Covid-19 #30: Vaccines and All That JJAZ

[JGP]

17 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yeah, my daughters just turned 11.  I'm not sure they will be eligible by September (and we will send them to school), but I'm hoping they were be eligible before their next birthday (same for my son, who is younger).  

Good point. I guess I took it as given that our kids would have vaccines before the end of summer, but that might've been wishful thinking.

[Zorral]

Partner just told me about reading a piece that says the reason so many don't return for their second injection is they are afraid of the reactions they've heard from so many of being sick for a day or two, and can't afford to miss that much work.  

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

Biontech/Pfizer applied  today at the EMA for approval of their vaccine for the 12-15 year old. It could be granted quite quickly (June?), but if will be September or so until the teenagers can get any vaccine.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographic

One way to look at this is via how many 16-17 year olds have already gotten the vaccine.  I'm sure there is EU data available but I went to the US CDC website because there will be a bigger number vaccinated in the US.  1.8m people in that age group have already had the vaccine.   That's a lot for just 1 country.

I've not heard any concern about side-effects for that age group?  So, I would find that reassuring.  If it is fine for a 16 year old, why not a 13 year old?  And of course, Biontech/Pfizer has tested it on 12-15 years old also.

The head of Biontech said the following:

Quote

"In July, the first results for five to 12-year-olds could be available, and those for younger children in September," Mr Sahin said.

Ongoing trials so far are "very encouraging", he added, suggesting that "children are very well protected by the vaccine".

Assuming it takes 1 to 2 months to get approval, I could see 5 to 11 year olds being approved in Sept and younger children seeing approval by November.  So some countries should have offered everyone a vaccine by the end of the year.

By the way, why do you think teenagers wouldn't get vaccinated until September?  Because of supply?  I would have thought we'll be swimming in vaccines by July/Aug.  And governments will be determined to get kids vaccinated before school resumes.

Bloomberg suggested that the EU is (finally) close to signing a contract with Novavax (might be next week).  Now, admittedly, I thought it would have been approved in the UK by now and who knows how much will be available when it is approved (like Curevac), but its still a positive sign.

[JoannaL]

ok, so just to make it clear I am not an antivaxxer. My children are vaccinated against everything where there was an official recommendation. I also am certainly not against Covid vaccinations AND I am also not in general against covid vaccination of children. I am also not saying that I will not have my children vaccinated (eventually?)

Having said that I think a good scientific risk/benefit analysis would be helpful in this case, because this seems to be a disease which does not kill children. How many have died nonetheless? How many have long Covid? how probable is it that the vaccination has side effects? There are side effects which only show in large numbers (like the cerebral blood clots of AZ which you didnt see in the phase III) and there are  side effects known in other vaccines which have shown symptoms only after a while. I would really like to have all this data and presumably all the data will not be there in September when it is time for a decision. Or to say it differently to commit here without all the data is not easy.

I also think that the recommendations by epidemologists in this case are not enough. From a epidemologist view it is clear that yes all children should be vaccinated, because this helps with herd immunity and so is good overall even if there are some seldom cases of side effects.

But children are children and should be protected at all costs and while you can ask an adult who is 20 and will likely not die of Covid to get vaccinated for the greater good and to accept the risk, you can not ask this of children. In my opinion it is only right to vaccinate them if their personal risk of covid is higher than their risk of vaccination. this is likely the case and so it is likely right to vaccinate. I only would really feel better if this was not only likely so but scientifically proven.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

43 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

ok, so just to make it clear I am not an antivaxxer. My children are vaccinated against everything where there was an official recommendation. I also am certainly not against Covid vaccinations AND I am also not in general against covid vaccination of children. I am also not saying that I will not have my children vaccinated (eventually?)

