UK scientists not backing Covid jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds(bbc.com)
bbc.com
UK scientists not backing Covid jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669
100 comments
> But, from a medical ethics point of view that's not beneficial to them at all, why should they care if some one night stand they never saw again dies of cancer?
This is a very subtle but misleading rephrasing of what you should have said instead, which is: "But, from a medical ethics point of view that's marginally beneficial to them at the risk of inducing potential harm".
The four pillars of medical ethics are Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice. Your phrasing effectively subtly side-stepped the third pillar as irrelevant, when presumably it was the one factor whose influence led to the delay you mention.
This is a very subtle but misleading rephrasing of what you should have said instead, which is: "But, from a medical ethics point of view that's marginally beneficial to them at the risk of inducing potential harm".
The four pillars of medical ethics are Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice. Your phrasing effectively subtly side-stepped the third pillar as irrelevant, when presumably it was the one factor whose influence led to the delay you mention.
I can't edit my comment now, but I endorse this revision.
One difference between HPV vaccination in boys and COVID vaccination in kids is that if the unvaccinated boy eventually does give HPV directly to a girl she probably will not be his mother or sister. A kid spreading COVID on the other hand does have a good chance of giving it to siblings and parents.
Does that make any difference ethically?
In the HPV case you are weighing risk to the boy against potential harm to a vague ill-defined community. He's only endangering his sister or mother by perhaps slightly raising the level in the general population and so slight increasing the chances someone unrelated to him they have sex with will give it to them.
In the COVID case you are weighing risk to the child against risk of harm to the rest of the child's immediate family. Losing immediate family can be pretty harmful to a child, perhaps enough to ethically justify taking some risk to the child to avoid it.
Does that make any difference ethically?
In the HPV case you are weighing risk to the boy against potential harm to a vague ill-defined community. He's only endangering his sister or mother by perhaps slightly raising the level in the general population and so slight increasing the chances someone unrelated to him they have sex with will give it to them.
In the COVID case you are weighing risk to the child against risk of harm to the rest of the child's immediate family. Losing immediate family can be pretty harmful to a child, perhaps enough to ethically justify taking some risk to the child to avoid it.
-
Vaccination decreases likelihood of transmitting Delta but doesn't absolutely prevent it. Vaccination prevents downstream spread and thus deaths and given the amplification of increasingly larger downstream generations this effect could still be very large when considering the entire population.
How much does vaccination decrease the likelihood of transmission of Delta? Does anyone know this?
> Does that make any difference ethically?
No, ethically your only concern is the patient.
No, ethically your only concern is the patient.
That's not the case. Otherwise living organ donation would be unethical. Clearly it is ethical even though it contains much more risk to the donor than a COVID vaccination.
Donation by competent adults comes down to a similar rationale to cosmetic surgery. The donor says this is specifically what they want to happen, the medic is confident that the donor understands the risk and consents to this procedure despite it, the benefit is to their well being.
The extent to which humans are usually capable of meaningful consent is dubious, which is also a problem in other aspects of life, but that's the best option we have available.
Donation in children or the mentally disabled is a big problem because now we're dealing with trying to guess whether a person has the capacity to understand and then consent to the risk. On the one hand it might seem safer to always say "No" but this denies their autonomy.
The extent to which humans are usually capable of meaningful consent is dubious, which is also a problem in other aspects of life, but that's the best option we have available.
Donation in children or the mentally disabled is a big problem because now we're dealing with trying to guess whether a person has the capacity to understand and then consent to the risk. On the one hand it might seem safer to always say "No" but this denies their autonomy.
I've kept seeing over the years that men can get throat cancer from HPV. Is this true, and if so, why wouldn't a vaccination help?
AFAIU, yes, but the benefits just weren't as well understood at the time of the original debate, which as I recall revolved entirely around the ethics of vaccinating boys for the benefit of girls. It probably also helped that by the time recommendations were more generally extended to boys there was greater confidence in safety, as HPV-associated cancer in men isn't as prevalent[1] as in women. The cost-benefit tradeoffs were different.
[1] This CDC page, https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm, says the ratio is ~3/4 (19900/25400), which is surprising. But that might be a modern figure. I suspect this wasn't as well known or as appreciated 15 years ago. Also, it seems that throat cancer incidence has been increasing rapidly recently (see https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-q-...), so actual ratio may have been much smaller 15 years ago.
[1] This CDC page, https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm, says the ratio is ~3/4 (19900/25400), which is surprising. But that might be a modern figure. I suspect this wasn't as well known or as appreciated 15 years ago. Also, it seems that throat cancer incidence has been increasing rapidly recently (see https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-q-...), so actual ratio may have been much smaller 15 years ago.
It would help.
That's what Michael Douglas alluded to in his ill-advised joke about his SO.
It's rather more direct than that. The Covid vaccine doesn't help that much in reducing transmission because it is not a sterilising vaccine. Hence we have rather more cases than we would like in countries where vaccination rates are in the high 80%s.
