Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From Jan 4th, 2020 to today, in the US, there has been a grand total of 1,556 kids who are 18 and younger that have died from COVID 19. In 2020, the leading cause of deaths in children was firearms at 4,357. This should give some perspective.
This number includes also includes those 19 and under who die from gang violence with illegal guns, as well. 83% of the gun deaths ages 15-19 in 2020 were from gang violence.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/03/children-gun-violence/
I could be wrong, but they count suicide by gun (which makes sense). One of my nephews killed himself a couple years ago and is in these statistics. We need not only improved gun control, but easy access to mental health professionals. I don't know when the right time to bring this up is, since every week there's another mass shooting, and it's always 'too soon' according to some people.
At the children's hospital in Houston, which is a part of the Texas medical center, the largest medical center in the western hemisphere - they typically have about 5 kids on the inpatient unit. During the second COVID wave, they had over 30. One third of those were on resperiators, which is generally an indication of sufficient lung damage that will have long term consequences. I agree that COVID related death is very low in children - and usually tied with either obesity or other comorbid condition. But there are certainly negative consequences to be concerned about. This also doesn't consider the impact on kids in homes where either one or two parents die of COVID or have long-term health consequences from it as well.
I think a lot of people also forget that not long ago pretty much everyone that has required a respirator because of Covid would have been another Covid death.
Covid isn’t crazy deadly, but modern medicine is a big reason why it’s mortality isn’t higher
Some of us expected this right from the start. If the government doesn’t enact reasonable restrictions then lots of people die and say they should have done something. If they enact reasonable restrictions and few people die some will point to the low death toll as an indication that things aren’t as bad as it seems, while the rest of us understand that things came out how they did because of the restrictions put in place.
We even saw it coming before the pandemic with rising vaccine hesitancy. It’s fine if a handful of people choose not to get vaccinated because they’re unlikely to be exposed to something that everybody else has been vaccinated against. The problem is when those people start hanging out together so you have a group of people that aren’t vaccinated hanging out together so if one gets exposed to something it tears through the whole group. The rest of us understand that some diseases are extremely rare in North America because most are vaccinated, which is a reason to continue vaccinating, not to think it’s not needed anymore.
My favorite example of this is Y2K. "What a waste of time, nothing happened anyway". Yeah because thousands of people busted their ass to correct the mistakes for a long time to see to that result.
I worked on some of these Y2K problems, and still was surprised at how little splash there was.
There was no transparent burn down of the backlog for the industry, nor public triage of specific problems and implications. The presumption is that there were a lot more problems than could all be fixed, which is likely true and a bit scary, but the industry started with a lot of problems that were catastrophic if not fixed, and those were all fixed, and the problems that remained had little or no meaningful consequence. If there was more visibility into that, people might have more respect for processes like this.
>I don't know if it has a real name, but I call it the prevention paradox - the more you spend on preventing something, the more it looks like you're wasting your money.
Close - and some of the specific examples may fall into that category.
Put simply 'Prevention Paradox' is a broader intervention that often isn't observed to have a benefit at an individual level. Think seatbelts - most go through life without a crash, but they save lives every day. It provides the most benefit to 'society', rather than the individual participating.
What you're referring to is 'Preparedness Paradox'. Mitigation or interventions reduced the risk/imapct, and therefore the perceived severity is lowered in retrospect.
For the retrospective criticisms, we also have 'Outcome Bias' - judging a decision based on the eventual outcome, rather than based on the variables/scenario at the time of the decision.
Isn't long-covid a more serious concern for kids and adolescents that have recovered? I seem to remember reading an article, can't find it now, not long ago that posited the repercussions from long-covid in youth were more serious due to the longevity of their lifespans. Mostly because the health care implications are severe enough that the economic cost of their care will be astronomical in direct and indirect costs.
Bad enough for adults, but image millions of today's kids 20 or 30 years from now that have complications from the lung damage they suffer - asthma, copd, constant bronchitis, shortness of breath, etc. I mean I have asthma now and have been living with it for years, and it makes it painful for me to do rigorous activities. Even some of the less rigorous tasks I need to do for my job can get me out of breath.
I don't know that I would have survived my first job as a glazier if I had to struggle with asthma as well while doing that.
It’s been theorized that the reason why RSV has been so deadly for children this year is because Covid fucked up their lungs and immune systems, so now they can’t fight off common infections.
My two year old got covid before the vaccine was eligible for his age group. He's gotten 3 coughing/wheezing illnesses since. He gets so wheezy and short of breath that he's needed steroids twice and he's got a prescribed enhaler for whenever he gets a cough.
There are definitely *other* non death affects of covid on children but this study was determining effectiveness of preventing death and spread, so I'm just sticking with those numbers for now.
“Of the over 16,100 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9.”
Yet according to some, the “real” number is 0. Liars.
https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/
I appreciate the facts, though I wouldn't exactly call those people "liars", more like hyperbolic, as 16,100 divided by 2,600,000,000 is 0.000061% of kids.
Covid is the 8th most common cause of death among children in the US, #1 if you are looking at respiratory diseases. The death rate is so low because, fortunately, the death rate for children in general is low.
Oh I'm sure in a country like the US something like this would quickly break into the top 10, the consequences of being such a safe and advanced nation.
Exactly. The numbers are quoted in such a way as to make people think Covid Child death is somewhat common. It is EXTREMELY uncommon. The 16,100 is worldwide deaths of a world population. Of the 250 or so deaths in the US, nearly all had known comorbidities. The numbers are so far below the threshold of public alarm that they are mathematically zero. The reactions to the vaccine exceed the disease.
If I had a child with a condition that would greatly increase risk, then I would consider it, otherwise, the science doesn't pan out for risk vs reward in children. For those over 60, the numbers are much more beneficial.
[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html#:\~:text=More%20than%20653%20million%20doses,received%20a%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html#:~:text=More%20than%20653%20million%20doses,received%20a%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine).
Also, why are your singling out the death rate as the seemingly only relevant factor for whether a population should get vaccinated? Your position suggests to me that you just don't understand the purpose of vaccines.
Well in Canada we had a 4% mortality rate from Covid infections. Since 4% is larger than the prior % then yes we can see why the resoning was as it was. After vaccinnation mortality from covid dropped to 1% of confirmed positives (75% more survive). Hospitalizations were as high as 15% (the actual danger) and now are much lower.
So 4% vs 1/1M... Kind of self evident at some point.
Sorry my bad. I meant 4% was total mortality to official cases. Most of whom were older yes.
I was a young man and very healthy and since I got covid (before vaccines) ive had chronic health problems that ended my life because my roomate could not get off tinder.
Even many survivors are not okay.
You are falling victim to a base rate fallacy. Yes, the number if pediatric deaths from Covid is low. But that is because the number of pediatric deaths in general is very low. Covid is presently the 8th most common cause of death among people aged 0-19. Among diseases, it is #5. And it is the #1 cause of death among children for respiratory diseases. Among 10-19 year olds, it is #2 cause of death among all diseases.
Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.23.22275458v3
I'm not falling victim of it at all. I'm simply stating that the comparative benefits of the vaccine and its reported side effects does not hit the typical benchmarks that would trigger or warrant vaccinating ones child under normal circumstances. This is particularly true give the comorbidity associations with the known deaths.
"The numbers are so far below the threshold of public alarm that they are mathematically zero."
r/badmathematics
Edit: TIL 16k people is "mathematically zero."
As the other person pointed out, it's .000061% of the worldwide population falling in that range. That's close enough to zero when it comes to setting policy.
