So I was in court yesterday and dad wanted 14 year old daughter vaccinated, mom (and daughter) did not. The pediatrician did not want to "make" the decision, but advised the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the shots. One thing dad brought up is he lives with 2 vulnerable people. Mom said that does not matter - just their daughter. So risks to others seems to be another consideration. The court ordered itThe risks of not getting vaccinated (death, hospitalization, long-COVID) are VERY low for children 17 and under, and EXTREMELY low for children 11 and under. Like, around the same level of seasonal influenza.
Reports will vary by source, but 412 deaths in the 0-17 yo age group per this source since the pandemic began:
To put that in context, we see as many deaths per year from things like seasonal influenza. By comparison, we've seen 20-30X more deaths from COVID in adults compared to seasonal influenza. So the older you get, the harder it hits.
COVID-19 deaths by age U.S. 2023 | Statista
Between the beginning of January 2020 and June 14, 2023, of the 1,134,641 deaths caused by COVID-19 in the United States, around 307,169 had occurred among those aged 85 years and older.www.statista.com
I recommend females 12 and up get both shots. There are VERY few side effects in that group. With males, I'm iffy on that 2nd shot (that's almost all the myocarditis out there), as I've previously pointed out in this thread. I believe we need more data on how strongly kids develop antibodies after the first shot (I'm betting it is worlds better than adults - making that second shot less necessary).
Anyone with immunocompromise or comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, etc.) should get both shots if they fall within the EUA guidelines. Per my colleagues, these are the bulk of patients in the pediatric ICU right now - those with some comorbidity that puts them at elevated risk.
I have children in the 7-11 range, so this question hits close to home.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Rough situation there. I REALLY don't want the courts or gov involved in who takes or doesn't take a vaccine, as that sets a nasty precedent and puts us on a slippery slope for courts/gov to dictate other healthcare choices. As long as I can protect myself and my family (by being vaccinated), I don't care that much if someone else is not vaccinated. The VAST majority of those dying in hospitals right now of COVID (99%) are unvaccinated. For better or for worse, they made that choice and are living with the consequences.
Like that pediatrician, I would not want to get involved.
It is tough, but when both parents share joint legal custody and they do not agree, it is the court that has to make the decision. This happens all the time in Family Law.
But the risks of vaccination (death, hospitalization, long-side-effects) are even lower. Even for 12-17 males, for which even if you get myocarditis, the risk is very low and easily treatable.
So the question is - how likely are you to get COVID?
BTW - I thought there was some data regarding long-COVID in youth, and it was fairly high - like 10% affected or so?
The CDC has weighed that risk - and ultimately decided that vaccines are recommended.
We will see what they determine for the next age group down, but it appears that they will grant EUA for them as well.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I understand your argument, but when you are having these conversation with parents, they are not nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be. That's just the fact of the matter.
And to answer your question, but with a modification: if you are a "normal" healthy child 12-17, how likely are you to be hospitalized from COVID? That is still very low in the "normal" population. Yes, side effects from the vaccine are even lower, but when parents hear pretty much any side effect, they get SUPER cautious.
I once had a parent go bonkers because their child had a mild fever and sore arm after the second MMR vaccine in her son.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
We should definitely consider overall covid affect on the society and family. The more people that are easily susceptible to the virus there are, the more the virus spreads.
With our 2 kids under 11 - they have been virtually isolated just like us - not because how covid could affect them - but because they can spread it to other vulnerable adults.
I see the booster shot issue the same way. Its not "okay" that vaccinated people have their defense against the non-severe disease wane so much. This is making the pool of susceptible people higher - contributing to spread of the disease (and thus the risk of a worse variant).
Doggydogworld
Active Member
It said "all eligible kids" so only ages 12+. Pfizer has full approval for 16+, so no issue there. It's still EUA for 12-15, so a bit of an issue.
CDC provisional data (scroll down a little) lags a little, but shows 439 COVID deaths so far in ages 0-17. That's less than 1% of deaths from all causes since the pandemic began. This percentage climbs steadily with age, peaking above 13% in 65+ cohorts.
Those 439 COVID deaths compare to 188 flu deaths in ages 0-17, a 2.3x ratio. The COVID/flu ratio is much higher among older people, over 20x in young adults 18-29, 50x in ages 50-64 and almost 100x for 85+.
439 deaths in ages 0-17 is an extremely low 6 per million, especially considering the group was almost entirely unvaccinated during this period. In 18 months we get about 75 deaths per million from car accidents, 60 per million from guns, almost 20 from drowning and so on.