So it is like giving boys an HPV vaccine that isn't that likely to stop them giving girls cervical cancer, but pretending to them that it does.
With the knock on to behaviour patterns that belief may have.
We are rapidly moving into the area of diminishing returns with Covid that cannot be avoided without better vaccines.
So it is like giving boys an HPV vaccine that isn't that likely to stop them giving girls cervical cancer, but pretending to them that it does.
With the knock on to behaviour patterns that belief may have.
We are rapidly moving into the area of diminishing returns with Covid that cannot be avoided without better vaccines.
Medical "ethics" is a very odd thing. Apparently doing something for reasons that aren't 100% selfish is unethical.
If we applied this to the rest of life, we would shut down volunteer fire departments because the firefighters get no compensation and could be hurt while trying to save other's lives.
If we applied this to the rest of life, we would shut down volunteer fire departments because the firefighters get no compensation and could be hurt while trying to save other's lives.
'by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community'
We were told the vaccine would reduce severity of symptoms thus lightening burden on hospital beds. You claim it reduces transmission, though the studies on that are not complete. Let's keep the public health speculation about transmission based on peer reviewed studies rather than arm waving speculation.
We were told the vaccine would reduce severity of symptoms thus lightening burden on hospital beds. You claim it reduces transmission, though the studies on that are not complete. Let's keep the public health speculation about transmission based on peer reviewed studies rather than arm waving speculation.
I wouldn't worry as much about what you're "told" and instead follow the data, of which there is a ton that demonstrates Covid vaccines reduce infections, severe illness, and transmission:
> Data from multiple studies in different countries suggest that people vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine who develop COVID-19 have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(41-44) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(45) Two studies from the United Kingdom found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(25, 46)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
> Data from multiple studies in different countries suggest that people vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine who develop COVID-19 have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(41-44) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(45) Two studies from the United Kingdom found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(25, 46)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
But what about Israel?
60 % of hospitalized patients are vaccinated:
> What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’ https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac...
Natural immunity offers better protection than the vaccine:
> The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Disclaimer: I’m vaccinated.
60 % of hospitalized patients are vaccinated:
> What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’ https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac...
Natural immunity offers better protection than the vaccine:
> The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
Disclaimer: I’m vaccinated.
I’m not sure what your point is since it aligns with these studies, and Israel is strongly encouraging all of its citizens to get vaccinated and get boosters based on the data.
Israel has higher vaccinated hospitalizations than the rest of the world because they vaccinated their population, especially the oldest and most vulnerable, very early with pfizer, but it’s been shown in several studies now that pfizer immunity wanes faster than Moderna and apparently AZ (possibly because of dosing). that’s why they are doing a massive booster drive and the US should do the same.
As for natural immunity, both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity are great if you can get it! If you’ve had Covid and are vaccinated you are very protected. But whether you were infected with Covid or not, adding vaccination provides order of magnitude benefits.
Israel has higher vaccinated hospitalizations than the rest of the world because they vaccinated their population, especially the oldest and most vulnerable, very early with pfizer, but it’s been shown in several studies now that pfizer immunity wanes faster than Moderna and apparently AZ (possibly because of dosing). that’s why they are doing a massive booster drive and the US should do the same.
As for natural immunity, both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity are great if you can get it! If you’ve had Covid and are vaccinated you are very protected. But whether you were infected with Covid or not, adding vaccination provides order of magnitude benefits.
Why would young people take the vaccine if natural immunity protects better? Young people aren't at risk anyway. And the vaccine doesn't stop the spread of Delta. Yes, viral load is lower but lower viral load can still make someone very sick. So only older and vulnerable people should take it to protect themselves.
>A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others.
This is wrong. Correct would be "are less likely than unvaccinated persons without natural immunity to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others"
Even more baffling is how everyone seems to ignore we have a cure that works really well! https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
The focus on the vaccine as the only solution is very weird.
>A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others.
This is wrong. Correct would be "are less likely than unvaccinated persons without natural immunity to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others"
Even more baffling is how everyone seems to ignore we have a cure that works really well! https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
The focus on the vaccine as the only solution is very weird.
The vaccine does not prevent “natural immunity,” it enhances it. Hence why they can optimize by getting both.
Treatment is good to have available, but has not been enough to bring the death rate down on-par with vaccination. It also does not contradict vaccination, but is best in tandem.
Treatment is good to have available, but has not been enough to bring the death rate down on-par with vaccination. It also does not contradict vaccination, but is best in tandem.
I’m not against vaccination. It’s just weird how we’re doubling down on vaccines as the only solution. Delta changed the game, we should stop trying to pretend bullying everyone into taking the vaccine will solve the pandemic.
Vaccines are not the only solution. Everyone should be wearing masks inside and in crowded places, and people responsible for buildings should be improving their ventilation.
Seriously who believes vaccines are the “only” solution? They are one of the most important (if not the most important) tools we have against Covid.
There is no magic bullet here, just reductions in probabilities.