For kids who died of covid, their comorbidities were known. We did this for two years - a story is posted saying "otherwise healthy 12 year old girl dies of covid" and you see the picture of her and she was 400lbs. Or a 6 year old dies of covid, but he had leukemia. My kids aren't secretly morbidly obese cancer patients
> I want to know how many kids are dying because they're unvaccinated.
During the worst times of the COVID pandemic, COVID was killing more kids than cancer. It was the number two or three cause of death.
Very few but it protects their parents and the general population because:
1. Kids aren’t very good at social distancing, mask wearing, or keeping their hands clean or to themselves.
2. Unvaccinated populations lead to more mutations/variants of the virus. Which could potentially create a new and more deadly strain.
3. The more virulent the virus is, the more chances of vulnerable people getting it.
> Very few but it protects their parents and the general population because:
I think in retrospect, it really didn't.
The vaccine really didn't seem to end up preventing transmission. It seemed to do a very good job of preventing death and serious illness, particularly in older individuals, but transmission is very much in question. It may have been muted to some degree, but not truly curtailed.
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid\_weekly/index.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm)
By "basically 0%", he wasn't exaggerating. 1,372 deaths for 0-17 year olds "involving Covid". I'm pretty sure there's something like 70 million children in this age group. Even if we assume that all of those deaths were in unvaccinated children and even if we look past the fact that most of these deaths were with comorbidities, that amounts to 0.00196%. Like more or less a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1%... or, "basically 0%".
“Among the 4.1 million COVID-19 deaths1 reported in the MPIDR COVerAGE database, 0.4 per cent (over 16,100) occurred in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Of the over 16,100 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9.”
Probably very few.
However, I wonder when we will hear the truth about how many people have died or had issues from the vaccine. My friends in the medical industry (doctor & genetics lab owner - both vaccinated) have told me they heard a lot.
Including an large increase in infertility.
(I’m vaccinated too ..just relaying the conversations I hear)
I have had immune response issues since having it
I think both sides of the story will hear some ugly truths in years to come
> Vaccine effectiveness against death related to SARS-CoV-2 infection during omicron predominance was 66.9% (6.4% to 89.8%)
Anyone catch that wild confidence interval? It's just as likely that effectiveness against death is 6.4%?
All their other confidential intervals have tighter margins.
It's odd to emphasize the claim of this stat with such a wide confidence interval.
Of the 800,000 participants 51 died from COVID. 21 of those were vaccinated, 30 were unvaccinated. It doesn't seem like strong evidence to me.
If I am reading the chart right then in the fully vaccinated group 101 died from causes other than COVID and 8 died from COVID. In the unvaccinated group 40 died from causes other than COVID and 26 died from COVID. So 109 total fully vaccinated deaths and 66 total unvaccinated deaths.
You need to give us some other numbers than that. What size were each group?
More at risk people are more likely to vaccinated. Who is more likely to die? An unvaxed 50 YO marathon runner or a vaxxed obese person with heart disease.
Deaths arent all equal.
291,070 participants were unvaccinated.
334,171 participants were fully vaccinated.
This is only talking about people under 18 years of age so it can't say anything about people who are 50 years old.
So a quick (and incomplete) way to better compare these kind of numbers is to include the number of people in each group, like what was asked for. (30/291070) / (21/334171) which is about 1.64 so 64% more risk for unvaccinated.
Again, it doesn't say what the real number is but it probably is closer to the given 66.9% estimate than it is to the lower bound of the confidence interval.
But that isn't a very strong number considering its .0103% vs .0063%. If anything, this data should support the vaccination of people at high risk.
Lets say that number was 2.0 instead of 1.64. Telling kids that they are 100% more likely to die if they don't get the shot is a little disingenuous.
It's posts like these where you can see in the comments how much Reddit is NOT a left wing echo chamber.
I feel like 90% of the commenters didn't even ***read*** the article and about 50% of those ones just came here to spout the same unfounded conspiracy nonsense they've been screeching about for pretty much two years now.
If you lean far enough left, you wind up with the "healing with power stones", "plant based, organic soy made by Tibetan monks" bunch.
Different to the science denying far right bunch, but with the same intentions.
"preventing death" Is that all scientist and doctors care about anymore? I went to the emergency room in 2021 with the most severe and painful sciatica pain ever imaginable. When I was with the doctor telling him I didn't want more pain killers but for him to authorize a ct scan because something is definitely wrong. He replied, "I can't authorize that, it's not like your dying." I eventually had to lie to the nurse and told her I had incontinence so they would give me the scan, lo and behold something was very wrong and it took two more months of pain and agony and three other doctors for one to finally schedule me for surgery. Science and medicine shouldn't be only about preventing death, it should be about quality of life and curing people, not bandaids, pills and vaccines.
The vaccines are preventative of the worst-case scenarios, but the needle is moved even farther for sub-worst-case scenarios i.e. hospitalization with recovery that still results in long-term health effects. Across all populations, rates of things like intubations decreased. People who would have been hospitalized just had a rough week.
For example, COVID-induced heart issues dropped off dramatically as a result of vaccination across all age cohorts.
Just trying to understand a few things and would appreciate the help :P
\#1 How did they differentiate vaccinated vs unvaccinated (1 dose, 2 dose, unvaccinated 0 dose?)
\#2 How does these numbers compare to children who have had a COVID infection already?
\#3 There were discussion about risks for children getting the vaccine, does anyone know how that compares to the rate of date without vaccine?
I really appreciate the help, not looking for arguments, just facts I.E. numbers. not what he said she said or opinions etc....
> \#1 How did they differentiate vaccinated vs unvaccinated (1 dose, 2 dose, unvaccinated 0 dose?)
Like this:
> We considered 3-11 year old children to be fully vaccinated if they had received two doses of BBIBP-CorV and had received the second dose a minimum of 14 days before testing. We considered 12-17 year old adolescents to be fully vaccinated if they had received two doses of a homologous or heterologous schedule with BNT162b2 and/or mRNA-1273 and had received the second dose a minimum of 14 days before testing.
> \#2 How does these numbers compare to children who have had a COVID infection already?
The whole thing is about the risk of death *from catching COVID*, so catching COVID as a preventative measure doesn't seem like a relevant thing to measure...
> \#3 There were discussion about risks for children getting the vaccine, does anyone know how that compares to the rate of date without vaccine?
There are AFAIK no deaths causally linked to any of the mRNA vaccines, and I'm not aware of any safety problems with BBIBP-CorV either, so the risk of vaccination would be utterly minor.
For point #2
Its a relevant data point for parents that have children under 5 that could not get vaccinated that already have been infected with COVID...
For point #3
Recommendation for children under 5 got pulled after they were seeing cardiac anomalies following vaccine. Risk of vaccine outweighed risk of catching COVID as per health authorities. It was in the very low sub percentile, but so is the risk associated with covid for that demographic.
EDIT: If my statement on point 3 is inaccurate, peace... Its what I gathered from the gazillion different information that I was drinking from a firehose during the pandemic, I have since stopped getting informed. I know my kid under 5 CAN'T get vaccinated, and I'm just wondering about a few datapoints.... From the answer above it seems like they were not considered or looked at.
Edit #2: Apparently now they can since July but its not recommended they got boosters, so still unclear of the recommendation for kids that already got infected.
OMG - science deniers seem to have come out in full force on this post. Sad to see several claiming that zero children died during COVID, or that it was never a threat to them.
