Now that kids 5-11 are eligible for the vaccine I wonder how that will go, I imagine that there will be some skepticism and worries from parents. I seriously doubt we'll see a vaccine mandate from schools if you want your child to attend in person.
I have to say I'd be very hesitant if I had kids in that range. The bad outcomes from the virus itself for kids have been less than from the flu. That seems to be backed up by my wife's experiences at her school. Of the few they can verify who've had it, all have come back quickly without much drama. (they know there are quite a few more that are unverified) As far as I've seen there isn't much data on bad outcomes for kids from the vaccine. Don't mistake "approved" for "completely safe". There are always bad outcomes for vaccines in people and in this case I'd err on the side of sniffles and a cough.
I would sort of agree Scott, I think even parents who have themselves been vaccinated might be hesitant to have the kids be vaccinated. I personally wouldn't hesitant though.
Since vaccinated individuals can still get infected and still infect others and since Covid poses almost no serious threat to children, what's the reason for vaccinating young children except for enriching the vaccine makers? On another note, according to the Wall Street Journal, Florida now has the lowest infection rate. Probably unknown to most since the tool in the White House and the media stopped talking about Florida as soon as the surge there was over. Now more than likely we'll see higher rates in northern states as folks are driven indoors by colder weather.
Ivermectin fans out there might find this article interesting UPDATE: 71 out of 75 Districts in Uttar Pradesh, India - Its Most Populated State - Reported No Covid-19 Cases in 24 Hours After Implementing Ivermectin Protocol
Stu, That's information worth considering, but when I see "immeasurable suffering" used in the delivery, I start to question if maybe the presentation might be slanted? And where is the data about bad outcomes for children from being vaccinated? They touch on how adverse events don't present more than 2 months out, but says nothing about how many there are? If it's close to or more than 400 I'd be reasonable in holding my kid out of the vax.
I think it's all worth appropriate debate...I can understand parents hesitancy, especially given all the pretty virulent anti vax stuff on social media. I'm not even sure my kids are gonna vaccinate my grandkids. I hope they do but no pressure from me. I get it. I just think it's worth admitting that there IS a threat to children from COVID and it may indeed be (and probably is, in my opinion) higher than any risk of vaccination. IMO it's worse than the flu. Also, whether you believe it is important or not, it is worth discussing the role of kids as vectors. I would like to see some data regarding transmissibility from vaccinated individuals...we know it can be transmitted and folks are using that as a big argument against vaccine mandates. I have seen solid data that show 6X the level of positive COVID testing amongst the unvaccinated, and 12X the level of deaths...and I sort of assume that would translate to lower transmission as well but haven't seen that data. Meanwhile I'll post this with a big sigh; Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial
Totally agree it needs to be examined and discussed. And I have no problem saying it could be the best way to go. I just hate how no one can come into it without a "side" to argue for. (meaning the authors of the articles that we see, not you) I want to see the risks for MY kids laid out in straight up factual data. Then I can decide what's the best course for my family.
Both Merck and Pfizer have drugs coming to market that treat covid infections. Hopefully they will truly be effective and not just for awhile till the virus mutates again. I'll be curious if anti-vaxxers reject these new treatments as well for the same reasons they reject the vaccine. Pfizer's pill compares favorably to a similar one being developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics that cut in half the hospitalization and death rate for COVID-19. Both the Pfizer and Merck-Ridgeback drugs were so effective that independent boards reviewing their data stopped the studies early. On Thursday, Merck and Ridgeback received authorization to provide their drug, molnupiravir, in the United Kingdom to adults with confirmed mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who have at least one risk factor for developing severe disease. COVID antiviral drug from Pfizer, Paxlovid, prevents deaths: Study
This is good news but the drug probably could have saved thousands of lives if approved sooner. But then it might have impacted the election. So what happened? Opinion | Who Slowed Merck’s Covid Remedy?