There is no magic bullet here, just reductions in probabilities.
I would defend that claim, though agree that the ‘bullying’ is not helpful. Vaccines are the only solution so far that has been shown to substantially reduce individual risk, or show potential to solve the pandemic. Other measures are beneficial too, but I don’t believe any other solution has looked promising yet at getting to the end, only at dealing with the interim. Even herd immunity via infection is currently a worse (slower and more expensive) option. So every normal adult is personally benefited from vaccination. What’s weird about teaching people science?
> Why would young people take the vaccine if natural immunity protects better?
1. not everyone has natural immunity. 2. many people don't know whether they were actually infected with Covid or not. 3. It's not always better. (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...) 4. because if natural immunity gets you to x% protected there is no downside to taking a vaccine which gets you to (x+y)% protected.
> Young people aren't at risk anyway.
This is actually completely false. Young people are at less risk. Healthy young people are hospitalized and die of Covid just at a much lower rate. Not only that but they can spread it to older people that are at higher risk.
> And the vaccine doesn't stop the spread of Delta
Correct. It doesnt stop it (it's now endemic), but it lowers the transmission rate.
> This is wrong. Correct would be "are less likely than unvaccinated persons without natural immunity to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others"
Nope. Whether naturally infected or not, vaccinated makes you less likely to get Covid. (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...)
> Even more baffling is how everyone seems to ignore we have a cure that works really well!
It's not a cure, monoclonal antibodies are a great treatment that is not ignored, but it's better not to get sick in the first place!
from your article: "patients at high risk for disease progression, hospitalizations and emergency room visits occurred in 3% of casirivimab and imdevimab-treated patients on average compared to 9% in placebo-treated patients."
That is not a cure. It is a good treatment to take if you need it.
1. not everyone has natural immunity. 2. many people don't know whether they were actually infected with Covid or not. 3. It's not always better. (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...) 4. because if natural immunity gets you to x% protected there is no downside to taking a vaccine which gets you to (x+y)% protected.
> Young people aren't at risk anyway.
This is actually completely false. Young people are at less risk. Healthy young people are hospitalized and die of Covid just at a much lower rate. Not only that but they can spread it to older people that are at higher risk.
> And the vaccine doesn't stop the spread of Delta
Correct. It doesnt stop it (it's now endemic), but it lowers the transmission rate.
> This is wrong. Correct would be "are less likely than unvaccinated persons without natural immunity to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others"
Nope. Whether naturally infected or not, vaccinated makes you less likely to get Covid. (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...)
> Even more baffling is how everyone seems to ignore we have a cure that works really well!
It's not a cure, monoclonal antibodies are a great treatment that is not ignored, but it's better not to get sick in the first place!
from your article: "patients at high risk for disease progression, hospitalizations and emergency room visits occurred in 3% of casirivimab and imdevimab-treated patients on average compared to 9% in placebo-treated patients."
That is not a cure. It is a good treatment to take if you need it.
> This is actually completely false. Young people are at less risk. Healthy young people are hospitalized and die of Covid just at a much lower rate. Not only that but they can spread it to older people that are at higher risk.
The risk is slightly higher than the flu so virtually non-existent. -> https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/1433575276009512961
And we have a treatment now to help those older people.
> Nope. Whether naturally infected or not, vaccinated makes you less likely to get Covid.
The Israel study tells us otherwise.
> It's not a cure, monoclonal antibodies are a great treatment that is not ignored, but it's better not to get sick in the first place!
It is ignored by the press and politicians. They keep telling us the only way out is vaccines. Which is wrong.
The risk is slightly higher than the flu so virtually non-existent. -> https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/1433575276009512961
And we have a treatment now to help those older people.
> Nope. Whether naturally infected or not, vaccinated makes you less likely to get Covid.
The Israel study tells us otherwise.
> It's not a cure, monoclonal antibodies are a great treatment that is not ignored, but it's better not to get sick in the first place!
It is ignored by the press and politicians. They keep telling us the only way out is vaccines. Which is wrong.
> The risk is slightly higher than the flu so virtually non-existent. -> https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/1433575276009512961
That sounds to me like the risk in young people is lower than the flu. The CDC also said the same: https://web.archive.org/web/20210820184423/https://www.cdc.g...
> For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19.
That sounds to me like the risk in young people is lower than the flu. The CDC also said the same: https://web.archive.org/web/20210820184423/https://www.cdc.g...
> For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19.
Covid was considered lower risk than flu for kids until delta.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/delta-variant-mor...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/delta-variant-mor...
The data has never supported that covid is less dangerous than flu in kids. In the first year about 300 children in the US died from covid. Social distancing collapsed flu cases nationwide. There was a single childhood flu death last season.
This is not accurate. Covid IFR for children < 12 was near 0 in 2020 which is far less risky than flu for that group.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
> Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
> Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
Are you arguing that COVID is more deadly in young people than the flu because its absolute number of deaths in young people was higher last year, without taking into account that the number of infections was higher too?