Having said that I think a good scientific risk/benefit analysis would be helpful in this case, because this seems to be a disease which does not kill children. How many have died nonetheless? How many have long Covid? how probable is it that the vaccination has side effects? There are side effects which only show in large numbers (like the cerebral blood clots of AZ which you didnt see in the phase III) and there are  side effects known in other vaccines which have shown symptoms only after a while. I would really like to have all this data and presumably all the data will not be there in September when it is time for a decision. Or to say it differently to commit here without all the data is not easy.

I also think that the recommendations by epidemologists in this case are not enough. From a epidemologist view it is clear that yes all children should be vaccinated, because this helps with herd immunity and so is good overall even if there are some seldom cases of side effects.

But children are children and should be protected at all costs and while you can ask an adult who is 20 and will likely not die of Covid to get vaccinated for the greater good and to accept the risk, you can not ask this of children. In my opinion it is only right to vaccinate them if their personal risk of covid is higher than their risk of vaccination. this is likely the case and so it is likely right to vaccinate. I only would really feel better if this was not only likely so but scientifically proven.

I dunno, from a risk benefit perspective, I’ll take the risks of Pfizer (which is what looks like we will have for younger humans in this country) v. The risks of Covid (including long Covid and/or death).  It’s a myth that kids or young people are not affected.  So, to protect my children I will get them vaccinated as soon as I can.  I would now if it were available. 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

ok, so just to make it clear I am not an antivaxxer.

I apologize if my post hit you sidelong and triggered this, was only speaking about the ex. She's been one of the more frustrating issues to deal with during this covid interlude, which is tragically laughable when I think about it-- we had a massive row a couple months ago when I found out she'd been occasionally taking the girls to restaurants.

Outwardly, my daughters are both healthy. But who knows, comorbidities are weird are aren't always apparent in childhood unless blatant. Plus, these variants are no joke.

---

Me: These variants are no joke.

Ex: That's what everyone said about regular covid. I'm sick of it. I don't care if we get it.

Me: ... 

Me: I just fucking can't with this. No restaurants. PLEASE. [hangs up]

---

You have good reasons to want to wait, JL, I definitely fall in Zabzie's camp though. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

The risks of Pfizer vs the risks of no Pfizer + Covid threat is an overwhelmingly lopsided equation to me, bordering on no brainer.

Every eligible family member in our extended clan from childhood to geriatric age would be getting the 2 rounds of shots as soon as eligible if it were in my power to mandate.

I would be comfortable in a country that interns all non inocculated to an inland Florida swamp camp though . 

[Heartofice]

Seeing as the risks to children are absolutely tiny, I wouldn’t blame anyone for being cautious about vaccinating young kids. Much more important to vaccinate those for whom the virus is a real danger 

[Toth]

Except that there is a skyrocketing number of children who get PIMS after contracting Covid and that's absolutely no joking matter...

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, Toth said:

Except that there is a skyrocketing number of children who get PIMS after contracting Covid and that's absolutely no joking matter...

Define skyrocketing. The numbers I've seen suggest it is still very rare.

[Toth]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Define skyrocketing. The numbers I've seen suggest it is still very rare.

It is, but 100 cases per week in just the UK is still nasty for a syndrome that causes organ failure: https://www.dw.com/en/covid-more-cases-of-postviral-syndrome-in-uk-children/a-56523410

Meanwhile, as other users stated above, there are no drastic side effects that may result in death for Pfizer...

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, JoannaL said:

In my opinion it is only right to vaccinate them if their personal risk of covid is higher than their risk of vaccination. this is likely the case and so it is likely right to vaccinate. I only would really feel better if this was not only likely so but scientifically proven.

That does seem like the right sort of thing to weigh up. I understand that it's always better to have more data but based on what we do know it seems the a Pfizer vaccination should be the safer option. I suspect AstraZeneca probably won't even be suggested for children unless they can figure out what's causing the blood clots in some adults.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 minutes ago, williamjm said:

That does seem like the right sort of thing to weigh up. I understand that it's always better to have more data but based on what we do know it seems the a Pfizer vaccination should be the safer option. I suspect AstraZeneca probably won't even be suggested for children unless they can figure out what's causing the blood clots in some adults.

