Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmrdporcupine | Hacker News Reader

Looking forward to it. I'll feel much more comfortable taking my unvaccinated son to visit family. And taking trips myself.

View on HN

With luck we'll have approval for kids soon here in Canada.

You think kids should be vaccinated despite having no danger? why?

I would guess that it’s to reduce risk of transmission to people who are high risk.

You think there is no Covid-19 risk for kids? Why?

Actually, don't tell me. Save your breath -- you never know when you might need it.

I think that kids should be vaccinated despite having a significantly reduced risk profile (not “no danger”). I think this enough that my kids are participants in the Pfizer pediatric trial. I have seen no evidence that the vaccine presents a risk of short or long term sequelae that is greater than (or even close to equal to) the risk of complications from getting covid itself, and I’ve seen no evidence that there is any reason to believe that the vaccine presents risks that infection does not. In both cases, infection has a much greater risk profile than vaccination, even in low-risk populations. Given that calculus, I would rather my children not be immune naive when they eventually encounter the virus. The vaccine also appears to induce strong short-term sterilizing immunity and still lowers the risk of infection over the long term, which means that once vaccinated, my kids can more comfortably visit their high-risk grandparents (they have been, but vaccination makes this a lower-risk interaction going forward).

No danger? 700 kids in the US have died from COVID, at a rate of about 1 in 100,000. To me, that sounds like a massive risk.

The US is apparently a big outlier in the number of reported children's deaths (5 per million) compared to other developed countries. There are also other confounding factors such as under/over reporting of symptoms and side effects. See here for a review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13678

the mortality in kids seems to be orders of magnitude smaller than the seasonal flu:

> as of May 2021, data from 79 countries accounting for 2.7 million COVID-19 deaths (69% of all documented global COVID-19 deaths) show that over 8700 (0.3%) of these deaths are in children and adolescents under 20 years of age (40% in children 0–9 years old and 60% in adolescents 10–19 years old). For illustrative comparative purposes, estimated annual fatalities for seasonal influenza preceding the COVID-19 pandemic included 9243 to 105,690 deaths of children younger than 5 years

All cause mortality from birth to age 18 is 865 per 100,000. An additional 1 per 100,000 is unnoticeable.

The comparison to make isn't to the risk of dying from everything else, it's to the risk from vaccination.

Which there isn't really anything published for young children yet, but for age groups where use of a vaccine has been approved in the US (12+ more or less), the risk of severe side effects from vaccination is lower than the risk of severe illness.

I was responding to the description of the Covid death rate in children as a "massive risk". Clearly it is not.

Sure, the other poster wasn't making the right point either.

Annualized, that's about 25 per 100,000. So COVID won't be the leading cause of death, but it's high enough to be classified as a major source of child fatalities.

For something easily preventable once the vaccine is available.

There have been 499 deaths under 17, approximately 1 in 700,000.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

Around the same as atypical flu season.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-dea...

You're right, atypical influenza is also risky. I know people who have died from it, and have two close friends that have had their life ruined by side effects from H1N1. (Guillaume Barre syndrome and Chronic Fatigue). I wouldn't wish either of those on my worst enemies.

Some risks in life you have to accept, but ones that are trivially avoidable?

Shutting down schools to prevent children from getting COVID has too many side effects given the risk level, but the vaccine has such a low cost and so few side effects.

Except it would not be far fetched to think that child cases are vastly under-reported. My wife and I both tested positive and my three children showed mild symptoms. I saw no reason to go through the hassle of getting them tested when it was clear what it was.

It’s not necessarily about the danger to them, but the danger of their transmitting to others. Even vaccinated, there are people who are immunocompromised and less protected.

And then honestly - I know a number of people who have had Covid after being vaccinated and it still sucks. If I can reduce the chances that my kids come home and get me sick, I’m on it in a second, assuming it’s safe (and it is).

But the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, and kids are at such a low risk already. What confidence does the vaccine give you?

Lower risk? You think unnecessary risk with kids is a good idea?

I think that the current risk of vaccine side effects is higher than covid side effects for children

There's not a lot of data. ACIP found that there was more severe illness than vaccine side effects in 12+ age groups (with a disclaimer that the group had less data due to less 2nd doses being administered):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

If the risk was meaningful, they would have been getting the vaccine already. But yes, there is tons of unnecessary risk we apply to children every day, but we still do it (I don't think you need the whole driving statistics spiel). We measure risk by acceptability, not by existence.

It drastically curtails transmission.

I have elderly parents, due for their booster. And I care about my community.

It's likely that vaccination does reduce transmission.

How come stuff always gets reduced to categorical descriptions?

Like "prevent" is a pretty high bar, but things are still a lot better if you cut transmission by 50%.

Herd immunity sure as hell does reduce transmission. And you won't get that without vaccinating children.

Personal opinion the semi hysterical hand wringing over the imminent vaccination of children is because the anti-vaxers know that's the last shoe to drop.

Card carrying anti-vaxxers are generally not just trying to be contrarian, from their perspective they are genuinely concerned for their and their children's health, however misguided you believe they are. So the hysteria is their actual fear of harm.

Vaccine does prevent transmission. Portugal, Spain, Korea, Japan, all those countries are observing significant reduction of daily cases and deaths.

Please explain Israel or Singapore

Israel still has pretty low vaccination rate (less than 70%) while it has completed most of their vaccination earlier this year. Vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time, so this simply proves that they just need a booster shot.

Singapore recently dropped their zero COVID strategy so it's expected to see some rising numbers. Vaccine is not supposed to eliminate virus, but keep their reproduction under control so our health care system won't explode. Why do you think it's a counter example for vaccine's effectiveness?

Because that's what he wants to see. It's not like there aren't a pile of other facts he's ignoring.

South Korea's cases and deaths have been increasing for a few months, while Spain and Japan have very recently had very large spikes (Japan's was several times larger than their previous spikes).

> South Korea's cases and deaths have been increasing for a few months,

That's because Korea had relatively slow roll out of vaccination + large national holiday (Chusuk). Given that Delta needs full vaccination to meaningfully slow down the spread, this is expected. The last week's R was less than 0.9, which coincides with recent vaccination program focused on the second shot while the mobility number is steadily increasing! There's a certain threshold where vaccine shows meaningful impacts on a reproduction rate, so you cannot simply saying "# of case is rising, vaccine is useless".

> while Spain and Japan have very recently had very large spikes (Japan's was several times larger than their previous spikes).

Japan also had pretty slow roll out, it had ~40% of full vaccination at the point of the spike but the number rapidly dropped as full vaccination rate goes up rapidly. This actually proves my point of strong correlation between reproduction rate and full vaccination rate. I know Japan now somehow arbitrarily limits free testing but positive test rate also has dropped significantly.

Spain's the most recent spike was mostly due to their lack of lockdown option. It also had some level of vaccine hesitancy (which led to much lower fully vaccinated than partial vaccination rate) but the recent spike led many people to take their second shot. And they're now seeing a significant drop without declaring state of emergency.

All of those slowing downs are strongly correlated with full vaccination rate. Of course, vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time so some sort of booster will be needed to keep its effectiveness.

> so you cannot simply saying "# of case is rising, vaccine is useless".

I never said that second part, I was responding directly to "are observing significant reduction of daily cases and deaths".

You can't be observing "significant reduction" while the numbers are going up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com