> The Israel study tells us otherwise.
you should re-read it.
>The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
> The risk is slightly higher than the flu so virtually non-existent.
Flu kills hundreds of children a year. Tell one of their parents that the risk is "non-existent". That's why flu vaccine is recommended for most.
> CDC recommends everyone 6 months and older get an annual flu vaccine, especially children who are younger than 5 years of age or children of any age who have a high risk medical condition, because they are more likely to develop serious flu complications that can lead to hospitalization and death. Getting vaccinated has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatr...
you should re-read it.
>The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
> The risk is slightly higher than the flu so virtually non-existent.
Flu kills hundreds of children a year. Tell one of their parents that the risk is "non-existent". That's why flu vaccine is recommended for most.
> CDC recommends everyone 6 months and older get an annual flu vaccine, especially children who are younger than 5 years of age or children of any age who have a high risk medical condition, because they are more likely to develop serious flu complications that can lead to hospitalization and death. Getting vaccinated has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatr...
That's true, but from the data I've seen, the risk to under 18s of Covid is still higher for both hospitalization and death than that of the vaccine heart inflammation potential rare side effect. That said, compared to over 18, I admit it is not as clear cut, and I can understand being more hesitant.
But if only 10% would ever get Covid and 80% would get the vaccine the numbers would need to be adjusted.
The data I've seen is already adjusted I believe, because even absolute count shows more hospitalization and death due to Covid, and its more likely less people have been exposed to Covid than have received the vaccine.
My data is EMA in EU says for under 40 year old, of 197 million vaccines, only 321 had the heart inflammation and 5 died from it, the rest recovered.
While CDC data says in the US till now, for under 49 year old, there's been 60902 hospitalizations for Covid (3782 under 18yr), with 24 deaths in the under 18 year range.
The population in US for under 49 year old is 210 million. So even assuming worse case, that every under 49 year old in the US got exposed to Covid, we get:
Vaccine (under 40yr - in EU):
My data is EMA in EU says for under 40 year old, of 197 million vaccines, only 321 had the heart inflammation and 5 died from it, the rest recovered.
While CDC data says in the US till now, for under 49 year old, there's been 60902 hospitalizations for Covid (3782 under 18yr), with 24 deaths in the under 18 year range.
The population in US for under 49 year old is 210 million. So even assuming worse case, that every under 49 year old in the US got exposed to Covid, we get:
Vaccine (under 40yr - in EU):
321 hospitalization out of 197 million ~= 0.00016%
5 deaths out of 197 million ~= 0.0000025%
60902 hospitalization out of 210 million (best case, likely inflated) ~= 0.03%
24 deaths (under 18yr) out of 82 million (best case, likely inflated) ~= 0.00003%
The other calculation would be the number of those who get the vaccine and still get (lesser?) covid.
That seems like a complicated and subtle argument.
The traditional market option should be kept on the table - all the official groups can make recommendations and then people can decide for themselves what and how many vaccines to get. Ideally paying for it themselves since a vaccine dose seems to cost around $20-50.
Trying to decide whether people should or shouldn't be forcing to get vaccinated is a bad policy. Most people already want to be vaccinated; just let them make their own choices and assume their own risk.
The traditional market option should be kept on the table - all the official groups can make recommendations and then people can decide for themselves what and how many vaccines to get. Ideally paying for it themselves since a vaccine dose seems to cost around $20-50.
Trying to decide whether people should or shouldn't be forcing to get vaccinated is a bad policy. Most people already want to be vaccinated; just let them make their own choices and assume their own risk.
>Ideally paying for it themselves since a vaccine dose seems to cost around $20-50.
Why discourage poor people from the vaccine? Surely the benefit to society(and the economy and the markets) is greater than the cost of that vaccine.
Why discourage poor people from the vaccine? Surely the benefit to society(and the economy and the markets) is greater than the cost of that vaccine.
If you think that, you can buy it on someone else's behalf.
At the moment the argument seems to be whether people who believe the cost outweighs the benefit outweighs should be force-vaccinated and made to pay for it. There is a simple solution to this Gordian knot - let people do what they want to do. The vaccine seems to be a good idea that is unsuccessful at stopping the virus, so there is no need to force everyone to get one.
At the moment the argument seems to be whether people who believe the cost outweighs the benefit outweighs should be force-vaccinated and made to pay for it. There is a simple solution to this Gordian knot - let people do what they want to do. The vaccine seems to be a good idea that is unsuccessful at stopping the virus, so there is no need to force everyone to get one.
Who was talking about forcing it? It can be free without forcing people to take it, which is what is happening around the country.
>If you think that, you can buy it on someone else's behalf.
Does that mean you want to freeload the benefits paid by me?
This situation comes to mind.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39516346
>If you think that, you can buy it on someone else's behalf.
Does that mean you want to freeload the benefits paid by me?
This situation comes to mind.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39516346
If you think that would be freeloading, then it will take some mental gymnastics for you to simultaneously believe the benefit is greater than the cost.
