Vaccine Requirements are Getting Out of Hand

[ragtimejoe1]

Pfizer vaccine is FDA approved for anyone 16 and over but approved for use in ages 12-15. Hmmm, I guess they haven't experimented enough yet on the young kids.

Emergency authorization for an experimental vaccine in a demographic that statistically has nearly a 0% chance of having a severe case of the disease while making the parents waive all liability is UNETHICAL and there is no way to dance around that. I can't believe that people are advocating for that much less asking for it to be mandatory.

THIS IS INSANITY!

 

[LanderPoke]

I’m very pro vaccine and I’m pro fluoride. I’m not taking this turd of a vaccine nor are my children. It’s 100% fact that flu is more deadly to the general child population than China virus. It’s absurd to be talking about vaccinating children unless they’re at risk. A lot of my hesitancy is for the reasons you all have already brought up. I have no issues with vaccines that have gone through traditional testing and approval trials. Both my daughters have gotten the newer hpv vaccine

This is 100% false. I'm curious what makes you think it actually is true... because it's not even close.

100% fact. 50% of Flu deaths for children occur in healthy individuals. I think it’s well documented that almost all covid deaths have several other favors. Do I have to preface every covid statement with “healthy individuals” to appease Covid queens like yourself?

When I first read your previous quote I missed the word 'child' so I thought you were referencing all Covid vs flu. However... even factoring in children: in the last year roughly 310 children have died from Covid. In the last 17 years, there hasn't been 1 year where there were more than 199 child deaths from the flu. So again, covid slightly more deadly.

I get the whole health/unhealthy debate but don't really prescribe to it. If someone is dead and wouldn't be dead if they hadn't contracted covid, then covid caused it.

Dude, it's the flu. Covid is literally the flu for kids only covid kills kids with one foot in the grave, whereas flu occasionally kills normal, healthy kids.


so, more than covid:

"For comparison, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, from April 2009 to September 2010, 358 flu deaths in children were reported to CDC."


We know for damn sure they are not undercounting COVID deaths:

"While any death in a child from a vaccine preventable illness is a tragedy, the number of pediatric flu deaths reported to CDC each season is likely an undercount. For example, even though the reported number of deaths during the 2017-2018 flu season was 188, CDC estimates the actual number was closer to 600. It is likely the actual number of children who died from flu during the 2019-2020 season is higher as well."


https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatric-flu-deaths.htm

So yeah, flu is way more dangerous to kids than covid. Everything they are doing to kids in the name of safety is crimes against humanity.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I'm not saying Covid is generally terrible for kids, I'm just saying a statement like "the flu is worse than Covid for kids" isn't true.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Stating flu is worse than covid for kids isn't a leap at all and likely still being sorted out.
https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210614/Study-suggests-COVID-19-in-children-is-milder-than-the-flu.aspx

Liberal news networks and teacher's unions are grossly misleading the dangers of covid and kids.

 

[laxwyo]

I’m very pro vaccine and I’m pro fluoride. I’m not taking this turd of a vaccine nor are my children. It’s 100% fact that flu is more deadly to the general child population than China virus. It’s absurd to be talking about vaccinating children unless they’re at risk. A lot of my hesitancy is for the reasons you all have already brought up. I have no issues with vaccines that have gone through traditional testing and approval trials. Both my daughters have gotten the newer hpv vaccine

This is 100% false. I'm curious what makes you think it actually is true... because it's not even close.

100% fact. 50% of Flu deaths for children occur in healthy individuals. I think it’s well documented that almost all covid deaths have several other favors. Do I have to preface every covid statement with “healthy individuals” to appease Covid queens like yourself?

When I first read your previous quote I missed the word 'child' so I thought you were referencing all Covid vs flu. However... even factoring in children: in the last year roughly 310 children have died from Covid. In the last 17 years, there hasn't been 1 year where there were more than 199 child deaths from the flu. So again, covid slightly more deadly.

I get the whole health/unhealthy debate but don't really prescribe to it. If someone is dead and wouldn't be dead if they hadn't contracted covid, then covid caused it.

Dying wirh covid is also a thing. I don’t even remotely believe a single covid death count. Considering all the testing of healthy individuals and those deemed positive because of the shit pcr test, I’d that Covid deaths are still massively over reported.

Out of the “covid” child deaths, how many died from Covid and how many were sick form something else. I’d argue that flu is still drastically more dangerous to children because it kills healthy individuals. If you’re compromised, you are susceptible to whatever is going around. It just so happens to be Covid right now. Flu is way more lethal, but keep flaming the fear

 

[laxwyo]

I'm not saying Covid is generally terrible for kids, I'm just saying a statement like "the flu is worse than Covid for kids" isn't true.

