I was expecting this at the start of this school year but it hasn’t really borne out as bad as I thought.

Put it this way: if for arguments sake it was better for kids to simply become infected to gain immunity and the trade off is that adults might be more likely to be exposed, I think that the correct choice for a parent is what’s best for their child, not the group.

This is the natural response of parents who’s paramount concern is their children. Treating that concern as antisocial is how we end up with raging lunatics at school board meetings.

Thank you. This is the first time I hear someone admitting we are running an open ended experiment with no long term data for guidance. The immune system is not linear. We cannot simply pile up 'immunity tokens' on top of each other. The specific immunization history matters.

"Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting or the Hoskins effect,[1] refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. Antibodies or T-cells induced during infections with the first variant of the pathogen are subject to a form of original antigenic sin, termed repertoire freeze."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

We don't understand how vaccines interact with the long-term immune system. The OA cites one of the first studies I know about that looks into the issue. The answer is far from encouraging for mass covid mRNA vaccination campaigns in children: "Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot". "By comparison, vaccine-induced memory B cells are less robust, evolving for only a few weeks and never "learning" to protect against variants."

If you feel that child covid mRNA vaccinations are the way to go, provide evidence for your case, instead of obfuscating the issue. No, citing yet another antibody levels study is not very relevant to long term immunity discussions. Antibody levels suffer exponential decay over a few months. B-cells are supposed to kickstart antibody generation for the next infection event. If the vaccines are poor at eliciting B-cell generation, this is a major weakness.

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Perhaps covid mRNA vaccine + infection works well in the long run. Perhaps it doesn't. At this point it's a gamble. I'm not sure what happened that we are willing to gamble the future health of our children.

The kids vaccine is 1/3 of the dose of the adult vaccine. And the adult vaccine is known to drop down to 20% efficacy after 4 months. Kids already have an extremely high resistance to severe problems from Covid.

So what exactly is the point of vaccinating kids? It sounds like a way for Pfizer to justify vaccinating and then boosting the vaccine every 6 months for nothing.