There are some actions that only take effect when a large majority of the population does it, even if said action isn't their first preference.
For example, carbon reduction to combat climate change.
So making it compulsory is one way to achieve some positive end result, and make the "burden" shared across everyone. It prevents freeloaders as well (since if performing said action requires sacrifice, there would be people who want to freeload by not performing the action, but have other people perform said action, and yet they can still enjoy the positive outcome).
For example, carbon reduction to combat climate change.
So making it compulsory is one way to achieve some positive end result, and make the "burden" shared across everyone. It prevents freeloaders as well (since if performing said action requires sacrifice, there would be people who want to freeload by not performing the action, but have other people perform said action, and yet they can still enjoy the positive outcome).
It's strange that they're narrowly focused on myocarditis.
In the large scale Israeli vaccine safety study, researchers found elevated rates of kidney injury among covid survivors. Among confirmed pediatric cases the current hospitalization rate stands at around 1 per 100. There's some ascertainment bias going on because we don't know the true infection rate. Even if we're undercounting childhood infections by a factor of ten that works out to 1,000 hospitalizations per million.
In the large scale Israeli vaccine safety study, researchers found elevated rates of kidney injury among covid survivors. Among confirmed pediatric cases the current hospitalization rate stands at around 1 per 100. There's some ascertainment bias going on because we don't know the true infection rate. Even if we're undercounting childhood infections by a factor of ten that works out to 1,000 hospitalizations per million.
Norway is apparently recommending only one dose for 12-15 at this time, citing the increased risk of myocarditis after the 2nd dose.
https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112
https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112
So definitely no booster shots then?
Maybe boosters/2nd doses in the future but not now.
https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronav... as translated by Google Translate says:
"NIPH has assessed that for this age group, which to a lesser extent than adults and older adolescents has contributed to the spread of infection, the individual considerations of offering vaccination are more important than the societal benefit of limiting the spread of infection. However, this may be considered differently if the infection situation changes in the time ahead. "
https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronav... as translated by Google Translate says:
"NIPH has assessed that for this age group, which to a lesser extent than adults and older adolescents has contributed to the spread of infection, the individual considerations of offering vaccination are more important than the societal benefit of limiting the spread of infection. However, this may be considered differently if the infection situation changes in the time ahead. "
> The vaccine advisers have been under huge pressure.
> Ministers have let it be known they are very keen on getting this age group vaccinated - both through their public pronouncements and privately behind the scenes.
> This has caused frustration among JCVI members - with some complaining about the habit of government officials sitting in on meetings.
Sounds like a healthy environment for unbiased decision-making.
> Ministers have let it be known they are very keen on getting this age group vaccinated - both through their public pronouncements and privately behind the scenes.
> This has caused frustration among JCVI members - with some complaining about the habit of government officials sitting in on meetings.
Sounds like a healthy environment for unbiased decision-making.
Are children in the UK given the choice for themselves?
I believe many teenagers would choose to protect their family or decide they don’t need the jab because they have already had Covid. Allowing them the choice also puts them on equal standing with the rest of the adults that choose not to get vaccinated.
Also of note, 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand can get immunisation, usually at the same time a parent does. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-... (New Zealand has only had a few hundred cases of Covid in the community, so it is interesting that our health services encourage vaccination for teenagers). Edit: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-righ... says that NZ children can get immunisation or refuse to, regardless of their parents decision, if the child is deemed competent and if they fully understand what is involved in making the decision (the right applies to children of any age).
And the tl;dr sentences from the article are:
> There are three million children in total in this age group across the UK
> 6 million adults who have not even taken up the offer a jab yet [sic]
> Data from the US suggests there are 60 cases of the heart condition for every million second doses given to 12 to 17-year-old boys (compared to eight in one million girls)
> around half of children [sic] in this age group are thought to have had Covid, providing them with natural immunity anyway
I believe many teenagers would choose to protect their family or decide they don’t need the jab because they have already had Covid. Allowing them the choice also puts them on equal standing with the rest of the adults that choose not to get vaccinated.
Also of note, 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand can get immunisation, usually at the same time a parent does. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-... (New Zealand has only had a few hundred cases of Covid in the community, so it is interesting that our health services encourage vaccination for teenagers). Edit: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-righ... says that NZ children can get immunisation or refuse to, regardless of their parents decision, if the child is deemed competent and if they fully understand what is involved in making the decision (the right applies to children of any age).
And the tl;dr sentences from the article are:
> There are three million children in total in this age group across the UK
> 6 million adults who have not even taken up the offer a jab yet [sic]
> Data from the US suggests there are 60 cases of the heart condition for every million second doses given to 12 to 17-year-old boys (compared to eight in one million girls)
> around half of children [sic] in this age group are thought to have had Covid, providing them with natural immunity anyway
>Are chilren in the UK given the choice for themselves?
why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant.
i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo
why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant.
i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo
> then they don’t need it
As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do.