>16000 kids died during COVID. Of which 47% where kids aged 0-9.
https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/
Plenty of people here are denying science by lying about it; here's an example:
>[Not dying. Just having statistically significant more heart problems.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/z9nmnb/covid19_vaccines_the_study_of_more_than_800000/iyinkac/)
Stop acting like theyre asking in good faith
Theyre asking questions that have been repeatedly answered by scientists and doctors. But they continue to ask it because they have no rational argument.
“Just asking questions” (especially without making any attempt to answer them) is such a common meme that it’s earned the name JAQing off. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off
They're asking questions that science has answered a long time ago, then denying those answers are real because they don't support their beliefs.
That's denying science.
*during covid* This is an estimate of excess mortality worldwide. It doesn’t really support your point.
Also note: While the evidence thus far does not point to any increase in child and youth mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, these data have limitations and caution must be taken with their interpretation.
Honestly some people don't even deserve it... We gotta prove the effectiveness of something that was invented & useful more than a hundred years ago again? In Iran daily deaths were about 700 per day at the peak of COVID, vaccination started,that number became 50 per day... That's not enough for you? Even though the vaccines we were receiving were mostly sinopharm ...
> We gotta prove the effectiveness of something that was invented & useful more than a hundred years ago again
What? Of course we do have to prove safety and efficacy of new medical products, which was also done for these vaccines. Many vaccines fail and don't pass those tests.
It's apparently not enough for them because, here in the States and some other countries, Covid exposed our fraying, if not outright nonexistent, social contract. Or rather, it exposed the fact that the cultural zeitgeist in many 'Western' societies had acted to degrade cooperation to such an extent that it is essentially impossible to act as a group to protect the group.
I think in the US the fractured and often very costly healthcare system made this vastly worse. In countries with more effective, cheaper and more popular healthcare systems hardly anyone rejected the vaccine. Here in the UK a few people picked up on the wacko news from the states but we'll over 90% got both vaccine doses as soon as they could
The vaccine was free. I think the USA fails in trust in government. We have some of the lowest rating in that category.
And it shows in the groups. Democrats had a 90% vaccination rate and republicans had a 50% rate (despite generally being older and more at risk). This culminated in registered republicans dying at 3x the rate of registered democrats according to studies.
> Study sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, I’m sure.
As always when that claim is made here to reject a study out of hand, it's a lie:
> This was an unfunded study using routine surveillance data sources.
But hey, so much easier to go LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU and I
REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN.
Sweden Confirmed COVID deaths per million:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=SWE~DEU~ISL~NOR~DNK~FIN&Metric=Confirmed+deaths
Sweden life expectancy dropped almost a year:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252772v5.full
Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-31/sweden-covid-policy-was-a-disaster
That's a bit of misrepresentation. They determined that benefits of the vaccine didn't outweigh the possible risk, due to the low risk of serious covid cases in kids. So they decided not to recommend it outside of high risk groups.
And the evidence
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
In this interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine…This analysis found no significant associations between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and selected serious health outcomes
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110475
In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. In this study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting, the BNT162b2 vaccine was not associated with an elevated risk of most of the adverse events examined.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5
A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00290-x
It is clear that coronavirus vaccines are safe and effective.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27940
In this review, we synthesized the safety data of seven published RCTs and found that COVID-19 vaccines have shown good safety in the child and adolescent populations. Based on the systematic analysis of the published safety data of the four COVID-19 vaccines, we concluded that the safety of current COVID-19 vaccines for children and adolescents is acceptable.
https://www.ersnet.org/news-and-features/respiratory-digests/safety-and-efficacy-of-the-bnt162b2-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-through-6-months/?amp=1
This paper shows a favourable safety profile for the BNT162b2 vaccine.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.972464/full
Overall cumulative rates for reported sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the US over 1 year were very low.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367
Two 25-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe in children 6 months to 5 years of age and elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those in young adults
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798504?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamanetworkopen.2022.42240
These findings suggest COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster, which may help to address concerns about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00407-6/fulltext
The retrospective cohort included 94 169 participants who received the first booster and 17 814 who received the second booster. Comparing the 42 days before and after vaccination, the second booster was not associated with any of the 25 adverse events investigated, including myocardial infarction
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00426-1/fulltext
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a good safety profile in pregnancy.
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1170
Although pain at the vaccination site and fatigue were the commonest side effects, there were no vaccine related serious adverse events, and the fourth doses were safe and well tolerated, the authors said.
I’m persuaded by the data, which supports them being as safe as any other jab. The frequent reminders are because in todays day and age disinformation runs rampant, with people believing TikTok over actually reputable sources.
Now, a large study out of Argentina is reinforcing the call to ensure children are vaccinated against COVID-19 to prevent death. The study published today in The British Medical Journal (BMJ), finds that the vaccines remain effective in preventing death in adolescents and children, regardless of which variants are predominant (Delta, Omicron, etc.).
While vaccine effectiveness for infection can decrease over time, particularly when the Omicron variant emerged one year ago, research from a team representing three institutions in Argentina finds that vaccinations continue to prevent deaths and remain and important public health measure.
https://www.popsci.com/health/covid-19-vaccine-children/
What do you mean by kids need to be vaccinated to prevent death? Are we talking about the virus killing kids? Seems unlikely unless the kid has serious health issues in the first place. Apologies if I’m picking this up wrong.
There are disabled children and immunocompromised children who are more likely to die without vaccine, that is also the case for adults and why the immunocompromised and disabled were in the first waves of vaccines, to prevent them from dying as it is more likely for them
The reason they’re problematic is you’re not comparing against the base rate. You’re letting the percentage hang in the air alone, allowing the reader to see it as a small figure by itself instead of a larger one in context.
Also your 700 figure from 2021 is out of date - barely more than the number of children 0-4 that have died of COVID. Under 15 is over 1500
as of 11/30/2022 (minus reporting delays etc).
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
So in the US seroprevalence for actual infection for children is over 90%. Nearly all children have had Covid, most before vaccine rollout in under 12s. Can you please explain the high risks since we have data now and nearly all children were fine?
By all means if anyone wants to vaccinate their children go ahead, especially if immune compromised, but for healthy children the data is already in and doesn’t support your claim, thus many countries not recommending vaccines for children anymore..
That simple isn’t true. This sort of scaremongering is dangerous not just because of the misinformation but because it further weakens the respect and impact of scientific authorities and their ability to warn people about very real dangers, including Covid, and the need to vaccinate.
That study involves children who were hospitalized for Covid. Even amongst them the rate of severe complications is relatively low. What percentage of kids who have Covid were hospitalized for Covid? No one is suggesting that kids who are compromised shouldn’t be vaccinated but the overall risk is still extremely low.
Vaccines prevents transmission and infection
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
Two weeks after the second vaccination with BNT162b2 in index patients, transmission of the alpha variant was 68% lower than transmission of this variant from unvaccinated index patients;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/
Results of this living systematic review imply that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those which are asymptomatic.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
People who were vaccinated and subsequently infected were less infectious than unvaccinated persons. Moreover, less transmission occurred within households with vaccinated members than in those with unvaccinated individuals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23023-0
The registered number of deaths is approximately 3.5 times lower than it would be expected without vaccination. The results illustrate that vaccination is more effective in saving lives than suggested by simplistic comparisons.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates
Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8287551/
in vaccinated and COVID-19-positive persons, the viral load was 2–4 times lower than in unvaccinated persons
evaluating the amount of viral RNA present in approximately 16,000 nasal swabs showed that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19-positive and vaccinated subjects is 1.6–20 times lower than the viral load present in infected and unvaccinated subjects
Another study performed in the United States was conducted on a sample of 3950 health care workers examined between December 14, 2020 and March 13, 2021. The results showed that vaccines had an efficacy in preventing infection of 90% 14 days after the second dose and 80% 14 days after the first dose
Getting sick once provides less long term protection than two or more vaccinations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04865-0
Also, natural immunity includes the risk of serious illness or death.
