Still, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way, especially for kids who don't have much to fear from covid.
{{citation needed}}
My point is that this is unsubstantiated.
And it does make a big difference, because this reduces the likelihood of children going through multiple periods of infectivity: the fewer times children are infectious to others, on average, the more herd immunity we have, collectively, against SARS-CoV-2.
> “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine...
> But not everyone agrees with this interpretation. “The data we have right now suggests that there probably isn’t a whole lot of difference” in terms of immunity to the spike protein
> Memoli highlights real world data such as the Cleveland Clinic study18 and points out that while “vaccines are focused on only that tiny portion of immunity that can be induced” by the spike, someone who has had covid-19 was exposed to the whole virus, “which would likely offer a broader based immunity” that would be more protective against variants. The laboratory study offered by the FDA22 “only has to do with very specific antibodies to a very specific region of the virus [the spike],” says Memoli. “Claiming this as data supporting that vaccines are better than natural immunity is shortsighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of immunity to respiratory viruses.”
I don't see this as being indicative of any particular policy, but I see it as a data point which could inform decisions such as:
- whether boosters should be given to children, or whether they should be given them last in line
- whether we should allocate limited supplies to children, or to other vulnerable populations (eg.: vaccine inequity around the world)
- whether we need the same schedule for children and adults
- ...
Again, I don't think this paper pushes too hard either way on any of these types of questions, it's a data point in a sea of data.
Let me try to describe how I understand the mechanism, I'm sure there are people on HN that would be more than happy to correct me if anything is out of whack:
- VAERS allows for the reporting of suspected side effects
- this information is then made available again to ensure transparency
- the suspicion of a side effect is not the same as an actual side effect
- an example: you get vaccinated. The next day you die of a heart attack. An entry into VAERS is made. There is now a job lined up to figure out of you actually died of a heart attack due to your vaccination or if you were going to have that heart attack anyway, in so far as this is possible.
- if it is determined that you were at substantially elevated risk of a heart attack then it is likely that there will be no further action
- If a strong link is found between the vaccination and the heart attack the case is flagged for a much more thorough review. Possibly an autopsy will be ordered or any number of other investigations to get to the bottom of it, assuming that the case is out of the ordinary enough
- finally a determination is made: either there is a link, or there isn't, and if there is then the various risk factors are adjusted.
- If a similar link is established in other cases reported through VAERS or even through similar mechanisms in other countries then this can result in a warning, a change in administration (dose, frequency, certain groups within the population) or in an extreme case the vaccine can be taken off the market altogether if the risk to the population is deemed to be too high to continue the vaccinations. This translates into: the net effect of continued administration of this vaccine is worse than the alternatives (or possibly even worse than the disease)
Within that context the debate is pointless: VAERS is not intended to settle arguments, it is intended to gather possibly useful data.
Sounds like you've got this one in the bag, then!
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/weve-now-killed-close-to-...
The issue is not with that, it's with your second claim re: large risk with the vaccine. That's the claim that needs to be substantiated.
The worst side effect of the vaccine (myocarditis in young males) has been eliminated with better dosing protocols.
The author of the linked substack could have uploaded the death reports himself. And he didn't even think about comparing his numbers to expected numbers.
So, no: children don't die from the vaccine.
Question is why you are regurgitating it? Do you believe any of it?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...
The paper in question found that in this age group risk of hospitalization for cardiac adverse events (CAE) is a few times higher than risk of hospitalization with Covid.
It’s unclear (to me at least) how to quantify the level of danger in terms of acute and long term health effects from just this data.
> Further research into the severity and long-term sequelae of post-vaccination CAE is warranted. Quantification of the benefits of the second vaccination dose and vaccination in addition to natural immunity in this demographic may be indicated to minimize harm.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-do...
What’s important is to disqualify the best information available so you just have to accept vague assertions from authority.
> In an FDA analysis of the Optum healthcare claims database, the estimated excess risk of myocarditis/pericarditis approached 200 cases per million fully vaccinated males 16-17 years of age and 180 cases per million fully vaccinated males 12-15 years of age. [1]
This rate is close to the findings of the Høeg study (even higher, actually). [2]
On the one side we have the FDA and multiple scholarly publications largely in alignment. On the other side, we have an internet blog article with hyperbolic language and a generally unprofessional tone.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
[2] https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796382841860099
Regarding that other data set, see page 24 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
Importantly, in relies on unconfirmed cases of myo/pericarditis, and concludes vaccine benefits outweigh risks even in a hypothetical worst case scenario anyway.
Hyperbolic language doesn't discredit any of the blogger's criticisms, but here's another more calmly worded one if you'd like: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dump...
This new blog article you cite points out problems with 7 of the 257 cases included by the Hoeg study -- intermixed with a healthy dose of stay-in-your-lane-bro rhetoric. It also makes unfounded criticisms, such as "The claim from the study authors is that they replicate the [ACIP analysis] and found a much higher incidence than previously reported." In fact, the paper is clear that they follow a different method, and it claims "using these broader [emphasis mine] search and inclusion criteria, we found post-vaccination rates ... that exceed the rates previously reported."
This looks like someone is nit-picking when, in the big picture, considering the general concurrence with results from other studies, including other data sets, the findings are not misleading.
One recent publication: 370 / 1,000,000 rate of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following 2nd dose of Comirnaty in male adolescents between June and September of 2021. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...
You've dismissed as apples-to-oranges the 2x difference in numbers between the two publications using VAERS data, then linked a third paper using different data (which isn't available in full; who knows what their inclusion criteria were) that shows another 2x discrepancy as evidence that the findings are in general concurrence? Would you have me believe that's not actually an apples-to-oranges comparison? Why not this paper[1] out of Canada the gives a rate of 97/million for the group most closely matching your 370/million number? Or this one[2] out of Israel with 137/million.
[1]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v... [2]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730
Think about how chicken pox works. You get infected, you deal with (usually but not always) mild symptoms, and then you don't get chicken pox again. But you are susceptible to shingles later in life.
Please vaccinate your kids.