[u801e]

> The established practice of encouraging blanket COVID boosters to otherwise healthy five-year-olds probably tilts more towards harm than the benefit side of things.

Other than the fact they cover existing strains rather than projected strains, what makes these boosters different compared to other vaccines like the one for varicella that's also given to otherwise healthy children?

[eggy]

About 25 years of long-term studies and VAERS monitoring for varicella outside of the pharmaceutical company.

Children not vaccinated for the Chickenpox will typically have more obvious symptoms whereas children do not typically have severe symptoms if not vaccinated for COVID. "Healthy" children, not obese, diabetic, or otherwise immuno-compromised children.

You can't compare adverse reaction statistics for varicella and COVID in an apples-to-apples comparison, since the first COVID vaccine was given just less than three years ago vs. 25 years of a varicella vaccine. Long-term study results for COVID vaccination simply don't exist for obvious reasons; it's only been about three years since the vaccine was first publicly administered.

The R0 of Chickenpox (varicella) is higher.

The benefits do not outweigh the risk.

I don't know if this type of thing happened with varicella or any other vaccine in recent history, but:

Clinical trials are usually not performed on children, and there were no RCTs (Randomized Control Trials) done on children as far as I know or have read about.

Countries like Sweden recommend against vaccinating children 5-11 because they think the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

It's funny, but the UK doesn't have varicella in the vaccine schedule for children for fear it will lead to a risk of chickenpox and shingles in adults[1], which can be more severe. I remember letting my older children play with their cousin who had chickenpox so they would get it. This was common for my generation, and within my anecdotal sphere, I was never aware of child being more than the usual sick with it. The NHS take on it is pretty interesting from a societal vs. individual angle.

Some things that weigh on my trust of big pharma and especially Pfizer:

Pfizer destroyed their long-term study control group by vaccinating them, so that took out their control group and invalidated that long-term study.

Pfizer released piecemeal heavily redacted documents when they were legally obligated to comply with a FOIA request for their study results used to seek FDA approval and the EUA that would idemnify them; the government would take on their liability from law suits.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccin...

[u801e]

> You can't compare adverse reaction statistics for varicella and COVID in an apples-to-apples comparison, since the first COVID vaccine was given just less than three years ago vs. 25 years of a varicella vaccine.

In 1998, people could have said the same thing about the varicella vaccine compared to MMR, DTP, and Tdap. Around the same time period, they had started administering the rotavirus vaccine and subsequently found an association with incidence of intussusception and stopped administering it. Rotashield was subsequently withdrawn from the market. After 8 years, other rotavaccine formulations were approved and are now part of the routine childhood immunization schedule.

What happened with Rotashield did not happen with the Pfizer and Moderna formulations of the COVID-19 vaccine and subsequent boosters.

> Long-term study results for COVID vaccination simply don't exist for obvious reasons; it's only been about three years since the vaccine was first publicly administered.

This is the case for all vaccines when they first start being used.

> Countries like Sweden recommend against vaccinating children 5-11 because they think the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

Which vaccine are you referring to?

> It's funny, but the UK doesn't have varicella in the vaccine schedule for children for fear it will lead to a risk of chickenpox and shingles in adults[1], which can be more severe.

The varicella vaccine has been routinely administered to children since the late 90s in the US. If it lead to an increase in incidence of chickenpox in adulthood, then we would have heard about it by now. As for shingles, it remains to be seen, but this condition is not uncommon in the older population who were infected with chickenpox in their childhood.

We wouldn't continue recommending the COVID-19 boosters if there was a real problem associated with the vaccine that was worse than the morbidity/mortality statistics from the infection itself.

[eggy]

> Rotashield was subsequently withdrawn from the market. After 8 years, other rotavaccine formulations were approved and are now part of the routine childhood immunization schedule.

My point exactly. They saw some issues, paused, and 8 years later came back with another formulation. Given young, healthy children are nowhere close to the risk to the elderly, obese, or immuno-compromised, what's the push? Early on with blod clots, young males having myocarditis (my nephew had to be rushed to the hospital 4 hours after his jab - myocaridtis), but god forbid you even hinted it might have been the vaccine. I vaccinated all of my children with the typical childhood immunizations. I am sorry, but the push on the healthy and young makes me think twice about it for that group, and $40bn a round of booster for Pfizer lends some suspicion on how much is public health and how much is lining the pockets of big pharma and friends.

>> Long-term study results for COVID vaccination simply don't exist for obvious reasons; it's only been about three years since the vaccine was first publicly administered.

>This is the case for all vaccines when they first start being used.

Except you didn't have the mandates, pressure, and comments about it being safe, and censoring any remarks about it in the papers or TV broadcast news at the same time. The COVID vaccine was being touted as "perfectly safe" early on (except before its release by Kamala, and many others sending signals of mistrust because Trump). No, nothing like this before, I'd say.

>> Countries like Sweden recommend against vaccinating children 5-11 because they think the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/

>Which vaccine are you referring to?

COVID...see link above.