[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?