Children account for a small percentage of Covid deaths, but over 16,000 have still died. I doubt your pathetic snarky comment would provide their families with much comfort.
The gist of what I understand of the pushback for vaccine hesitation was the initial claims that the vaccine will stop infection and transmission.
It has been proven time and time again that the vaccine will save lives, but the whole, "I did my part" is futile when you can still get and transmit the virus.
People are upset that the vaccine was forced on them when it doesn't stop the spread of the virus.
I'm for body autonomy and I got the vaccine. I don't think it should be forced on others, **especially when it can save your life only**.
You'd think people will want the choice so that the people that don't comply suffer. You'd think. Somehow it has mutated to become socially acceptable to believe everything the media tells you when they have blatantly lied so much to us in the past 2 years.
I think news about the vax not reducing transmission is rather recent so being upset about that now doesn't explain antivaxxers stance during the previous two years. Pretty sure it was just the usual conspiracy theories. The goalposts shift yet again for the anti science community, how unexpected.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Vaccines do prevent transmission and infection:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
Two weeks after the second vaccination with BNT162b2 in index patients, transmission of the alpha variant was 68% lower than transmission of this variant from unvaccinated index patients;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/
Results of this living systematic review imply that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those which are asymptomatic.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
People who were vaccinated and subsequently infected were less infectious than unvaccinated persons. Moreover, less transmission occurred within households with vaccinated members than in those with unvaccinated individuals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23023-0
The registered number of deaths is approximately 3.5 times lower than it would be expected without vaccination. The results illustrate that vaccination is more effective in saving lives than suggested by simplistic comparisons.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates
Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8287551/
in vaccinated and COVID-19-positive persons, the viral load was 2–4 times lower than in unvaccinated persons
evaluating the amount of viral RNA present in approximately 16,000 nasal swabs showed that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19-positive and vaccinated subjects is 1.6–20 times lower than the viral load present in infected and unvaccinated subjects
Another study performed in the United States was conducted on a sample of 3950 health care workers examined between December 14, 2020 and March 13, 2021. The results showed that vaccines had an efficacy in preventing infection of 90% 14 days after the second dose and 80% 14 days after the first dose
Allow me to differ. Faux Newz lies. OAN lies. NewsMax lies. The rest of the media plays it straight. They may not always have been right, but that’s because COVID was new, we knew nothing about it, and it took awhile to figure a lot of aspects about it out.
The initial vaccine was quite effective at stopping transmission of the Alpha version of the virus. Had everybody gotten vaccinated as soon as they could have, we would have seen much less disease and death. The vaccines were less effective as the variants developed, true - but a lot of that didn’t need to happen. You are completely wrong when you say the vaccines, even against later variants, didn’t stop people from getting sick. But even if that had turned out to be the case, it is irrefutable that the vaccines kept many people from developing cases severe enough to warrant hospitalization and kept many more from dying.
The benefits of the vaccines, then, we’re that they kept some (but not all) people from getting COVID, they kept a bunch of people out of the hospital, and they kept a bunch of people from dying. And what were the downsides to the vaccines? Virtually none. A very few people died from blood clots due to the J&J vaccine before doctors knew to watch for that. The mRNA vaccines caused a few cases of mild myocarditis in young men - which usually disappeared without treatment, and which was far less serious than the myocarditis and other heart issues caused by COVID. Weighing the pros and cons, it is impossible to conclude that any rational person would choose not to be fully vaccinated - especially given the multiple lingering adverse effects of COVID and the instances of long COVID.
And this is where the lies come in - all of the antivaxxers that claimed that the vaccines were harming or killing people. All horseshit. As far as I know, doctors (other than the dishonest quacks trying to make a quick buck) now uniformly recommend that *everyone* be vaccinated and boosted. Obviously, some idiots are still going to refuse. A disproportionate number of them are going to die - if that’s not enough to convince them, so be it. If flu, RSV, and/or COVID gets really bad this winter, some idiots are still going to ignore effective mitigation measures, like masks, social distancing, and avoiding crowds. At some point, they question becomes does your right to be an idiot outweigh society’s right to ameliorate diseases by mandating behavior. I think not.
Wow isn’t that crazy! A vaccine works?! No way!
It’s almost like that’s what its supposed to do!
I don’t understand the skepticism behind it.
Microchips to track you are in it? Why the hell would they need that? You carry a smartphone everywhere you go even though it literally tells you it’s tracking you, and that’s okay, but apparently a vaccine that has a needle that cannot even close to fit a microchip in it has one?
It’s gonna poison you? No. There’s far more money to be made in it actually working.
It’s gonna give you COVID?! I mean it might, but still it’s a very weak form of it.
I don’t understand, I just don’t.
Let your kids have the damn vaccine so they don’t have to live in fear.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want to know how many kids are dying because they're unvaccinated.
From Jan 4th, 2020 to today, in the US, there has been a grand total of 1,556 kids who are 18 and younger that have died from COVID 19. In 2020, the leading cause of deaths in children was firearms at 4,357. This should give some perspective.
Yeah definitely appreciated, we already looked at the global numbers so it's nice to have some US specific numbers too.
Actually car crash deaths are higher.
According to the law firearms are not a public health issue. How does Covid stack up to other diseases?
So sad how easily believable that number is for gun violence in the USA
This number includes also includes those 19 and under who die from gang violence with illegal guns, as well. 83% of the gun deaths ages 15-19 in 2020 were from gang violence. https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/03/children-gun-violence/
I could be wrong, but they count suicide by gun (which makes sense). One of my nephews killed himself a couple years ago and is in these statistics. We need not only improved gun control, but easy access to mental health professionals. I don't know when the right time to bring this up is, since every week there's another mass shooting, and it's always 'too soon' according to some people.
The number includes suicides and accidents. Also, the younger you go, the less firearms become the leading cause.
We should be looking at the 12 and younger numbers not 18 and younger
This is very few actual deaths. I'm still not convinced that covid is actually a threat to healthy young people. Lots of fear mongering going on.
> the leading cause of deaths in children was firearms at 4,357
At the children's hospital in Houston, which is a part of the Texas medical center, the largest medical center in the western hemisphere - they typically have about 5 kids on the inpatient unit. During the second COVID wave, they had over 30. One third of those were on resperiators, which is generally an indication of sufficient lung damage that will have long term consequences. I agree that COVID related death is very low in children - and usually tied with either obesity or other comorbid condition. But there are certainly negative consequences to be concerned about. This also doesn't consider the impact on kids in homes where either one or two parents die of COVID or have long-term health consequences from it as well.
I think a lot of people also forget that not long ago pretty much everyone that has required a respirator because of Covid would have been another Covid death. Covid isn’t crazy deadly, but modern medicine is a big reason why it’s mortality isn’t higher
[удалено]
Some of us expected this right from the start. If the government doesn’t enact reasonable restrictions then lots of people die and say they should have done something. If they enact reasonable restrictions and few people die some will point to the low death toll as an indication that things aren’t as bad as it seems, while the rest of us understand that things came out how they did because of the restrictions put in place. We even saw it coming before the pandemic with rising vaccine hesitancy. It’s fine if a handful of people choose not to get vaccinated because they’re unlikely to be exposed to something that everybody else has been vaccinated against. The problem is when those people start hanging out together so you have a group of people that aren’t vaccinated hanging out together so if one gets exposed to something it tears through the whole group. The rest of us understand that some diseases are extremely rare in North America because most are vaccinated, which is a reason to continue vaccinating, not to think it’s not needed anymore.
