Perhaps when you literally used the words "Children have zero risk from covid infections" (emphasis mine)? If you don't want to be called out for saying obviously incorrect shit, don't write obviously incorrect shit...
2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)
- Thread starter McElroy
- Start date
Any infection can kill someone who is immuno-compromised. For someone with advanced HIV/aids or someone who recently had an organ transplant it is particularly unsafe to go outside anyway b/c you're always exposed to pathogens. It's impossible to immunize everybody against every conceivable infection so I don't see what makes covid so unique in that regard. It's benign for like 99% of the population. Scientists also declared covid endemic so it's not like it will ever go away either.
As for vaccine safety, the mrna vaccines appear to indeed be safe but the adenovirus vaccines do have, albeit rare, serious to lethal side effects. When you give these kind of vaccines to healthy people who by all accounts won't get very ill from covid it's not 'being difficult' to make a risk/benefit analysis. Since when, with any kind of medical intervention, is any precaution thrown in the wind with little or nothing to gain for the individual patient?
Because it doesn't elaborate on any risk factors these children might have had. When 99,9% of children won't even notice they are infected becase the virus is removed from their system pretty much instantly it's safe to assume there is some kind of rare predisposition, maybe genetics or immunological, that puts these children at risk for covid. There is always some exception to the rule. Which also makes it more likely that the specific syndrome Agema mentioned isn't even unique to covid, but rather some kind of overreaction to viral infection in general. That isn't new either. IBS, ME, chronic fatique syndrome etc are also implicated to be post infectious syndromes where the immune system caused nervous system sensitivities.
Who says that? Do you think it's realistic to eliminate every pathogen from the population that would be harmful to people with compromised immune systems? If it's just covid then it would be completely symbolic b/c flu etc is just as dangerous for immuno compromised people. Not to mention bacteria and the likes. I believe the advice to people with compromised immune systems have always been to self-quarantine long before covid.
I think its realistic to lower the risk as much as is practicable to protect them, yes, particularly if something is currently extremely widespread.
The old "we can't eliminate every pathogen ever, so why bother limiting it" is such bogus logic. "We can't prevent every single accident, so why bother having seat belts?"
Why do you think that's an excuse for deliberately over-looking one very preventable problem?
That is why they have taken all these drastic measures and lockdowns haven't they? To primarily protect those most at risk and reduce the infection rate? A year later and there are now vaccines so those most at risk can be immunized. But the bar keeps on getting raised. Now there must be absolutely no one with risk of infection or death from covid. When infact this criteria isn't utilized for any other kind of sickness or disease.
Your comparison with seatbelts makes no sense. A more apt comparison would be; traffic accidents happen so let's shut down every traffic. Something they also don't do. A certain margin of risk is unavoidable. Even living as a sealed off vegetable in a sterilized room wouldn't free you from the risks of malignant growths or ruptured blood vessels.
Like I said, people die by the shitload from heart and coronary diseases directly related to unhealthy lifestyles yet no one gives a shit. If public health is really such a concern maybe focus on the biggest killer first.
From the official fucking NHS website and all their messaging. I'm sorry that I forgot muscle health... It's not like we have studies showing taking vitamin d is as much as 6 times more effective against the flu than getting the yearly vaccine, oh but we actually do have those.
Vitamin D
Find out about vitamin D, including what it does, how much you need, and how to ensure you get enough.
www.nhs.uk
These nutrients are needed to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy.
A lack of vitamin D can lead to bone deformities such as rickets in children, and bone pain caused by a condition called osteomalacia in adults.
Important: Coronavirus (COVID-19) update:
It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of COVID-19. But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat COVID-19.
It's not unsourced, I literally provided the source. And how does that beat it. 33% within 3 days, 27% after one week, then obviously the biggest amount, 40% between those 2 points.Report from an academic conference presentation about a US hospital. 33% of covid-19 hospitalisations in the study were within 3 days of symptom onset, 27% after one week. Beats your unsourced anecdote by a lot.
Shorter time from symptom onset to hospitalization is associated with worse outcome in patients with COVID-19
New research presented at this week's ESCMID Conference on Coronavirus Disease (ECCVID, held online) shows that a shorter time from symptom onset to hospitalisation is associated with more serious disease and death in patients with COVID-19. The study is by Dr Annie Wong-Beringer and colleagues...eurekalert.org
I'm still seeing money as the main reason. Everything they've thrown remdesivir at before hasn't worked either. It's an antiviral that should be administered early and as outpatient but it has to be given as inpatient treatment, it costs a lot, and the supply was limited. It didn't have really anything going for it as far as effectiveness on other viruses or the logistics of it. And if other SAFER and more readily available drugs were held up to the same standards of proof as remdesivir, they would have been approved to. I don't know how anyone would agree that there isn't double standards here.
