They don't help the body produce T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes? Or do you believe those lymphocytes don't reduce the threat of Covid-19?
They are learning more and more about viruses - that in fact even viruses like the flu has long term impact on the body. That perhaps many viral infections do damage to the cardiovascular and brain, just that COVID is more pronounced. We can't obviously avoid viruses but it seems that finding ways to mitigate their effects may improve the overall health of the population in a measurable way.
Nothing wrong with what you said, but I wanted to emphasize the bolded part. What you said is correct, there is a lot we don't know for sure yet. We know that even the plague 700 years ago left changes in our genetic make-up. People have certain mutations which presumably helped their ancestors survive the plague, but which are likely linked to auto-immune diseases, etc. But the fact that we don't know many things for sure yet should mean that mandates should not be enacted - specifically because there is so much we really don't know, including longer-term effects. If people want to do this, they should be able to (after thorough testing and trials, of course), but mandating these vaccines, which are still under emergency use authorization, specifically for children, when they do not provide sterile immunization - that's insanity, and wrong. It's politically driven, not science-driven.
Yeah what you say is true. But I wasn't trying to comment on mandates or emergency use orders. Are they politically driven? In some case they stem from the "overabundance of caution" track which I understand to be flawed, but not sure its political in a dem vs gop sort of way. When I am saying mitigating, I think to a rationale degree. Do I think everyone should wear masks to reduce amount of overall virus exposure? No. But I do think we can learn more about fighting viruses such as the use of antivirals. And I do think vaccines can play a role in that. I don't think a vaccine should be mandated unless there is a serious public health risk. And with COVID, that risk has passed where COVID is probably on par with the Flu in terms of fatalities. So for someone like me, there is no need to get the booster vaccine shot especially since I just recently had COVID. But knowing what I know about the research on the long term effects of COVID and the side effects of the vaccine, you bet I am going to get that booster shot in a few months. Easy decision. But yeah, no need to mandate given the threat is now so low.
What they have done is ensure that the vaccine will remain free to children by making this a RECOMMENDATION, not a requirement. Why is that a bad thing?
If that is true, that's fine (although still not science-based). I understood it to mean that this would make it a requirement.
I want to comment on this post made by this doc. Because he's making an error is asking why the science in Europe is different than the US. Science is rarely 100% clear and doesn't always lead to a singular "right" course of action. There's uncertainty involved and risk on whatever course is taken. It's up to a different process to weigh those risks and impact on public health and the society as a whole. And it should also be pointed out that Europe has differences in how their populations respond. For instance, in Sweden much is made that stay-at-home orders (lockdowns) were unnecessary. One reason this is the case is because more Swedes just stayed at home and isolated anyway during the peak outbreaks, thus making lockdowns completely unnecessary. (By the way, I'm not trying to debate the value of lockdowns only demonstrated why two countries may have different policies).
@AroundTheWorld Do you believe the shots don't help the body produce T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes? Or do you believe those lymphocytes don't reduce the threat of Covid-19?
It does not. Vaccination requirements for school are set by the State, not by the Federal government. This is why we have different requirements between States. ps. the earlier tweet from Tucker Carson is a lie. He knows this.
Analyzing the data, one can see that 1) the vaccines do not have a meaningful impact on transmission - vaccinated people transmit the virus 2) children are not more at risk through Covid than through diseases such as RSV, which is much more dangerous to them, but where such vaccines are not being mandated 3) the risk/reward ratio gets significantly worse with the vaccines for younger people vs. older people Could add more, but I have to run.
1) not accurate What do we know about covid vaccines and preventing transmission? | The BMJ 2) there is no vaccine for RSV; some state requires flu vaccination for school 3) recommendation is made on risk/reward for the actual age group (not age group A vs B) Covid vaccine shouldn't be mandatory at this time. It's too soon to make that decision. Even the polio vaccine took years after approval before it became mandatory in school. And the CDC is not even recommending that. It's a crap load of conservative media that is pushing misinformation.
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying here, except that maybe RSV is more dangerous, my understanding is that 100's of children die of it each year, whereas COVID kills 1000's of children. As for number 1), it all comes down to how you define "meaningful" but certainly the case can be made for your perspective. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 All in all, I don't think it's clear cut that the science is saying children don't need or should not get the COVID vaccine. In fact, I think the science still points to it being more beneficial. But it's only marginally so.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o831 https://www.ajmc.com/view/high-prop...fants-children-linked-to-rsv-researchers-find