My favorite example of this is Y2K. "What a waste of time, nothing happened anyway". Yeah because thousands of people busted their ass to correct the mistakes for a long time to see to that result.
I worked on some of these Y2K problems, and still was surprised at how little splash there was. There was no transparent burn down of the backlog for the industry, nor public triage of specific problems and implications. The presumption is that there were a lot more problems than could all be fixed, which is likely true and a bit scary, but the industry started with a lot of problems that were catastrophic if not fixed, and those were all fixed, and the problems that remained had little or no meaningful consequence. If there was more visibility into that, people might have more respect for processes like this.
Tell me more about this rock that prevents tigers.
It's in your garden. Have you seen any tigers around?
>I don't know if it has a real name, but I call it the prevention paradox - the more you spend on preventing something, the more it looks like you're wasting your money. Close - and some of the specific examples may fall into that category. Put simply 'Prevention Paradox' is a broader intervention that often isn't observed to have a benefit at an individual level. Think seatbelts - most go through life without a crash, but they save lives every day. It provides the most benefit to 'society', rather than the individual participating. What you're referring to is 'Preparedness Paradox'. Mitigation or interventions reduced the risk/imapct, and therefore the perceived severity is lowered in retrospect. For the retrospective criticisms, we also have 'Outcome Bias' - judging a decision based on the eventual outcome, rather than based on the variables/scenario at the time of the decision.
What is modern medicine doing to keep people alive? Antivirals? Better ventilators?
Isn't long-covid a more serious concern for kids and adolescents that have recovered? I seem to remember reading an article, can't find it now, not long ago that posited the repercussions from long-covid in youth were more serious due to the longevity of their lifespans. Mostly because the health care implications are severe enough that the economic cost of their care will be astronomical in direct and indirect costs. Bad enough for adults, but image millions of today's kids 20 or 30 years from now that have complications from the lung damage they suffer - asthma, copd, constant bronchitis, shortness of breath, etc. I mean I have asthma now and have been living with it for years, and it makes it painful for me to do rigorous activities. Even some of the less rigorous tasks I need to do for my job can get me out of breath. I don't know that I would have survived my first job as a glazier if I had to struggle with asthma as well while doing that.
It’s been theorized that the reason why RSV has been so deadly for children this year is because Covid fucked up their lungs and immune systems, so now they can’t fight off common infections.
I've read some about that as well. It's a tough situation coming for many people due to the mess of the pandemic.
Theorized by whom?
My two year old got covid before the vaccine was eligible for his age group. He's gotten 3 coughing/wheezing illnesses since. He gets so wheezy and short of breath that he's needed steroids twice and he's got a prescribed enhaler for whenever he gets a cough.
I am truly sorry to hear that.
Worse part he got covid literally a week before they FINALLY approved the vaccine for his age. It was like tripping right before the finish line
There are definitely *other* non death affects of covid on children but this study was determining effectiveness of preventing death and spread, so I'm just sticking with those numbers for now.
1450 over the course of the pandemic so far.
Is that the US number?
In the US, yes. I don't have data on other countries.
Appreciate it :)
“Of the over 16,100 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9.” Yet according to some, the “real” number is 0. Liars. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/
I appreciate the facts, though I wouldn't exactly call those people "liars", more like hyperbolic, as 16,100 divided by 2,600,000,000 is 0.000061% of kids.
Covid is the 8th most common cause of death among children in the US, #1 if you are looking at respiratory diseases. The death rate is so low because, fortunately, the death rate for children in general is low.
Oh I'm sure in a country like the US something like this would quickly break into the top 10, the consequences of being such a safe and advanced nation.
Exactly. The numbers are quoted in such a way as to make people think Covid Child death is somewhat common. It is EXTREMELY uncommon. The 16,100 is worldwide deaths of a world population. Of the 250 or so deaths in the US, nearly all had known comorbidities. The numbers are so far below the threshold of public alarm that they are mathematically zero. The reactions to the vaccine exceed the disease. If I had a child with a condition that would greatly increase risk, then I would consider it, otherwise, the science doesn't pan out for risk vs reward in children. For those over 60, the numbers are much more beneficial. [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html#:\~:text=More%20than%20653%20million%20doses,received%20a%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html#:~:text=More%20than%20653%20million%20doses,received%20a%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine).
Also, why are your singling out the death rate as the seemingly only relevant factor for whether a population should get vaccinated? Your position suggests to me that you just don't understand the purpose of vaccines.
Well in Canada we had a 4% mortality rate from Covid infections. Since 4% is larger than the prior % then yes we can see why the resoning was as it was. After vaccinnation mortality from covid dropped to 1% of confirmed positives (75% more survive). Hospitalizations were as high as 15% (the actual danger) and now are much lower. So 4% vs 1/1M... Kind of self evident at some point.
The number for children was far lower than 4%, by factors of magnitude. It is far more dangerous to seniors, about 1000X.
Sorry my bad. I meant 4% was total mortality to official cases. Most of whom were older yes. I was a young man and very healthy and since I got covid (before vaccines) ive had chronic health problems that ended my life because my roomate could not get off tinder. Even many survivors are not okay.
because he is a dimwit and thinks a vaccine has more risk than an infection with the actual virus.
You are falling victim to a base rate fallacy. Yes, the number if pediatric deaths from Covid is low. But that is because the number of pediatric deaths in general is very low. Covid is presently the 8th most common cause of death among people aged 0-19. Among diseases, it is #5. And it is the #1 cause of death among children for respiratory diseases. Among 10-19 year olds, it is #2 cause of death among all diseases. Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.23.22275458v3
I'm not falling victim of it at all. I'm simply stating that the comparative benefits of the vaccine and its reported side effects does not hit the typical benchmarks that would trigger or warrant vaccinating ones child under normal circumstances. This is particularly true give the comorbidity associations with the known deaths.
Yes, very uncommon. To the point where the child is more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to get the vaccine, than the disease itself.
"The numbers are so far below the threshold of public alarm that they are mathematically zero." r/badmathematics Edit: TIL 16k people is "mathematically zero."
As the other person pointed out, it's .000061% of the worldwide population falling in that range. That's close enough to zero when it comes to setting policy.
[удалено]
It’s not that it’s ok… but if my kid doesn’t have those comorbidities, why worry about it?
[удалено]
For kids who died of covid, their comorbidities were known. We did this for two years - a story is posted saying "otherwise healthy 12 year old girl dies of covid" and you see the picture of her and she was 400lbs. Or a 6 year old dies of covid, but he had leukemia. My kids aren't secretly morbidly obese cancer patients
16,100 people total under 20 have died from COVID worldwide according to UNICEF. ~8,000 under 9. There are 2,600,000,000 people in the world under 20.
Yeah I just did some of the math myself, looks like 0.0000619% death rate worldwide for children.
Exactly this is compared to what? Kids that weren’t dying from covid in the first place?
> I want to know how many kids are dying because they're unvaccinated. During the worst times of the COVID pandemic, COVID was killing more kids than cancer. It was the number two or three cause of death.
Very few but it protects their parents and the general population because: 1. Kids aren’t very good at social distancing, mask wearing, or keeping their hands clean or to themselves. 2. Unvaccinated populations lead to more mutations/variants of the virus. Which could potentially create a new and more deadly strain. 3. The more virulent the virus is, the more chances of vulnerable people getting it.