So, where's this better quality evidence that says it doesn't work that you said there was?
Philippines seems very wary of ivermectin but they keep adding more hospitals to the short list that can use it. And, again, it has a better chance than remdesivir.
I have an issue giving kids something we've never given them ever in history. Plus, these vaccines are emergency use authorization. And you don't have to vaccinate people that were already infected. There's no reason to mandate vaccines for something around half the population already got.
Yeah, we're at it now already.
You never even looked at them.
We've never before in history given kids vaccinations? Are you fucking serious?
Just look at Texas that removed all restrictions over 2 months ago, their cases didn't go up. We're at herd immunity already. In the US, historically we've only mandated kids to get vaccines for diseases that disproportionately affect them and covid does not disproportionately affect them. Kids are naturally able to fight covid extremely well already that by giving them vaccines, that will actually cause more total harm from side effects than them possibly getting covid (which keeps dropping everyday). Kids are just developing the ACE2 receptors that covid uses for infection, thus they don't really get sick and they also don't spread it much at all because less viral replication obviously. Vaccinate the high-risk kids but that's about all you'd have to do.
Mask rules spark confusion, tensions in Congress
New guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is throwing Congress into flux and sparking tensions over a central question: to mask or not to mask?Some lawmakers, like Sen.…thehill.com
What a clusterfuck. I can imagine if places start tossing mask mandates we’ll see another big uptick in cases, because up to now we’ve been told vaccination doesn’t automatically mean free and clear, especially with new strains floating around. Also kids are a large swath of possible carriers that aren’t cleared for vaccinations. Which begs another question: what the hell kind of vaccine is it that isn’t safe for kids let alone babies like pretty much any other one.
Yeah, sugar kills so many people, it's not even funny. Sugar still killed far more people last year than coronavirus. Sugar is basically a very slow-acting poison. I literally only drink a bottle of tea (with some sugar) a week, then use that bottle for water the rest of the week and that all because I know how deadly sugar is. I used to drink nothing but pop as a kid too.
Children rarely spread it because it doesn't replicate much in them because of the lack of ACE2 receptors.
Children spread the flu way more and that can kill at risk people. At risk people always had to be careful like not working in a school and whatnot. These vaccines are still emergency authorized only. We've never forced kids to get vaccinated for something like this before in our history. Childrens' risk to at-risk people from covid is very low, especially now with such low community transmission and it's only getting lower.
Forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it.
Again, not gonna take your word for it. I would prefer to hear from somebody with an actual medical education rather than someone relying on YT to dictate their opinions to them. "We've never vaccinated kids like this before!" Yes, we fucking have. How do you think the polio vaccine got developed?
And the chances of a kid spreading covid to someone is what again? Even in the midst of the pandemic it was pretty low and now with community transmission so low and only getting lower. When the vaccines are shown to be safe for kids (which they aren't yet), this is all gonna be a mute point because the risk of this happening is gonna be so small that there's no need to vaccinate kids anyway. We can save probably every single life taken in a traffic accident by lowering the speed limit everywhere to like 10 mph but we don't do that. People accept risk all the time.
Everything You Should Know About the 2019 Coronavirus and COVID-19
Learn all about the 2019 coronavirus and COVID-19. Get the facts on symptoms, risk factors, treatment, prevention, masks, and more.
www.healthline.com
In conclusion, our study’s findings suggest that children aged 0 to 9 years did not have substantial rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection during school attendance periods, and it may be assumed that they did not have a substantial role in COVID-19 spread either during this period. Therefore, resuming school for this age group when lockdown was released appears to have been safe for them.
That's consistent with tons of other school studies, there's so much real world data out there because tons of places had schools open through the pandemic. Do you own research, it's really not that hard. It seems like high school may be the point where kids do start increasing spread. And kids 12 and older are allowed to get vaccines so why do other kids need to get the vaccine?
We've never forced kids to get vaccines for a disease that doesn't disproportionately affect them ever in history. Also, the vaccine isn't approved for kids and it is still only approved for EMERGENCY. Why would you want to force kids to get this vaccine under these conditions?
Because we're living in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic and the vaccines have passed all the required safety tests.
Can you please, for the love of God, stop making objectively incorrect statements particularly when they're so easy to disprove?