100% fact,

 

[Bryoming]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I don’t even remotely believe a single covid death count. Considering all the testing of healthy individuals and those deemed positive because of the Sh#t pcr test, I’d that Covid deaths are still massively over reported.

Out of the “covid” child deaths, how many died from Covid and how many were sick form something else. I’d argue that flu is still drastically more dangerous to children because it kills healthy individuals. If you’re compromised, you are susceptible to whatever is going around. It just so happens to be Covid right now. Flu is way more lethal, but keep flaming the fear

Lots of people have a bmi over 30. If they catch COVID and die, they are listed as dying of COVID with a comorbidity. Most of those would not have died if they didn't catch COVID. Another major comorbidity is diabetes where again people very likely would be living had they not contracted COVID. Conservatives greatly overestimate comorbidity as having 1 foot in the grave.

I think once the dust settles and the data is in, the flu is more dangerous for kids. However, COVID is more contagious so more kids will be exposed to COVID. Simple math will show that rates of severe infection/death are less for COVID but will be numerically greater due to greater transmission of the disease. Neither will be cause for alarm among that lowly susceptible demographic.

 

[Bryoming]

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

So what you're saying is that a keyboard warrior that "researches" by cherry picking articles that back up an inherint bias like yourself is more qualified to answer a medical issue than someone who has spent over a decade in the medical field and years studying for his degree before that. Got it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

So what you're saying is that a keyboard warrior that "researches" by cherry picking articles that back up an inherint bias like yourself is more qualified to answer a medical issue than someone who has spent over a decade in the medical field and years studying for his degree before that. Got it.

You assume too much

 

[LanderPoke]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

Doesn't make what he claims true

 

[Bryoming]

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

So what you're saying is that a keyboard warrior that "researches" by cherry picking articles that back up an inherint bias like yourself is more qualified to answer a medical issue than someone who has spent over a decade in the medical field and years studying for his degree before that. Got it.

You assume too much

I would like to hear what is incorrect about my assumption, which was based on the statements that you made initially.

On a related note, the trend of average citizens thinking that they are smarter than experts that has become prevelant is shocking and concerning. If my doctor tells me something I will believe them, because they are experts. If I don't like it I'll get another opinion from another expert. I certainly wouldn't ask my accountant to back up my thoughts about my medical conditions if I don't like what the experts say.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

So what you're saying is that a keyboard warrior that "researches" by cherry picking articles that back up an inherint bias like yourself is more qualified to answer a medical issue than someone who has spent over a decade in the medical field and years studying for his degree before that. Got it.

You assume too much

I would like to hear what is incorrect about my assumption, which was based on the statements that you made initially.

Increased risk of doxing at that point. Let's just say, again, you assume too much. It is far from unanimous that children should be vaccinated or that COVID poses a significant risk to them. There is a reason the Pfizer vaccine approval wasn't extended to the younger age group even though they have emergency use approval. They need more data particularly regarding myocarditis. If you care to take the time to educate yourself, you can sort through the raw data and draw your own conclusions using the VAERS system. The experts discredited masks at first as well the lab leak theory--well at least the experts that the media and message board warriors like you use.

Here's a little tidbit few people know, when COVID started, the rollout of COVID tests was abysmal. Many blamed Trump. There was actually a manufacturing error in the first batches rendering them useless thus delaying distribution.

Vaccines work, are effective, and are experimental which is why the waiver is necessary. Children largely are extremely low risk for severe cases of COVID ( and the risks of the vaccine vs COVID are still being sorted out. If you only care about MD then our pediatrician recommended AGAINST the COVID vaccine at this time.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

Again, I don't think Covid is a risk for children. Never said that. The only thing I've disagreed with you in this thread is that flu is more dangerous for children. The data doesn't back that up. If threat of Covid is statistically similar to 0 (as you said), then so is flu as the numbers are very similar.

 

[laxwyo]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

Again, I don't think Covid is a risk for children. Never said that. The only thing I've disagreed with you in this thread is that flu is more dangerous for children. The data doesn't back that up. If threat of Covid is statistically similar to 0 (as you said), then so is flu as the numbers are very similar.

If one virus kills 100 children but 99 of them were compromised or sick already and another virus killed 75, but nearly 40 were completely healthy children, which one would you consider to be more dangerous to the general public?

 

[laxwyo]

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

So what you're saying is that a keyboard warrior that "researches" by cherry picking articles that back up an inherint bias like yourself is more qualified to answer a medical issue than someone who has spent over a decade in the medical field and years studying for his degree before that. Got it.

Isn’t he a physical therapist or something? There are actually medical doctors that are fairly skeptical of most Covid measures. Tons of them to be precise, but they don’t make it on cnn for you to gobble down. Do you know who’s the most skeptical of the vaccine? PhDs! Lol you can’t make it up. Could you guess why? Because those people tend to think for themselves and weigh the pros vs cons.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Just putting this out here: WestWYOPoke is a medical professional. I'd be willing to bet that he's way more educated on most of this stuff than any of the rest of us.