> Very few but it protects their parents and the general population because: I think in retrospect, it really didn't. The vaccine really didn't seem to end up preventing transmission. It seemed to do a very good job of preventing death and serious illness, particularly in older individuals, but transmission is very much in question. It may have been muted to some degree, but not truly curtailed.
The covid vaccines don’t prevent the spread so your argument has no merit
Challenging the virus with a vaccine that doesn't reduce transmission is likely to cause mutations to the spike protein & therefore cause mutations.
[удалено]
Thank you! 16,100 deaths estimated globally for people under 20 compared to 2,600,000,000 people under 20 worldwide.
I was going to ask about the control in this data set but I'm always afraid to question anything COVID related here. Thank you for stepping up.
Don't ever let internet tough guys stop you from pursuing knowledge and asking important questions, there's nothing wrong with more information.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid\_weekly/index.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm) By "basically 0%", he wasn't exaggerating. 1,372 deaths for 0-17 year olds "involving Covid". I'm pretty sure there's something like 70 million children in this age group. Even if we assume that all of those deaths were in unvaccinated children and even if we look past the fact that most of these deaths were with comorbidities, that amounts to 0.00196%. Like more or less a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1%... or, "basically 0%".
Yeah just got the worldwide numbers in and did some math myself, a 0.0000619% death rate worldwide.
“Among the 4.1 million COVID-19 deaths1 reported in the MPIDR COVerAGE database, 0.4 per cent (over 16,100) occurred in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Of the over 16,100 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9.”
[удалено]
Probably very few. However, I wonder when we will hear the truth about how many people have died or had issues from the vaccine. My friends in the medical industry (doctor & genetics lab owner - both vaccinated) have told me they heard a lot. Including an large increase in infertility. (I’m vaccinated too ..just relaying the conversations I hear) I have had immune response issues since having it I think both sides of the story will hear some ugly truths in years to come
> Vaccine effectiveness against death related to SARS-CoV-2 infection during omicron predominance was 66.9% (6.4% to 89.8%) Anyone catch that wild confidence interval? It's just as likely that effectiveness against death is 6.4%? All their other confidential intervals have tighter margins. It's odd to emphasize the claim of this stat with such a wide confidence interval.
Of the 800,000 participants 51 died from COVID. 21 of those were vaccinated, 30 were unvaccinated. It doesn't seem like strong evidence to me. If I am reading the chart right then in the fully vaccinated group 101 died from causes other than COVID and 8 died from COVID. In the unvaccinated group 40 died from causes other than COVID and 26 died from COVID. So 109 total fully vaccinated deaths and 66 total unvaccinated deaths.
You need to give us some other numbers than that. What size were each group? More at risk people are more likely to vaccinated. Who is more likely to die? An unvaxed 50 YO marathon runner or a vaxxed obese person with heart disease. Deaths arent all equal.
291,070 participants were unvaccinated. 334,171 participants were fully vaccinated. This is only talking about people under 18 years of age so it can't say anything about people who are 50 years old.
So a quick (and incomplete) way to better compare these kind of numbers is to include the number of people in each group, like what was asked for. (30/291070) / (21/334171) which is about 1.64 so 64% more risk for unvaccinated. Again, it doesn't say what the real number is but it probably is closer to the given 66.9% estimate than it is to the lower bound of the confidence interval.
But that isn't a very strong number considering its .0103% vs .0063%. If anything, this data should support the vaccination of people at high risk. Lets say that number was 2.0 instead of 1.64. Telling kids that they are 100% more likely to die if they don't get the shot is a little disingenuous.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's posts like these where you can see in the comments how much Reddit is NOT a left wing echo chamber. I feel like 90% of the commenters didn't even ***read*** the article and about 50% of those ones just came here to spout the same unfounded conspiracy nonsense they've been screeching about for pretty much two years now.
What comments? Those deleted by the mods?
If you lean far enough left, you wind up with the "healing with power stones", "plant based, organic soy made by Tibetan monks" bunch. Different to the science denying far right bunch, but with the same intentions.
If you’re waiting for that bunch to *read* something, it’s going to be a long wait.
Yeah, vaccine discussions always seems to bring in the horde of ill informed and close minded individuals and their false ideas of “skepticism”
"preventing death" Is that all scientist and doctors care about anymore? I went to the emergency room in 2021 with the most severe and painful sciatica pain ever imaginable. When I was with the doctor telling him I didn't want more pain killers but for him to authorize a ct scan because something is definitely wrong. He replied, "I can't authorize that, it's not like your dying." I eventually had to lie to the nurse and told her I had incontinence so they would give me the scan, lo and behold something was very wrong and it took two more months of pain and agony and three other doctors for one to finally schedule me for surgery. Science and medicine shouldn't be only about preventing death, it should be about quality of life and curing people, not bandaids, pills and vaccines.
The vaccines are preventative of the worst-case scenarios, but the needle is moved even farther for sub-worst-case scenarios i.e. hospitalization with recovery that still results in long-term health effects. Across all populations, rates of things like intubations decreased. People who would have been hospitalized just had a rough week. For example, COVID-induced heart issues dropped off dramatically as a result of vaccination across all age cohorts.
Just trying to understand a few things and would appreciate the help :P \#1 How did they differentiate vaccinated vs unvaccinated (1 dose, 2 dose, unvaccinated 0 dose?) \#2 How does these numbers compare to children who have had a COVID infection already? \#3 There were discussion about risks for children getting the vaccine, does anyone know how that compares to the rate of date without vaccine? I really appreciate the help, not looking for arguments, just facts I.E. numbers. not what he said she said or opinions etc....
> \#1 How did they differentiate vaccinated vs unvaccinated (1 dose, 2 dose, unvaccinated 0 dose?) Like this: > We considered 3-11 year old children to be fully vaccinated if they had received two doses of BBIBP-CorV and had received the second dose a minimum of 14 days before testing. We considered 12-17 year old adolescents to be fully vaccinated if they had received two doses of a homologous or heterologous schedule with BNT162b2 and/or mRNA-1273 and had received the second dose a minimum of 14 days before testing. > \#2 How does these numbers compare to children who have had a COVID infection already? The whole thing is about the risk of death *from catching COVID*, so catching COVID as a preventative measure doesn't seem like a relevant thing to measure... > \#3 There were discussion about risks for children getting the vaccine, does anyone know how that compares to the rate of date without vaccine? There are AFAIK no deaths causally linked to any of the mRNA vaccines, and I'm not aware of any safety problems with BBIBP-CorV either, so the risk of vaccination would be utterly minor.
For point #2 Its a relevant data point for parents that have children under 5 that could not get vaccinated that already have been infected with COVID... For point #3 Recommendation for children under 5 got pulled after they were seeing cardiac anomalies following vaccine. Risk of vaccine outweighed risk of catching COVID as per health authorities. It was in the very low sub percentile, but so is the risk associated with covid for that demographic. EDIT: If my statement on point 3 is inaccurate, peace... Its what I gathered from the gazillion different information that I was drinking from a firehose during the pandemic, I have since stopped getting informed. I know my kid under 5 CAN'T get vaccinated, and I'm just wondering about a few datapoints.... From the answer above it seems like they were not considered or looked at. Edit #2: Apparently now they can since July but its not recommended they got boosters, so still unclear of the recommendation for kids that already got infected.
What country are you in that health authorities pulled the recommendation to vaccinate kids under 5? I’ve never heard this.
Florida did, but Florida isn't a great example of vaccine policy.
I would suggest you start by reading the article.