HPV, Hepatitis B, and Tetanus don't "disproportionately affect" children, but vaccines for all three are part of the standard Birth-18 years vaccine regimen. Every state in the US has a childhood Hep B vaccine mandate and a childhood TDAP vaccine mandate to attend school; the HPV vaccine has started becoming mandatory in some states as well.
Immunization Schedules for 18 & Younger
View and print CDC recommended immunization schedules.
www.cdc.gov
Hepatitis B Vaccine Requirements for Childcare and School (Kg–Gr 12)
www.immunize.org
Tdap Vaccine Requirements for Secondary School | Immunize.org
www.immunize.org
HPV Vaccine Requirements for Elementary and Secondary Schools
www.immunize.org
Last edited:
Tetanus I think is a given for why kids would be disproportionately affected because they are kids...Can you please, for the love of God, stop making objectively incorrect statements particularly when they're so easy to disprove?
HPV, Hepatitis B, and Tetanus don't "disproportionately affect" children, but vaccines for all three are part of the standard Birth-18 years vaccine regimen. Every state in the US has a childhood Hep B vaccine mandate and a childhood TDAP vaccine mandate to attend school; the HPV vaccine has started becoming mandatory in some states as well.
Immunization Schedules for 18 & Younger
View and print CDC recommended immunization schedules.Hepatitis B Vaccine Requirements for Childcare and School (Kg–Gr 12)
Tdap Vaccine Requirements for Secondary School | Immunize.org
HPV Vaccine Requirements for Elementary and Secondary Schools
For Hepatitis B: The younger the person, the greater the likelihood of staying infected with hepatitis B and having life-long liver problems. These can include scarring of the liver and liver cancer.
For HPV: CDC recommends ages 11-12 and as early as 9.
You, and many other people like you, really need to stop for a moment and think just how incredibly stupid this argument is.
If we follow your argument, why bother with pedestrian crossings or seatbelts and airbags? I mean, people are going to get run over or die in car crashes one way or the other, why bother with efforts to mitigate it? Life isn't risk-free. People are going die in building fires anyway, so what's the point in fire escapes and evacuation drills? You argue yourself we should try to make people exercise more and eat more carefully. But why bother? Life is not risk free, and people are going to die of heart attacks and thromboembolism anyway. Why bother making us all pay for sewers? Why add fluoride to tap water? There is literally nothing at all designed for our health and safety that is immune from this argument. That is why it is a profoundly absurd argument.
Why should any child be hospitalised or die of a readily preventable illness, given it costs society effectively nothing and the child so little inconvenience to prevent? The cost to give every child in the UK a covid-19 jab can be as cheap as £50 million (depending on which they get). That would potentially even save money, given the hospitalisations required from covid-19 and covid-19 associated complications in children alone, never mind the indirect harm from them helping spread infection.
So let's be clear here, this is basically just anti-vaxxer bullshit. It might be a mild/weak variant rather than the full-on, drunk-the-Kool-aid, Bill Gates injecting a microchip, anti-vaxxer bullshit, but anti-vaxxer bullshit it is.
Well, maybe you need to do some proper research instead of just grabbing the easist website you can find that supplies dumbed-down shit for the general populace so they can make sense of it. Particularly when you go around claiming you have some sort of scientifically-derived viewpoint.
The UK government updated it's vitamin D recommendations in 2016, plus two updates in 2020, the first (June) looking at acute respiratory tract infections generally with additional data 2016-2020 and the second (December) specifically on covid-19.
You mean that graph? That's not a source, that's a random picture of unclear provenance.
wah wah wah remdesivir wah Move on.
Maybe they think it would be useful to do some studies, rather than hand it out like candy and destroy any chance of doing so.
He says, on the basis of approximately nothing.
I hate to break it to you, but literally every medical treatment on the planet has to be given to someone for the first time at some point.
And I say again, you haven't given me enough reason to.
This is a bit like Russell's teapot. It is your burden to make your claim credible. The effort you can expect of someone to refute it corresponds to the quality of your argument. You have been told what the critical flaws in your claim are, so you need to go fix them.
Your personal feelings on a topic aren't evidence. Please source that children are disproportionately affected by tetanus.
What's the likelihood of a child being affected by Hep B? Does a somewhat (again, you've conveniently not actually provided a source) worse likelihood of an outcome mean it's disproportional to how it affects adults? How much greater is it? +0.00000001% is a higher likelihood; it's not a disproportionally higher one though.
So kids... exactly who you've repeatedly stated "we've never done this for"