Right - I'm in the US so almost certainly my kids are getting Pfizer.

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, Toth said:

It is, but 100 cases per week in just the UK is still nasty for a syndrome that causes organ failure: https://www.dw.com/en/covid-more-cases-of-postviral-syndrome-in-uk-children/a-56523410

Meanwhile, as other users stated above, there are no drastic side effects that may result in death for Pfizer...

Well it says ‘up to’ 100 cases per week. It’s still 1 in 5000 cases has anything like this, so it is very rare.

Just to reiterate that the case fatality rate for the under 17’s is 0.002%. 
 

Without sounding like a crazy anti vaxxer, this vaccines are new, pfizer uses new technology, we really don’t know what the long term effects are yet. Mostly likely it’s totally fine, but there might not be. Which is why I wouldn’t be angry at anyone saying they won’t vaccinate their children. 
 

We also don’t need to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, that’s the point. 

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

We also don’t need to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, that’s the point. 

Could you define herd immunity in the case of a novel virus that is extremely infectious? How does that compare to measles or small pox? What percent of the population with a vaccine is "herd immunity"? What does that mean for those who are immunocompromised?

What are the long term dangers of the disease itself? If we're worried about the vaccine, which has mild and rare side effects, then we should worry about the side effects of the deadly virus that we've seen terrible long term effects already.

These are all real questions that you shut down with "herd immunity" as a response that seems lacking in justification and common sense.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Could you define herd immunity in the case of a novel virus that is extremely infectious? How does that compare to measles or small pox? What percent of the population with a vaccine is "herd immunity"? What does that mean for those who are immunocompromised?

What are the long term dangers of the disease itself? If we're worried about the vaccine, which has mild and rare side effects, then we should worry about the side effects of the deadly virus that we've seen terrible long term effects already.

What is your question? How much of the population needs to be immune to the virus to stop it spreading exponentially? That number is probably around 70ish% but it’s debatable at the moment  
 

What percentage of the population are immunocompromised and are we currently able to stop them getting all other diseases?

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What is your question? How much of the population needs to be immune to the virus to stop it spreading exponentially? That number is probably around 70ish% but it’s debatable at the moment  
 

What percentage of the population are immunocompromised and are we currently able to stop them getting all other diseases?

Please show your work. You made an assertion to push back against people advocating for continued vaccinations. I have no idea why, clearly vaccinations are the only way out of the pandemic and we're pretty far from daylight worldwide. 

It's debatable because we don't know. How many deaths will still occur at your *pull out of hat* 70%? Why is that justified?

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Please show your work. You made an assertion to push back against people advocating for continued vaccinations. I have no idea why, clearly vaccinations are the only way out of the pandemic and we're pretty far from daylight worldwide. 

It's debatable because we don't know. How many deaths will still occur at your *pull out of hat* 70%? Why is that justified?

Eh? I said if people didn’t want to vaccinate their kids then I wouldn’t be too upset at them. 
 

If we achieve herd immunity.. do you understand what that means? It means the disease won’t spread. 
 

Also.. the vulnerable would have been vaccinated by then ( they already have in the UK)

[Fragile Bird]

I think in most countries the under-16 crowd is about 20% of the population, and with vaccine skeptics being 10% or more of the adult population, herd immunity is not likely to be achieved, is it?

[Week]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we achieve herd immunity.. do you understand what that means? It means the disease won’t spread. 

 

Also.. the vulnerable would have been vaccinated by then ( they already have in the UK)

Show your work. These assertions are very serious and lack any credibility. That is not what herd immunity means. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

You are confidently declaring that we'll hit a certain threshold that we A) don't know what it is B.) is hampered by vaccine take-up in rich countries C) Vaccine availability in poor countries D) potential variants that erode efficacy of existing vaccines.