The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average.
Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them.
I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.)
As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision).
It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks?
Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.
As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do.
The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average.
Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them.
I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.)
As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision).
It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks?
Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.
- 'At this time' is July 2021
JCVI advises that children and young people aged 12 years and over with specific underlying health conditions that put them at risk of serious COVID-19, should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
At the current time, children 12 to 15 years of age with severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, underlying conditions resulting in immunosuppression, and those with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD)[footnote 1], severe learning disabilities or who are on the learning disability register are considered at increased risk for serious COVID-19 disease and should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccinat...
In the current decision they did advise widening the existing vaccine programme to include an extra 200,000 teenagers with specific underlying conditions.
JCVI advises that children and young people aged 12 years and over with specific underlying health conditions that put them at risk of serious COVID-19, should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
At the current time, children 12 to 15 years of age with severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, underlying conditions resulting in immunosuppression, and those with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD)[footnote 1], severe learning disabilities or who are on the learning disability register are considered at increased risk for serious COVID-19 disease and should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccinat...
In the current decision they did advise widening the existing vaccine programme to include an extra 200,000 teenagers with specific underlying conditions.
compare and contrast these findings to the CDC data released today:
> Hospitalization rate for unvaccinated teens 10 times the rate for those vaccinated, CDC says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta...)
> Hospitalization rate for unvaccinated teens 10 times the rate for those vaccinated, CDC says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta...)
But those numbers are not comparable. Increasing by 10x doesn't necessarily mean it's high enough to outweigh the risks from side effects.
There's more data in the actual study[0] which I think would allow you to make the comparison of risk of hospitalization from vaxed caused myocarditis vs Covid.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
> The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, children and adolescents meeting COVID-NET criteria with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result might have been hospitalized primarily for reasons other than COVID-19 (2), resulting in potential overestimations of hospitalization rates.
This is another study where kids who were hospitalized for some unrelated thing and who tested positive for COVID are counted as being hospitalized for COVID. Considering that most kids are not vaccinated (many are too young and most of those who are old enough are not vaccinated), it is not surprising that most of the kids who were hospitalized for any reason and tested positive were not vaccinated. Note: they apparently test all hospital admits for COVID these days.
This is another study where kids who were hospitalized for some unrelated thing and who tested positive for COVID are counted as being hospitalized for COVID. Considering that most kids are not vaccinated (many are too young and most of those who are old enough are not vaccinated), it is not surprising that most of the kids who were hospitalized for any reason and tested positive were not vaccinated. Note: they apparently test all hospital admits for COVID these days.
How many of those "unvaccinated" were partly vaccinated?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> In general, people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> In general, people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
I believe none. Partially vaxed were not included in the data:
> Fully vaccinated adolescents with COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were defined as those who had received a second vaccine dose ≥14 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result associated with their hospitalization. Adolescents whose positive SARS-CoV-2 test date was ≥14 days after a single dose through <14 days after a second dose were considered partially vaccinated and were not included in rates; adolescents who had received a single dose of vaccine <14 days before the positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were also not included in rates.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
> Fully vaccinated adolescents with COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were defined as those who had received a second vaccine dose ≥14 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result associated with their hospitalization. Adolescents whose positive SARS-CoV-2 test date was ≥14 days after a single dose through <14 days after a second dose were considered partially vaccinated and were not included in rates; adolescents who had received a single dose of vaccine <14 days before the positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were also not included in rates.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
That's excellent. Do you know if that methodology (exclusion of partly-vaccinated) applies to other CDC studies? e.g. are there studies where partly-vaccinated are reported as a separate category, rather than dropping the data?
Good question. I don't know the answer.
I'm wondering if you're more likely to have these adverse cardiac affects from energy drinks than the COVID vaccine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/
Though, quite recently, UK did ban the sale of energy drinks to those under 16 y/o
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/
Though, quite recently, UK did ban the sale of energy drinks to those under 16 y/o
COVID “jabs” seems demeaning to one of the fastest scientific kicks in history. We’ll remember the vaccine research the same as the moon landing.
"jab" is British english slang for vaccination.
Kinda like the flu shot. It’s not a shot, it’s a vaccine
Myocarditis is treated with ibuprofen right? So I would say take ibuprofen for a few days after the 2nd shot or just get 1 shot.
No you kind of just have to wait it out.. stuff like beta blockers _might_ be prescribed.
But UK government going ahead with them anyway??!
To be decided, based on whether it is worth it in terms of preventing infection among the older population.
My guess is that they decide against doing that.
My guess is that they decide against doing that.
With school starting over here this week and next for most kids there is going to be a lot of pressure on a very weak government to open up vaccination to 12-15 year-olds. I am betting they are going to allow it, if only to be seen as actually trying to get ahead of something instead of enduring another month or two of reacting (and reacting poorly if past results provide any hints) to unexpected events.