On trying to make COVID worse than the flu for kids, he's not correct. The rate of serious illness in kids as a result of covid is statistically similar to 0 and MANY other things in society pose a much greater risk than covid for kids. Imagine if we put as much focus on childhood obesity as we do them being vaccinated or wearing a mask?

The approach by liberal politicians and health professionals towards children and other lowly susceptible demographics is EXACTLY why there is a credibility issue and why we are still struggling with this disease.

Again, I don't think Covid is a risk for children. Never said that. The only thing I've disagreed with you in this thread is that flu is more dangerous for children. The data doesn't back that up. If threat of Covid is statistically similar to 0 (as you said), then so is flu as the numbers are very similar.

That isn't correct. At this point it is splitting hairs, but the data is somewhat insufficient. First, regarding the statistically 0 part, if you look at all severe cases of COVID, the number of cases under 17 years of age is statistically 0. Obviously there are not 0 severe cases under the age of 17; they are just so few that they are statistically similar to 0.

Where you are wrong is that if you take 100 healthy children that are infected with flu and 100 healthy children that are infected with COVID, those that are infected with flu will have a numerically greater chance of having a severe adverse outcome (hospitalization or death). The data is largely too messy to differentiate statistically at this point but the rates would suggest this trend.

Where you may be correct is that if you have 500 children in area with a flu outbreak and 500 children in an area with a COVID outbreak, a greater number of children will contract COVID than the flu because current data indicates that COVID is likely more contagious than flu. Thus, there is a greater chance for more severe complications in the 500 exposed to COVID than 500 exposed to flu. Again, the data is pretty messy, but we'll likely know a lot more after this full school year.

The other area where it gets messy is with comorbidities where both viruses tend to have more severe outcomes in those groups. I haven't seen a good data set that really tips the trend one way or another in this group.

There is some data that backs up COVID is worse based on the level of contagiousness and some data backs up the claim that flu is worse based on severe outcomes in healthy children. Really, the jury is still somewhat out but my personal belief is that it will be much clearer by the end of the spring semester.

Nonetheless and back to topic, this discussion just highlights how it is marginally UNETHICAL to promote this vaccine to those under 17 and clearly UNETHICAL to require those under 17 get the vaccine.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

The other interesting "antithesis" to all of this is the vaccinated are giving rise to more dangerous variants. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm not so politically ingrained to ignore it either. Since we now know that the vaccinated can contract COVID and can spread COVID, it is certainly plausible that mutant strains are likely propagated in that population (anytime there is an active viral infection, mutants can form). The theory is that the mutants more able to evade antibodies are more readily propagated in the vaccinated crowd.

Obviously, the media points to the low number of positive cases or low number of hospitalizations in the vaccinated crowd (often expressed as percent of hospitalizations or + cases). However, as more people are vaccinated, the opportunity to have them exposed increases. As such, we are seeing an increase in breakthrough cases with the vaccinated being responsible for 25% (ballpark) of the current positives. You can't really take that at face value, however, because vaccination status of state does not appear to be predictive of which states are experiencing surges in COVID. It is important to look within states where COVID is surging and evaluate those rates--I haven't seen those data yet and our group has not done those calculations yet.

Nonetheless, the "antithesis" may have some merit. A small but insufficient antibody response after initial exposure to the virus could theoretically provide an environment for the selection of variants more resistant to antibodies. This theory was floated prior to the use of the vaccines and is gaining some traction (albeit very minor). Long-term it will be interesting to look at how this virus progresses as a result of our actions. A UK group has a pretty interesting predictive model that pretty much states COVID will eventually wind up as the common cold but the intermediate steps to get there could get a little rough.

I'm not anti-vax. Hell, I'm in the VAERS system from the vaccine I took and I still support the vaccines. However, like so many other viruses, the vaccine approach may be chasing our tails at best and making the situation more dire at worst. Who knows, maybe the vaccines will get us out of this mess. Regardless and to the point, the mandates are getting out of hand!

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

The other interesting "antithesis" to all of this is the vaccinated are giving rise to more dangerous variants. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm not so politically ingrained to ignore it either. Since we now know that the vaccinated can contract COVID and can spread COVID, it is certainly plausible that mutant strains are likely propagated in that population (anytime there is an active viral infection, mutants can form). The theory is that the mutants more able to evade antibodies are more readily propagated in the vaccinated crowd.

Dude, you are so close, yet so far. The mutant strains are FAR more likely to crop up because of people who aren't vaccinated as these are the people who are way more likely to spread the disease in the first place.

Yes, vaccine-resistant strains can happen, but the fact we have Delta to begin with are the people who weren't careful.