[wsc981]

I don’t believe it is. Vaccinated and unvaccinated spread COVID just as easily. Currently the narrative is that vaccinated people are better protected from the negative effects of COVID and hence less likely to land on IC.

Actually a Dutch academic doctor (Diederik Gommers) stated this week that most people on IC in The Netherlands have one thing in common: they’re overweight. This doctor is part of the Outbreak Management Team in The Netherlands that deals with the COVID situation. Being overweight might be a be better indicator to see how likely one is to end up on IC compared to vaccination status. As such this doctor is not in favor of a 2G society (unlike the Dutch government that wants to push 2G).

This whole policy is lunacy.

According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the reason for the push to vaccinate children is because emergency use authorization will be gone in March 2022 and if children get vaccinated before March then vaccine producers will not be liable for negative side-effects afterwards. I am not a lawyer so I can’t confirm if there’s truth in this statement.

Regardless, very few children will get negative side-effects from COVID, much more will get negative side-effects from mRNA vaccines (especially boys stand to get much more myocarditis cases).

I think our children are our future and I certainly won’t risk an experimental vaccine on my soon-to-be 5 year old, perfectly healthy, daughter. A vaccine that (from my POV) seems to be quite ineffective and for which we still don’t know if there will be any long-term (say 10+ years) negative effects.

[nradov]

After age and vaccination status, obesity is the key risk factor for severe COVID-19. It's disappointing that public health officials have put so little emphasis on this issue.

https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...

[encoderer]

Same. Four year old daughter. I have no intention of getting her a Covid vax and I’ll move school districts if my liberal city (Berkeley) tries to mandate it.

My wife and I are both vaxxed and boosted but why would I shoot a drug into her that only claims to prevent severe disease, which is a very rare occurrence in kids.

[sixothree]

Because it would offer you more protection and it would prevent the child from being hospitalized.

[encoderer]

You might be right and I’m open to seeing the evidence.

To me it’s quite simple: does the risk of side effects outweigh the risk of serious disease?

For adults, no way, take the vax it’s safe and effective.

For kids: they are at much lower risk of severe disease so I would like public health authorities to show me the numbers please.

[pfg]

Public health authorities regularly perform that kind of risk-benefit analysis. Here's one by the FDA looking at the 5-11 age group: https://www.fda.gov/media/153507/download

My understanding is that this analysis assumed the observed myocarditis risk of the 12-15 age group would also apply here, but IIRC more recent data shows no myocarditis cases at all for the younger group.

There's a theory that links the occurrence of myocarditis to high testosterone levels, but that hasn't been proven yet. Existing data shows that the increased myocarditis risk (more or less) only applies to boys/young males.

[encoderer]

Thanks for flagging this. This data to me looks pretty murky in places.

Look at the outcome for young boys. They would expect 67 icu stays for Covid, 57 icu stays due to the vaccine. And there are a lot of assumptions baked in there.

(Numbers for girls are better)

With numbers that tight, why introduce a drug that might for children have non-obvious long term effects?

[sixothree]

> I don’t believe it is.

Believe what you want, but every bit of evidence suggests otherwise. So your conclusion that the policy is lunacy is based on a false premise.

[JohnTHaller]

> I don’t believe it is. Vaccinated and unvaccinated spread COVID just as easily.

Evidence and actual science says otherwise.