Well, at least there is one country willing to take this seriously.
Japan's health ministry just reported a 15 per million, or 0.0015% risk of inflammation when taking Pfizer. This doesn't change their policy position, which is to recommend and urge as many people as possible to get the vaccine, as the risks of contracting covid and its effects far outweigh this 0.0015% sideeffect risk.
because they are advocating for injecting 5 years old who have literally a negative benefit-risk ratio from the vaccine. You don't smell corruption much yet?
To link this to corruption is a radical idea that requires proof.
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-t...
Then there's a public health discussion that goes beyond the individual. Even if a measure has no benefit to an individual, but large benefit to the public, and very rare side effects, it makes total sense from a public policy perspective to encourage the measure. Taxes for example are a direct negative measure for individuals, but a very beneficial public measure that will in turn indirectly benefits individuals. I'll grant you that you can argue against making measures mandatory that are negative to the individual but positive to the public, but to encourage it as a voluntary measure of course makes total sense, and that's all the CDC has so far done for ages 5-11.
Given the exponential pandemic potential of Covid-19, one cannot simply exclude entire groups of people (e.g. young people) from access to vaccines and also expect Covid-19 to be mitigated as a public health disaster. Nor can you in the case of excluding a large group (young people), expect new and more dangerous variants to stop popping up. That's a public health matter, which indirectly also translates to negative effects on children's lives, e.g. parents who are stick or die, parents who lose jobs/businesses/income, kids who need to be homeschooled and fall behind academically and socially etc. That is why it is crucial for there to be wide public access to vaccines for all who wish to take it, as long as it is safe. These vaccines were tested and were found to be safe. The data from the study is public, I haven't seen anyone credible argue otherwise.
There are certainly kids who have additional health factors that make them a higher risk for severe Covid illness if contracted, and I think it makes sense to consider vaccination there for best protection. However, it’s reasonable to me that some parents might express reluctancy at vaccinating a healthy child who is at such a statistically low risk of severe Covid disease especially since the vaccine does not necessarily protect against infection, instead seeming to provide much more benefit after infection at preventing severe disease.
I think the likelihood of severe disease with no vaccine and severe disease with vaccine in healthy children might be so low it’s statistically insignificant.
It is just stress...
Further, once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical. You must compare your new treatment to the current standard of care.
Except that plenty of people already decided they don't want to vaccinate, so why not to ask them to participate? Of course a double-blind study would be unethical.
> once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical
But this is a vaccine, not a treatment. And given the scale of vaccination, wouldn't it make sense to have a control group for analyzing long-term effects? Yes, I heard many times that long-term effects are "unlikely," but the tiny possibility becomes significant at scale.
[0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 (see p 2612 of attached pdf).
For example, we know the vaccines have side-effects, including these inflammation issues in young men (biologically male). We also know that unvaccinated people who actually contract COVID-19 and suffer a severe course (hospitalization) are anywhere from two to four times more likely to die within a year of hospitalization from all-cause mortality than those who've been vaccinated or never contracted COVID-19.
Given what we know, Bayesian reasoning should have us update our credence in the opinion that says you should get vaccinated, that you should wear masks indoors, and that you should observe rules of physical distancing if possible.
That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental. My opinion (attach whatever credence you like to it) is that this simply means we are being drastically overcharged for the vaccines, but still need them.
In a proper capitalist economy, they should, and every consumer should be free to evaluate every opinion independently. I'm glad that I can buy the holy bible, the selfish gene, the communist manifesto, and 1984 all within the same bookstore. My argument is that reputation and credence needs to be decentralized. A group of extremists should be allowed to give credence to whatever thoughts they wish, but they should not be silenced for having opinions that disagree with the state.
I don't doubt the science, that getting as many people vaccinated is the better solution in a classic trolley problem for saving the most lives in a pandemic, but silencing of alternative thought is far more problematic for society. If people don't want to take a magic pill that can prevent them from dying, it should not be the state's job to shove it down peoples throats. If people don't want to believe the world is round, the state should not ban books saying the earth is flat. Opinions regardless of whether or not they are right should be allowed to exist. At the end of the day the responsibility of determining truth should be on the consumer.
> That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental.
What I'm saying is that it should not be in the state's agenda to align with the agendas of the highest bidder. It may be coincidental, but even you as a statistics person should be able to see that these coincidences happen far more than it should.
I'm not arguing against science. I'm trying to get people like you to understand that crony-capitalism degrades the quality of the health service sector as well as the operation of the economy, and that trading away that freedom of speech to control the actions of others is detrimental to society.
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#reporting
> Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?
> DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
You are in good hands.
Not too familiar with the US system (why would a workplace regulation agency be responsible for vaccine side effects anyways?), but e.g. the US CDC also has put out information about this weeks ago. But your comment is specific criticism, that's good and not an obviously untrue over-exaggeration.
They are removing the requirement, not the ability to report.
Do you believe it makes sense for companies to be required to report sore arms, headaches or tiredness, all common and unremarkable side-effects during a massive vaccination campaign?
Removing the requirement for one of the most innovative (therefore untested) treatments ever. Sure, what could go wrong? I would not bet on naively trusting in Big Pharma as a good strategy. It's not like they were very ethical actors in the first place.
Gotta love btw HN people complaining about regulatory capture when it comes to Boing and the FAA, but when it comes to vaccines being blindly pushed by the FDA that's all peachy. The amount of brainwashing is impressive.