.
Let me try explaining via an analogy. It's like the folks who are really worried about 5G signals because they are new. On the one hand, yes, humankind has not had long term exposure to 5G signals. On the other hand science has a fairly complete understanding of various electromagnetic spectrums and is the phenomena of using electromagnetic phenomena is hardly new.
So yes, mRNA vaccines are 'new', but only in the way 5G is 'new'. We may not have deployed it widely before, but we're pretty dang sure we understand it.
In the absence of legitimate health concerns preventing one from safely receiving the vaccines, it's increasingly unreasonable and arguably unethical to opt-out of taking the vaccines.
[deleted]
It's unreasonable to want more data and longer term studies before making a decision to take one of these vaccines?
It's barely been a year. We all hope they're great, but it should remain a choice.
It's barely been a year. We all hope they're great, but it should remain a choice.
As long as it's still legal, my wife wont budge. Some people are just scared and want nothing to do with it until it's mandatory.
Sure - but the parent didn't criticize the existence of the option. They criticized the decision making that many (not all) people use when exercising that option.
The clinical trials are actually the same (statistical power) as previous vaccine trials. They've simply enrolled more people faster and had a higher infection rate to evaluate safety and efficacy. It is likely in the next month that Pfizer will get a standard (non Emergency Use) Authorization.
https://www.biospace.com/article/pfizer-biontech-and-moderna...
The reason for EUA was that so many people were dying that some more limited (<1yr clinical safety) data was accepted. Now that many of the original subjects are falling past 1yr post inoculation (and variants have been evaluated) a full authorization in eminent. Previously, people worried that once one vaccine was authorized other EUA (NovaVax, AZ/ChadOx, etc) wouldn't happened, has also been resolved since the FDA realizes people want choice.
https://www.biospace.com/article/pfizer-biontech-and-moderna...
The reason for EUA was that so many people were dying that some more limited (<1yr clinical safety) data was accepted. Now that many of the original subjects are falling past 1yr post inoculation (and variants have been evaluated) a full authorization in eminent. Previously, people worried that once one vaccine was authorized other EUA (NovaVax, AZ/ChadOx, etc) wouldn't happened, has also been resolved since the FDA realizes people want choice.
They are currently submitting their application for full regulatory approval: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...
Given that death rates for the elderly are in the thousands per week, while those for kids jump around two to four or so, is this a good idea? Typically you want the benefits of a vaccine to outweigh the risks. I certainly could be missing something, but it doesn't look like this is the case for healthy kids.