Terry, I'm assuming you are not talking about actual "anti-vaxxers" - the people who oppose ALL vaccinations? Or are you speaking to anyone who opposes vaccine mandates? And there is a big difference with those medications as well. They will be VOLUNTARY with direct input and discussion with your doctor. Not forced by a directive handed down by a bumbling moron who can't finish a sentence.
Scott I am talking about those who have rejected the vaccine as a govt plot, bill gates plot, unsafe because even after a half a billion doses that there isn't enough information, that it could be rewriting their DNA, that this is really just the flu and the media/govt/big pharma/ are lying to us about it's impact to make money and gain control of the population. All the scientists and researchers and MD's are in cahoots. Even those well meaning people who have no scientific training or knowledge feel like they can do internet searches and interpret data and gain the real truth about the vaccine Will those people if they get sick reject this treatment because of all those same reasons
You can apply the word however you want, but it would appear the intent of your usage (and the incessant misapplication in the Left media) is to project superiority over the unwashed masses that don't ascribe to the same line of thinking. Why else change the definition of the word that has been accepted for 20 years in this one instance? I argue that some are hesitant due to the things you say, but many are hesitant for other valid reasons, include a risk-based approach that indicates their risk due to COVID complications are low as-is, possibly due to natural antibody development which has also been shown to be safe and effective. If they then get sick (either due to a bad choice or just BAD LUCK) a different risk-based approach may then lead to the best course of action including the treatment. Why is this so controversial? These health decisions are made EVERY DAY, whether to treat or cure. When the cure comes with it's own risks, costs, and benefits as compared to a treatment, sometimes the treatment IF THE RISK IS REALIZED is the better option. I feel blessed that We The People allow individuals to make health-based decisions that make sense for that individual and their family vs. allowing the government to universally apply a single course of action to all walks of life and conditions regardless of the data and interpretations at hand. :s
Living in society means occasionally making societal decisions. Public Health is just that...public. It doesn't always follow that health-based decisions are an individual right. I don't know what's right and I try not to be too judgemental...but there are many smart, educated, well meaning individuals who are not bumbling morons and who are not trying to project their superiority over the unwashed masses who just happen to believe that the scientific evidence supports vaccination for good, solid public health reasons.
Alright, if forcing individuals through mandates is for the "public good" why are only employed people mandated? Why are there no mandates for those receiving income from public assistance given the same mandate. Is their not being vaccinated any more detrimental to the public? If having EVERYBODY vaccinated is best for the public good, why isn't EVERYBODY hit with the same mandate? (Hint there are serious political overtones in what's occurring.)
Again, I would try to make the point that rather than discussing political overtones and elites vs. unwashed masses, we should try to look at the facts as best we can and decide whether (or not) these public health measures are warranted. Looking at other public health vaccine mandates, they usually (always?) involve some type of participation...schools, college dormitories, military, travel, employment in health care settings (yes there are mandates for some medical workers...hepatitis B for example). The government does not send out a vaccine SWAT team to everybody's house. Hint...there are serious political overtones to BOTH sides...unfortunately.
I guess that's where we fundamentally differ Stu. I'm all for good Public health, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't/shouldn't outweigh my rights. I totally support folks getting vaccinated. I cannot support forcing them, and however much evidence there is, those educated folks you mentioned didn't sign a questionable "executive order" that forces people into a very hard situation. One man did that, and that's a big overreach that will be argued in the courts. I do fear this is becoming the government our founders were worried about. You may scoff at that, and I actually hope you're right if you do. I'll keep wearing my tinfoil hat just in case.
I see a difference in requirements to participate and mandates to remain participating once you've begun. However my point was the selectivity of the mandates. If they're not universal, what's the point?
I am not in favor of mandates. I understand why some folks are because I believe that the more people are vaccinated particularly in close contact situations the safer we all are. I wish there wasn’t such a groundswell mistrust of vaccines. l do support the right of individual businesses to be able to mandate the vaccine for their employees or their customers. Again, historically vaccine mandates were affective by being placed in certain situations without being universal.