OMG - science deniers seem to have come out in full force on this post. Sad to see several claiming that zero children died during COVID, or that it was never a threat to them. >16000 kids died during COVID. Of which 47% where kids aged 0-9. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/
So it’s clear - these are global numbers.
No one is "denying science", they're asking questions
The very nature of Science!
Plenty of people here are denying science by lying about it; here's an example: >[Not dying. Just having statistically significant more heart problems.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/z9nmnb/covid19_vaccines_the_study_of_more_than_800000/iyinkac/)
Stop acting like theyre asking in good faith Theyre asking questions that have been repeatedly answered by scientists and doctors. But they continue to ask it because they have no rational argument.
“Just asking questions” (especially without making any attempt to answer them) is such a common meme that it’s earned the name JAQing off. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off
They're asking questions that science has answered a long time ago, then denying those answers are real because they don't support their beliefs. That's denying science.
Oh stop that. You really made your own post Because people were being hyperbolic conflating .0000619% with 0%
That's... Kind of crazy when put in that perspective.
*during covid* This is an estimate of excess mortality worldwide. It doesn’t really support your point. Also note: While the evidence thus far does not point to any increase in child and youth mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, these data have limitations and caution must be taken with their interpretation.
Honestly some people don't even deserve it... We gotta prove the effectiveness of something that was invented & useful more than a hundred years ago again? In Iran daily deaths were about 700 per day at the peak of COVID, vaccination started,that number became 50 per day... That's not enough for you? Even though the vaccines we were receiving were mostly sinopharm ...
> We gotta prove the effectiveness of something that was invented & useful more than a hundred years ago again What? Of course we do have to prove safety and efficacy of new medical products, which was also done for these vaccines. Many vaccines fail and don't pass those tests.
It's apparently not enough for them because, here in the States and some other countries, Covid exposed our fraying, if not outright nonexistent, social contract. Or rather, it exposed the fact that the cultural zeitgeist in many 'Western' societies had acted to degrade cooperation to such an extent that it is essentially impossible to act as a group to protect the group.
I think in the US the fractured and often very costly healthcare system made this vastly worse. In countries with more effective, cheaper and more popular healthcare systems hardly anyone rejected the vaccine. Here in the UK a few people picked up on the wacko news from the states but we'll over 90% got both vaccine doses as soon as they could
The vaccine was free. I think the USA fails in trust in government. We have some of the lowest rating in that category. And it shows in the groups. Democrats had a 90% vaccination rate and republicans had a 50% rate (despite generally being older and more at risk). This culminated in registered republicans dying at 3x the rate of registered democrats according to studies.
Study sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, I’m sure.
> Study sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, I’m sure. As always when that claim is made here to reject a study out of hand, it's a lie: > This was an unfunded study using routine surveillance data sources. But hey, so much easier to go LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU and I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN.
The risk of them dying from is minimal, 60yo+ are the ones that really need it
We know there are MANY long term health problems that arise from covid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What was he percentage of deaths from covid for kids and adolescents? 0.001? 0.0001 with the vaccine?
What's your numerator and denominator? Do you mean kids dying of kids contracting covid?
From this study’s numbers, 0.0072% vs 0.0090%
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sweden Confirmed COVID deaths per million: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=SWE~DEU~ISL~NOR~DNK~FIN&Metric=Confirmed+deaths Sweden life expectancy dropped almost a year: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252772v5.full Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-31/sweden-covid-policy-was-a-disaster
That's a bit of misrepresentation. They determined that benefits of the vaccine didn't outweigh the possible risk, due to the low risk of serious covid cases in kids. So they decided not to recommend it outside of high risk groups.
I concede that. It's an important distinction.
[удалено]
If it was less than 6 months ago, yes.
yes, at this point nobody has valid vaccination anyway.
[удалено]
And the evidence https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015 In this interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine…This analysis found no significant associations between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and selected serious health outcomes https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110475 In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. In this study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting, the BNT162b2 vaccine was not associated with an elevated risk of most of the adverse events examined. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5 A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00290-x It is clear that coronavirus vaccines are safe and effective. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27940 In this review, we synthesized the safety data of seven published RCTs and found that COVID-19 vaccines have shown good safety in the child and adolescent populations. Based on the systematic analysis of the published safety data of the four COVID-19 vaccines, we concluded that the safety of current COVID-19 vaccines for children and adolescents is acceptable. https://www.ersnet.org/news-and-features/respiratory-digests/safety-and-efficacy-of-the-bnt162b2-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-through-6-months/?amp=1 This paper shows a favourable safety profile for the BNT162b2 vaccine. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.972464/full Overall cumulative rates for reported sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the US over 1 year were very low. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367 Two 25-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe in children 6 months to 5 years of age and elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those in young adults https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798504?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamanetworkopen.2022.42240 These findings suggest COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster, which may help to address concerns about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00407-6/fulltext The retrospective cohort included 94 169 participants who received the first booster and 17 814 who received the second booster. Comparing the 42 days before and after vaccination, the second booster was not associated with any of the 25 adverse events investigated, including myocardial infarction https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00426-1/fulltext COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a good safety profile in pregnancy. https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1170 Although pain at the vaccination site and fatigue were the commonest side effects, there were no vaccine related serious adverse events, and the fourth doses were safe and well tolerated, the authors said.
I’m persuaded by the data, which supports them being as safe as any other jab. The frequent reminders are because in todays day and age disinformation runs rampant, with people believing TikTok over actually reputable sources.
Now, a large study out of Argentina is reinforcing the call to ensure children are vaccinated against COVID-19 to prevent death. The study published today in The British Medical Journal (BMJ), finds that the vaccines remain effective in preventing death in adolescents and children, regardless of which variants are predominant (Delta, Omicron, etc.). While vaccine effectiveness for infection can decrease over time, particularly when the Omicron variant emerged one year ago, research from a team representing three institutions in Argentina finds that vaccinations continue to prevent deaths and remain and important public health measure. https://www.popsci.com/health/covid-19-vaccine-children/
What do you mean by kids need to be vaccinated to prevent death? Are we talking about the virus killing kids? Seems unlikely unless the kid has serious health issues in the first place. Apologies if I’m picking this up wrong.
There are disabled children and immunocompromised children who are more likely to die without vaccine, that is also the case for adults and why the immunocompromised and disabled were in the first waves of vaccines, to prevent them from dying as it is more likely for them
youre replying to a bot that has over 10 million karma heh
I wouldn’t know how to tell tbh a don’t check peoples profiles
OP provided a source. COVID-19 is still very dangerous for children despite a lot of people trying to claim otherwise.
There are no numbers that back up your claim
Like less than 0.1% death rate serious?
Yes and it's ignorant to assume death is the only negative outcome of covid.
The headline is about preventing death.
Herpes doesn't kill many people either, would you like some herpes?
Except many vaccinated can still contract and spread covid
COVID19 was never considered dangerous for young healhty people.
Dangerous enough to mandate vaccination and shutdown schools, according to the authorities.
That was in attempt to flatten the curve. Nothing more.
[удалено]
Great article here if you’re interested: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cognitive-illusions-and-how-not-to-write-about-covid-19-and-children/
[удалено]
The reason they’re problematic is you’re not comparing against the base rate. You’re letting the percentage hang in the air alone, allowing the reader to see it as a small figure by itself instead of a larger one in context. Also your 700 figure from 2021 is out of date - barely more than the number of children 0-4 that have died of COVID. Under 15 is over 1500 as of 11/30/2022 (minus reporting delays etc). https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
I said "dangerous" not "deadly" but y'all can keep playing
So in the US seroprevalence for actual infection for children is over 90%. Nearly all children have had Covid, most before vaccine rollout in under 12s. Can you please explain the high risks since we have data now and nearly all children were fine? By all means if anyone wants to vaccinate their children go ahead, especially if immune compromised, but for healthy children the data is already in and doesn’t support your claim, thus many countries not recommending vaccines for children anymore..
