Is this based on anything other than your gut feeling? Because if you watch the CDC ACIP meetings you’ll see a group of medical professionals carefully considering the data. I don’t think they’re slow walking it, it’s extraordinarily important that they get this right when it comes to kids.
Here’s their latest meeting:
Apparently THIS works to convince people…hearing the alarms that blare constantly when you’re intubated:
I’m gonna be in trouble by the end of the day because whenever someone who I know is against anything to slow or stop the pandemic posts a sad 9/11 tribute I’m posting this story. 9/11 is tragic and horrific and we should never forget but so is this and if they would put as much energy into caring about this as they do 9/11 maybe things would get better.
The effort to post or retweet a meme about 9/11 is minimal but it’s more effort than they put into trying to slow or stop a pandemic.
I can give people a day of memorial.
I’ve had friends die of Covid and people from my high school were in the building when it came down on them.
And those are the lucky people who got a spot in the ICU.
Not a gut feeling, just apprehension and the way the press release was worded. The FDA seems very concerned about the vax refusers and less so of the kids.
I was really disappointed when the FDA said to add more kids to the study, prolonging it. They should have just required more kids at the beginning.
All that said, I haven’t had time to listen to the meetings, only read the press releases. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
I would expect the FDA is feeling more pressure from the Biden Admin than they are from anti-science idiots. As individuals, their careers depend upon goodwill from higher-ups. Those higher-ups are pushing the vaccine as a solution to get out of the mess we’re in. They can’t help but follow the science (that’s their training) but no way they are going to drag their heels on this one.
But they didn’t come to that decision without a reason. They started the trials with lower numbers in the effort to get them started sooner, but based on the numbers they were seeing of myocarditis cases they eventually came to the conclusion that additional data was necessary to prove safety in the younger age groups. They adjusted the trial strategy based on new data, which is how science is supposed to work.
COVID death toll for 9/10/2021 was 2418
We’ll hit 3000 per day very soon…
Just a reminder to everyone who is just scrolling through post like yours and @Otherbrother’s - I assume you both are well aware.
There is a inherent problem with vaccine efficacy studies in children, especially younger children, with SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19. Very broadly speaking, young children rarely get infected, if infected at least as often as not get sick, if they get sick they very rarely have to be hospitalised, and if they have to be hospitalised, they rarely need intensive care. Deaths due to Covid-19 are very very very rare in the youngest two age groups. That’s all very good (and somewhat old) news. OTH, WDKS about long-term effects, and with every single infection, there is a risk that the virus mutates and the situation changes. (Just FTR, I believe this a risk which can be quantified, and I assume the international scientific community is on that and basically knows their shit. Caveat: with national health systems and national politics, I do not hold the same belief.)
Coming back to vaccine efficacy studies, and to the point of my post: we have to keep in mind that we to compare the benefits for the individual between vaccinated and unvaccinated. So, if we want to find out if there is a benefit, we want to use statistics to find out if the vaccination protects against: death, needing an ICU, needing hospital treatment, severe illness, illness, and infections. For all this, we would need a statistical population large enough, i.e. with a number of cases in all these categories which is large enough to have statistical power.
And this is difficult, because: see above.
However, as far as I understand medical ethics, the benefit assessment for the individual is of primary importance, and protection of the unvaccinated other populations ( i.e. people older than the youngest age groups) is a secondary level of consideration.
TL;DR: if you do it evidence-based, you need to compare very large numbers of young kids with and without vaccination because young kids don’t get killed by Covid-19 very often.
That’s just statistics.
My own opinion on the matter is different. We should have started vaccinating the 4-12yr olds this spring.
I have a family member approaching her 5th birthday who is transplanted and who likely will catch SARS-COV-2 within the next months. Even if we could start to vaccinate the age groups 4-12 and 0-4 right now, today, there is no way she’s not going to get the fucking virus this winter.
That’s also just statistics.
Okay Boomers! Great job! Thank you!
WTF is wrong with my age group…
It certainly tells us that we need to refocus and refine our outreach. The breakout doesn’t match the “generations” anyway.
It’ll be interesting to see the effect of the new mandate over the next two months.
Fingers crossed.
Why is Idaho in the state it is in? Well, there is this
This is the asshole who said this
How did we get here? Republicans insist on it, that’s how.
Three cheers for second order effects?
We had precisely one morning post-mask. I got to experience a Publix and a Harbor Freight in my true human form, some time in early July, two weeks after our second shots. Then later that day it was “Oh shit, Delta, well, that was brief.”
And now back to my previously scheduled anxiety attack over an outdoor, vaccination-required 70th birthday party that we’re supposed to attend next weekend.
