I certainly wouldn’t have used that “don’t get sick” language myself and it’s certainly not factually correct. But I’ve also never seen hospitalization or death rates for kids anywhere near the numbers you threw out there.
The report cited in the article you linked is a prepublication release with a ton of provisos attached. I would never change my practices based on a single paper, much less a prepublication. I linked to a CDC publication that addresses your question in some detail.
16 Likes
Rate of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations has increased (healio.com)
“The take home for parents and clinicians is to understand that while children are much less likely to develop serious illness with COVID-19, some children will become very ill,” Karaca-Mandic said. “In our study, by Nov. 15, more than 17 children per 100,000 children had a COVID-19 hospitalization. [The corresponding] cumulative hospitalization rate for adults was 282 per 100,000 adults. Parents, in particular, should understand the symptoms of COVID, know early signs of deterioration and monitor their children closely until they fully recover.”
16 Likes
Yes, exactly. 17/100000 is a hospitalization rate of .017%, which is several orders of magnitude below the “5% hospitalization rate” claim that I was responding to.
It’s factuality inaccurate to claim that “kids don’t get sick” from covid. It’s even MORE inaccurate to say that kids have a 5% hospitalization rate.
A single Moderna trial with multiple phases. Phase one, testing for adverse affects at different doses and finding optimal dose, is full and under way. Phase 2/3, which is open for sign up, is the placebo vs. Vaccine part. That part is supposed to last 14 months, but it’s possible the powers-that-be will authorize emergency use before the end.
We tried to sign up, but the trial involves several in person visits after adminstration of the 2 placebo/vaccine and the closest places are 3 hours away. Here is the sign up page if anyone is interested: https://connect.trialscope.com/studies/0e8fc8e6-5782-46fd-8b03-0994a5ad8b41
ETA: We wouldn’t have committed to participation without running the trial protocol by our pediatrician and the docs we know and our child’s consent (to the extent she is capable at this point).
9 Likes
The point being, if you care about individual children, one death is too many when the alternative is simply finishing out the school year (1.5 months!!) with distance learning. The severity of small numbers on one side of the equation is vastly higher than the other side of the equation.
17 Likes
Here’s the thing. If you had been through as many pediatric deaths as I have, every single preventable death is an unspeakable tragedy. I spent years as a PICU doc and decades as a primary care pediatrician, and every single one has left a deep mark. I already said I was not objective. I am not. Any avoidable deaths among children are far too many. How many avoidable deaths among innocent children are acceptable? How may have to die or be permanently disabled before it is “worth it” to vaccinate them? My answer is and always will be zero. Yes, I am full supportive of the development of a pediatric covid vaccine. I think it will have a significant impact on the long-term outcome form this disaster. But much more, I think that it will prevent having to attend the funerals of kids who never got a chance at life. Or even worse, not being able to because funerals just aren’t a thing right now. I have walked parents through the deaths of their children, I have held them when they couldn’t stand. I will support anything that makes it so I don’t have to do that as much.
26 Likes
But the same logic goes when assessing risks when enrolling kids in novel vaccine trials, does it not? If 1 in 100000 adults enrolled in the Moderna trial had a severe adverse reaction, that’s totally justifiable risk given the hospitalization and death rates for unvaccinated adults. But the non-zero risk of injuring a child in such a trial, especially when it comes to 6-month old babies who obviously can’t give informed consent, needs to be weighed against the risk of the kids going unvaccinated. And I haven’t yet seen a careful, data-driven risk/benefit assessment of conducting such a trial. If one exists I’d love to see it.
There is a roughly 1 in 1 million chance of adverse reactions to every single vaccine we routinely give to 2, 4, 6, 12, 15 and 24 month old babies. Should those be stopped?
15 Likes
No, obviously not. The risk/benefit of those vaccines are well known after years of study. But surely you agree that risk/benefit ratio is important to consider when deciding when and how to test novel new vaccines that work via a completely different mechanism? If it has been carefully considered, then awesome! I haven’t seen data indicating that though, and I’d like to.
If the risk/benefit is so important, does it not follow that we need to do the study to determine what it is? You seem to have predetermined that it will be unfavorable and that we need to just accept the deaths and disabilities as unavoidable. There is no indication that this is the case, and no reason to think that it will be.
15 Likes
14 Likes
I mean seriously? You would like to see the results of the study you have spent several posts arguing should not be done? I am very confused now.
12 Likes
I agree that we need to study what it is! And the first prudent step, in my mind, would be to quantify what the potential benefit of a working vaccine is by understanding exactly how much risk children are at right now when unvaccinated, and how much risk they pose to others. Why wouldn’t we want to be sure we have a clear understanding of that risk before moving on to the next step?
As I noted above, epidemiologists have characterized the existing risk as being on par or often significantly less than that of a vaccinated adult, so unless there’s a lot of data out there indicating otherwise then I don’t see why any potential trials with kids need to be rushed through with more speed and urgency than the normal established FDA regulatory approval process.
First off, I am not as much worried about the risk to others as a primary measure. My primary interest is the well-being of the children, and with the increasing evidence of long-term effects following covid infections in kids, that is a huge consideration. The mortality rate is small, but non-zero. The public health benefits are absolutely there, but to delineate the specifics will require extensive epidemiologic study over the next several years. Waiting for the damage to be unquestionable is not, IMHO, a good way to proceed. There is no evidence yet for increased mortality or morbidity associated with the covid vaccination, and no reason to imagine children would be more vulnerable to this than adults.
In summary, the risk at this time seems to be nominal, the benefit to society as well as to the individual is not insignificant, and as such, it is my position that the trials are vital and should be done post haste. Yes, we need to make decisions based on incomplete information. We always need to make decisions based on incomplete information. By the time it’s apparent and incontrovertible, it is usually too late to do anything about it. (See climate change, for example.) That’s my position. You are welcome to yours, I just think it is wrong.
18 Likes
Senator Major Olimpio (PSL-SP) dies from COVID.
He was 58 years old, and he third senator from brazil that died from COVID.
Em 12 de fevereiro, dias antes de testar positivo para o vírus, publicou um texto de protesto contra o fechamento do comércio. Em vídeo, o senador apareceu no meio de uma aglomeração e pediu o impeachment do tucano
On February 12th, days before he was diagnosed with COVID, he published a text against the closure of non-essential business. In a video, he appeared in the middle of a crowd and asked for the impeachment of [the governor from the state of são paulo, who imposed some restrictions to mitigate the pandemic].
13 Likes
Here’s a short version of what I assume is the longer report driving the most recent CDC recommendations:
For me the big issue is: even if kids do transmit less, creating a situation where people with a smaller viral load are gathering indoors in groups every day is clearly worse than people (even with a higher load) properly isolating.
10 Likes
Speaking of kids…
17 Likes
Not shocking. As mentioned earlier, especially in school, kids are more socially connected and generous with secretions than adults.
17 Likes
How do you find the list of sites? My kid has actively asked to be a part of this.
5 Likes
