I have a "severe" reaction to alcohol every time I drink too much.
Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit. Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger...this is a choice that can be made, but I think it's a tougher decision than you do.
Vaccination of children wouldn’t be needed if most adults got it. But they don’t because they’re dumb. So now they’re saying children can get it if they’re parents want. It’s a choice to do your part to reduce the spread. Pretty simple.
Given that some of the the lowest vaccination uptake rates are in black and latino communities who have historically strained relationships with the medical system -- as well as some of the highest prior infection rates -- your comment is misinformed.
Whatever the current level of immunity may be, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all rapidly declining across the US. Moreover, the vaccines are all close to 100% effective at preventing severe illness. There are a great many reasons to be optimistic about our current trajectory, and no immediate need to put children at risk to get where we need to go.
[1] https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04142021_uscd43.pdf#...
Moreover, empirical reality differs from polling. In New York City, for example (a big, liberal, multi-ethnic city), Latino people lag whites by 12% in vaccination rate; black people lag by 17%:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p...
Whatever people are telling pollsters, it differs from their actions. Maybe they have "plans" to get vaccinated, but they're not doing it right now.
A different poll said Hispanic people are the most inclined to get vaccinated. But politics was the strongest correlation still.[1]
Cumulative vaccination rates reflect earlier hesitation. Also scheduling difficulties, transportation difficulties, and wanting to get vaccinated by a trusted provider.[2] But targeted efforts have closed or nearly closed the gaps in many places.[3]
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-johnson-johnsons-coron...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/9899620...
> Focusing myopically on "transmission rate" misses the broader conversation about risk and benefit.
So does focussing myopically on deaths, which aren’t the only thing that costs Quality-Adjusted Life-Years.
> Giving tens/hundreds of thousands of kids an illness on par with the flu to marginally reduce the theoretical risk of illness in an unvaccinated stranger.
That’s not all the vaccine is for. Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
Now you're just fear-mongering.
> Children have a much lower rate of dying of acute COVID symptoms, but do see more than enough long COVID effects, including MIS-C, to be worth protecting against.
There have been 3200 cases of MIS-C in the US. 36 have died.
https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html
The rate of MIS-C is exceptionally low -- possibly lower than the rate of severe adverse events for the vaccine itself: "Overall, MIS-C is a rare complication of SARS-CoV-2. A May 2020 systematic review from 26 countries reported a MIS-C incidence of 0.14% among all children with SARS-CoV-2 infection"
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385
Give this vaccine to 1M children, and at a rate of 0.4% serious adverse (i.e. life-threatening) reactions, you would expect 4000. An unknowable portion of those will die. Moreover, there will be 20,000 reactions severe enough to put a child out of school for a few days. There are about 25M kids age 12-17 in the US.
Your sense of risk is seriously miscalibrated.
"Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above."
So 4 out of the 6 criteria are, in fact, life-threatening, one is "your life is permanently altered, sorry", and the final one is irrelevant.
(and no, despite your link to the other thread, "persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day")
> And there was no pattern either.
They didn't release the raw data, so there's no way for you to know that.
It does, actually. From the UI Medcom link: "symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
Serious adverse events have to be reported to VAERS. I think the FDA would notice if Pfizer lied about there being no pattern.
"A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; e.g. symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"