It is being leaked / briefed by downing street that the Prime Minister that he will overrule this decision.
ekianjo(1)
The UK is dumb, they don’t even vaccinate for chicken pox. The reason is that it protects old people from shingles by continuously exposing them supposedly. Haven’t seen any proof of that.
Yeah we decided to pay for chicken pox vaccinations for our kids. It's a horrible illness, and it's cruel to inflict it on children when it is so easily avoided.
I agree and the lack of a shingles epidemic in the USA since the advent of the chicken pox vaccine means that UK children are suffering needlessly.
> The decision not to recommend the vaccine to all healthy children was based on concern over an extremely rare side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which causes heart inflammation, and can lead to palpitations and chest pain.
Happened to a 27-year-old man in Richmond, B.C., Canada just a month ago.
https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-new...
> "“I had to get hooked up to an IV and they had to give me oxygen.”
> Li was eventually told he was one of the rare cases where male adolescents and young adults are diagnosed with pericarditis or myocarditis after their second vaccine.
Happened to a 27-year-old man in Richmond, B.C., Canada just a month ago.
https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-new...
> "“I had to get hooked up to an IV and they had to give me oxygen.”
> Li was eventually told he was one of the rare cases where male adolescents and young adults are diagnosed with pericarditis or myocarditis after their second vaccine.
I thought that they warn for these symptoms nowadays and ask you to get medical attention immediately and that you're basically fine with medical attention, right?
(In the early days of the vaccine, like ~March in the US, I think there were one or two deaths because the word hadn't gotten out that this was a symptom that required immediate medical attention. But I haven't heard of serious negative outcomes - death or long-term illness - recently.)
(In the early days of the vaccine, like ~March in the US, I think there were one or two deaths because the word hadn't gotten out that this was a symptom that required immediate medical attention. But I haven't heard of serious negative outcomes - death or long-term illness - recently.)
In this case, the dots were connected a little late. Part of the problem was that the man didn't begin to experience the symptoms after over a week. And it was his second dose, too.
Is that a formal warning as part of an informed consent disclosure? If so, the disclosure doc would be online and useful to many.
I'm not sure - but I see this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...
> Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms:
> Chest pain
> Shortness of breath
> Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart
> Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.
I think they also have a more general request to contact your doctor if you're experiencing side effects after more than a day or two, and messaging to doctors that they should be on the lookout for such symptoms. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... says,
> Contact your doctor or healthcare provider [...] If your side effects are worrying you or do not seem to be going away after a few days*
> Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms:
> Chest pain
> Shortness of breath
> Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart
> Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.
I think they also have a more general request to contact your doctor if you're experiencing side effects after more than a day or two, and messaging to doctors that they should be on the lookout for such symptoms. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... says,
> Contact your doctor or healthcare provider [...] If your side effects are worrying you or do not seem to be going away after a few days*
Thank you for the anecdata. Got any data to go with it?
CDC slide #7 reports 20 times higher myopericarditis than baseline for 18-24 year old males, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
Aug 2021 study from Yale, John Hopkins, Stanford, UCSF and others, https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/ea...
> 63 patients with a mean age of 15.6 years were included. 92% were male. All had received an mRNA vaccine and, except for one, presented following the 2nd dose. Four patients had significant dysrhythmia. 14% had mild left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography which resolved on discharge. 88% met the diagnostic cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.
Aug 2021 study from Yale, John Hopkins, Stanford, UCSF and others, https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/ea...
> 63 patients with a mean age of 15.6 years were included. 92% were male. All had received an mRNA vaccine and, except for one, presented following the 2nd dose. Four patients had significant dysrhythmia. 14% had mild left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography which resolved on discharge. 88% met the diagnostic cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.
> Lake Louise criteria
That's a lovely place in Aberta. Why this name? This is evidently due to the criteria emerging from the International Hypoxia Symposium, which took place in Lake Louise in February 2015.
That's a lovely place in Aberta. Why this name? This is evidently due to the criteria emerging from the International Hypoxia Symposium, which took place in Lake Louise in February 2015.
I posted this for the benefit of people who might be interested of what one person's experience was like who came down with this: what does it mean to have this inflammation surrounding the heart.
There is some data referenced right in the same story:
> U.S. data analysis showed the estimated rate of heart inflammation happening after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine is 16 cases in a million (one in 62,500 cases), according to a document published by the BCCDC in June 2021.
I am getting every available jab, myself.
In April 2020, my personal attitude was already that I'm ready for anything experimental: just let me know where and when.
There is some data referenced right in the same story:
> U.S. data analysis showed the estimated rate of heart inflammation happening after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine is 16 cases in a million (one in 62,500 cases), according to a document published by the BCCDC in June 2021.
I am getting every available jab, myself.
In April 2020, my personal attitude was already that I'm ready for anything experimental: just let me know where and when.
That's interesting, the EMA EU data shows 1.6 per million, while this CDC data would show 16 per million. This is where I've struggles in the Pandemic, sources of data are hard to find, and then understanding their details for one against another are similarly difficult.