Our overall rate is ~2000 deaths per million. It's 18k per million in ages 75+. The media likes to focus on child deaths to motivate people to act, but these numbers justify the FDA's deliberate pace in approving Covid vaccines for kids.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
You "force" a vaccine on parents, or well . . . anyone, and you will have them take up arms. No joke.
And what happened to "my body, my choice"? Someone with another living entity inside them gets to choose what they do with their body, at potentially the expense of the life inside them, but someone else doesn't have the right to decline a vaccine? That right there is clear cut hypocrisy.
You don't have the right, under any circumstances, to demand "absolute" protection by forcing un-wanted vaccination upon others. The vaccine is effective enough to reduce your risk to a TINY TINY fraction of what it was when you were unvaccinated.
When society deems that their needs outweigh the rights of the individual, we have then hit full-bore communism. Sorry, even being pro-vaccine, I'll LITERALLY take up arms against that.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
We are not talking about "forcing". We are talking about guidelines and whether to approve or not.
BTW, why is vaccine or masks the only thing people would need to LITERALLY take up arms against ? Why not traffic rules ? Both are trying to make society safe for everyone.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Then I mis-read your statement. This: "We should definitely consider overall covid affect on the society and family." To me that sounded like a strong prelude to forced vaccination.
"full-bore communism"? That is just not reality. It has been established law in this country for over a century that states can mandate vaccination to protect public health.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I basically agree with what you're saying overall, but I do think it's quite likely that exposure of the ~75 million children in this country to the virus has been substantially lower than it typically is for flu. At least, up to this point (we'll see how effective mitigation against delta is as the weather closes in).
So, worth noting that the 543 deaths (another number from the CDC, which is likely slightly high, since it is periodically adjusted downwards as deaths are adjudicated, and then goes up as deaths accumulate - you can also see it lags, the total # of deaths and cases is low) stem from 4.5 million cases, which probably represents no more than 15 million infections in children.
So that's an attack rate of 20% (infections, 5% for cases), which is lower than the population in general (~11% on a case basis with this data for the rest of the population), as you'd expect, given the sheltering of children (many parents care about their children!), and also likely lower than the attack rate of influenza (though this could be debated and would require data to support, which has been discussed several times in this thread).
COVID Data Tracker
CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.
covid.cdc.gov
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Show me said law. As a physician, I'm not aware of these laws.
There are CONDITIONAL laws, which basically are the school vaccination laws (i.e. you cannot attend a public school without certain vaccines), but they are far from absolute. California has some of the strictest vaccination laws regarding schools, and even they are not absolute. For example, if you are so hard core anti-vax, then you can home school your children and 100% of those vaccines cannot be forced upon you.
EDIT - for the record, the CDC has a tidy little page on vaccination laws, and you will note that they are actually quite narrow:
CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law
CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.
www.cdc.gov
Aside from strict laws governing healthcare workers and PUBLICLY-funded schools, there are not blanket laws regarding vaccination in this country as you are implying.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Being pro-choice doesn't meant you can't oppose behavior that puts random people's life at risk, especially if it goes along with not even wanting to wear masks.
EDIT: Actually it is more than a "risk"...
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
"Pro-choice" by definition is putting "people's" lives at risk. Conveniently for those that stress that argument, the people killed by their "choice" just don't have a voice of their own.
And you are dramatizing this. If you are vaccinated, your risk of death from COVID-19 is very small. Your risk of hospitalization is also very small. It's the unvaccinated that are putting their lives at risk by doing so, with little risk to the vaccinated population. AGAIN - NOTHING is absolute, so the vaccinated population has to understand that while effective, the vaccine is not like "living in a bubble". If those people want that level of absolute protection, then they should live in a bubble until the pandemic is over.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
The odds of getting the vaccinated population killed are very low. This is a cherry-picked argument. They are putting mostly the unvaccinated population at risk, no one else.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
There may be some exceptions to this though.
(Of course, now vaccination is basically mandatory in these jobs.)
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Paywall, can't read it. But by the title, it appears to be related to nursing home residents.
The title is also specious a bit, because those people unvaccinated caring for them are "aides", and those people most certainly should be vaccinated, and required to be so. Healthcare workers are the exception I have always said should have no choice about being vaccinated. If they don't want to be vaccinated, they need to find a new career.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Sorry: Just the relevant start of the article. I assume with the mandate these numbers are much improved. Mandates are great - no one has to get vaccinated if they don't want to - no one is forced to.
Similar threads