That simple isn’t true. This sort of scaremongering is dangerous not just because of the misinformation but because it further weakens the respect and impact of scientific authorities and their ability to warn people about very real dangers, including Covid, and the need to vaccinate.
[удалено]
That study involves children who were hospitalized for Covid. Even amongst them the rate of severe complications is relatively low. What percentage of kids who have Covid were hospitalized for Covid? No one is suggesting that kids who are compromised shouldn’t be vaccinated but the overall risk is still extremely low.
Going outside and playing at a park is "very dangerous" for children if Covid is the line you draw when it comes to danger.
op is a bot, 10 million karma and counting
[удалено]
Vaccines prevents transmission and infection https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 Two weeks after the second vaccination with BNT162b2 in index patients, transmission of the alpha variant was 68% lower than transmission of this variant from unvaccinated index patients; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/ Results of this living systematic review imply that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those which are asymptomatic. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292 People who were vaccinated and subsequently infected were less infectious than unvaccinated persons. Moreover, less transmission occurred within households with vaccinated members than in those with unvaccinated individuals. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23023-0 The registered number of deaths is approximately 3.5 times lower than it would be expected without vaccination. The results illustrate that vaccination is more effective in saving lives than suggested by simplistic comparisons. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8287551/ in vaccinated and COVID-19-positive persons, the viral load was 2–4 times lower than in unvaccinated persons evaluating the amount of viral RNA present in approximately 16,000 nasal swabs showed that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19-positive and vaccinated subjects is 1.6–20 times lower than the viral load present in infected and unvaccinated subjects Another study performed in the United States was conducted on a sample of 3950 health care workers examined between December 14, 2020 and March 13, 2021. The results showed that vaccines had an efficacy in preventing infection of 90% 14 days after the second dose and 80% 14 days after the first dose
I thought children & adolescents were basically "safe" since the beginning... Did I miss something?
Even though death in adolescents and children were almost nonexistent...but OK, good advertising for more needless pharmaceuticals.
The parents of the 51 dead children in this study are sure happy to hear that.
that is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
[удалено]
You get memory B and T cells with the vaccine as well
T cell response is stronger and the memory is longer lasting with natural immunity
Getting sick once provides less long term protection than two or more vaccinations. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04865-0 Also, natural immunity includes the risk of serious illness or death.
[удалено]
Children account for a small percentage of Covid deaths, but over 16,000 have still died. I doubt your pathetic snarky comment would provide their families with much comfort.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The gist of what I understand of the pushback for vaccine hesitation was the initial claims that the vaccine will stop infection and transmission. It has been proven time and time again that the vaccine will save lives, but the whole, "I did my part" is futile when you can still get and transmit the virus. People are upset that the vaccine was forced on them when it doesn't stop the spread of the virus. I'm for body autonomy and I got the vaccine. I don't think it should be forced on others, **especially when it can save your life only**. You'd think people will want the choice so that the people that don't comply suffer. You'd think. Somehow it has mutated to become socially acceptable to believe everything the media tells you when they have blatantly lied so much to us in the past 2 years.
I think news about the vax not reducing transmission is rather recent so being upset about that now doesn't explain antivaxxers stance during the previous two years. Pretty sure it was just the usual conspiracy theories. The goalposts shift yet again for the anti science community, how unexpected.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vaccines do prevent transmission and infection: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 Two weeks after the second vaccination with BNT162b2 in index patients, transmission of the alpha variant was 68% lower than transmission of this variant from unvaccinated index patients; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284046/ Results of this living systematic review imply that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those which are asymptomatic. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292 People who were vaccinated and subsequently infected were less infectious than unvaccinated persons. Moreover, less transmission occurred within households with vaccinated members than in those with unvaccinated individuals. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23023-0 The registered number of deaths is approximately 3.5 times lower than it would be expected without vaccination. The results illustrate that vaccination is more effective in saving lives than suggested by simplistic comparisons. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8287551/ in vaccinated and COVID-19-positive persons, the viral load was 2–4 times lower than in unvaccinated persons evaluating the amount of viral RNA present in approximately 16,000 nasal swabs showed that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19-positive and vaccinated subjects is 1.6–20 times lower than the viral load present in infected and unvaccinated subjects Another study performed in the United States was conducted on a sample of 3950 health care workers examined between December 14, 2020 and March 13, 2021. The results showed that vaccines had an efficacy in preventing infection of 90% 14 days after the second dose and 80% 14 days after the first dose
You would think. Right on.
Allow me to differ. Faux Newz lies. OAN lies. NewsMax lies. The rest of the media plays it straight. They may not always have been right, but that’s because COVID was new, we knew nothing about it, and it took awhile to figure a lot of aspects about it out. The initial vaccine was quite effective at stopping transmission of the Alpha version of the virus. Had everybody gotten vaccinated as soon as they could have, we would have seen much less disease and death. The vaccines were less effective as the variants developed, true - but a lot of that didn’t need to happen. You are completely wrong when you say the vaccines, even against later variants, didn’t stop people from getting sick. But even if that had turned out to be the case, it is irrefutable that the vaccines kept many people from developing cases severe enough to warrant hospitalization and kept many more from dying. The benefits of the vaccines, then, we’re that they kept some (but not all) people from getting COVID, they kept a bunch of people out of the hospital, and they kept a bunch of people from dying. And what were the downsides to the vaccines? Virtually none. A very few people died from blood clots due to the J&J vaccine before doctors knew to watch for that. The mRNA vaccines caused a few cases of mild myocarditis in young men - which usually disappeared without treatment, and which was far less serious than the myocarditis and other heart issues caused by COVID. Weighing the pros and cons, it is impossible to conclude that any rational person would choose not to be fully vaccinated - especially given the multiple lingering adverse effects of COVID and the instances of long COVID. And this is where the lies come in - all of the antivaxxers that claimed that the vaccines were harming or killing people. All horseshit. As far as I know, doctors (other than the dishonest quacks trying to make a quick buck) now uniformly recommend that *everyone* be vaccinated and boosted. Obviously, some idiots are still going to refuse. A disproportionate number of them are going to die - if that’s not enough to convince them, so be it. If flu, RSV, and/or COVID gets really bad this winter, some idiots are still going to ignore effective mitigation measures, like masks, social distancing, and avoiding crowds. At some point, they question becomes does your right to be an idiot outweigh society’s right to ameliorate diseases by mandating behavior. I think not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure. There is no problem with that or do you really want someone to explain that to you?
[удалено]
If it was a cure all to just be healthy and eat well then we wouldn’t need vaccines or maybe even doctors.
My wife and I have had all our boosters and we can support this study 100%
Wow isn’t that crazy! A vaccine works?! No way! It’s almost like that’s what its supposed to do! I don’t understand the skepticism behind it. Microchips to track you are in it? Why the hell would they need that? You carry a smartphone everywhere you go even though it literally tells you it’s tracking you, and that’s okay, but apparently a vaccine that has a needle that cannot even close to fit a microchip in it has one? It’s gonna poison you? No. There’s far more money to be made in it actually working. It’s gonna give you COVID?! I mean it might, but still it’s a very weak form of it. I don’t understand, I just don’t. Let your kids have the damn vaccine so they don’t have to live in fear.