For example, the EMA data I use to see 1.6 per million is for under 40 year olds, so maybe if you partitioned it under 24 year old same as the CDC you'd see something closer to 16 per million as well.
For example, the EMA data I use to see 1.6 per million is for under 40 year olds, so maybe if you partitioned it under 24 year old same as the CDC you'd see something closer to 16 per million as well.
It’s incredibly open minded to feel that way and post anecdata arguing against how you feel.
I'm disappointed that you're still motivated to continue in this interaction style and tone.
This story I linked to is a decently balanced piece of journalism. It's relevant to the specific topic of this HN submission, giving an account of someone who was in that situation.
It does not "argue against how I feel", and contains citations of data.
I am mainly disinterested in this topic; the words "COVID", "vaccine", "virus" and such are primarily triggers for me to hit the back button, change the channel, ...
This story I linked to is a decently balanced piece of journalism. It's relevant to the specific topic of this HN submission, giving an account of someone who was in that situation.
It does not "argue against how I feel", and contains citations of data.
I am mainly disinterested in this topic; the words "COVID", "vaccine", "virus" and such are primarily triggers for me to hit the back button, change the channel, ...
> The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported. And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation cases were reported. While five of the European cases saw someone die, the EMA says these were all in older people or those with other conditions. The cases were most commonly found in men under 40 and within 10 days of a second dose. The majority of those recovered quickly with the normal treatments for myocarditis and pericarditis as well as rest.
So there was a total 321 people under the age of 40 that got the heart inflammation side effect, with almost all of them recovering from it (only 5 died). That's after 197 million doses.
This is EU data from the EMA.
Now for Covid, granted now I'm switching to US data (from the CDC), there's been:
With Covid though, it is hard to know what the denominator is, like we don't know if that's out of 20 million people exposed to Covid, or 200 million, etc. That makes it a little harder to compare, thought my guess is there is probably less than 197 million under 49yr old in the US that got exposed to Covid, since the population count under 49 year is 210 million, so that would mean almost everyone under 49 yr would have been exposed to Covid, which I find unlikely. Which would make the data for Covid even worse proportionally to the vaccines.
Almost all vaccines ever have some rare side effects, all drugs do really, people even die from simple things like peanut butter or honey. The thing is, Covid has much worse effects, so it's a matter of risk mitigation. You can make your own risk assessment based on the data, I feel its pretty one-sided with Covid being a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from it, even if you are under 18, and definitely if you are 18 to 40 year old. You can decide for yourself, but also consider that under 18 put over 18 at risk as well, so that's another consideration to take into account when choosing if to get vaccinated or not.
So there was a total 321 people under the age of 40 that got the heart inflammation side effect, with almost all of them recovering from it (only 5 died). That's after 197 million doses.
This is EU data from the EMA.
Now for Covid, granted now I'm switching to US data (from the CDC), there's been:
0-4 yr: 1421
5 - 17 yr: 2361
18 - 49 yr: 57120
With Covid though, it is hard to know what the denominator is, like we don't know if that's out of 20 million people exposed to Covid, or 200 million, etc. That makes it a little harder to compare, thought my guess is there is probably less than 197 million under 49yr old in the US that got exposed to Covid, since the population count under 49 year is 210 million, so that would mean almost everyone under 49 yr would have been exposed to Covid, which I find unlikely. Which would make the data for Covid even worse proportionally to the vaccines.
Almost all vaccines ever have some rare side effects, all drugs do really, people even die from simple things like peanut butter or honey. The thing is, Covid has much worse effects, so it's a matter of risk mitigation. You can make your own risk assessment based on the data, I feel its pretty one-sided with Covid being a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from it, even if you are under 18, and definitely if you are 18 to 40 year old. You can decide for yourself, but also consider that under 18 put over 18 at risk as well, so that's another consideration to take into account when choosing if to get vaccinated or not.
I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result).
For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo.
Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?).
If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result).
For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo.
Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?).
If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!
> If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!
Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it.
I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion?
I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.
Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it.
I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion?
I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.
> how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?).
There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time.
Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.)
So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks.
Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?
There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time.
Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.)
So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks.
Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?
This is why HPV vaccination for boys was much delayed compared to girls. As a public health measure, vaccinating boys obviously makes sense because as likely future sexual partners they can give the girls HPV and thus induce cervical cancer. But, from a medical ethics point of view that's not beneficial to them at all, why should they care if some one night stand they never saw again dies of cancer?
However, once there was enough data to say that vaccinating boys likely protects them from non-cervical cancers induced by HPV, yet significant side effects were very rare, that's a clear benefit to giving them a vaccine, while the public health outcome (fewer women die of cervical cancer) means it makes sense to spend money on delivering it.
So, it can be true that vaccinating all 12 year olds would benefit public health e.g. by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community, while at the same time being true that vaccinating them wouldn't be ethical because the risk to them is similar to or greater than the benefit of not getting COVID-19 when you're young and healthy and very likely to survive with few problems.