Hacker News Reader

Comment by rrauenza | Hacker News Reader

Remember this also protects the teachers. In some places teachers were refusing to go back.

(But I've also heard the transmission rate from children to teachers has been pretty low, but how low?)

There's already a long list of required vaccinations for school... is this one any different?

  https://natomasunified.org/immunization-requirements-for-2021-2022-school-year

Was the banning of beaches back when we all were hand sanitizing and wiping down our amazon packages and groceries when no one really understood the transmission mechanism? Now we know it is mostly airborne and rare to catch outside with enough distance.

View on HN

> There's already a long list of required vaccinations for school... is this one any different?

To me, the answer is a clear Yes. Every vaccine on that list, to my knowledge, results in a much more complete immunity profile than the COVID-19 vaccine. The diseases on that list also impact children in rather devastating ways.

COVID-19 vaccines seem to be more similar to the seasonal flu/cold vaccines than to any of the vaccines on that list. Respiratory diseases circulate around schools every year, and we haven't mandated vaccines for those.

Do we have scientific models showing clear benefits for mandated COVID-19 vaccines for school-age children?

Seasonal colds don't result in potentially months of "long-cold" symptoms, nor do they significantly increase the risk of diabetes, nor do they regularly hospitalize and kill people on a large scale.

I am operating from an assumption that COVID-19 is bad and kills people. Unlike the other mandated vaccines, though, vaccinated individuals still catch and spread COVID at high rates. But the reactions to me very much sound like, "We must do something, and this is something."

I'm only asking for models here. Is the CA legislation based on scientific models showing that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all school-aged children will meaningfully impact health outcomes at the society level? Or is it motivated by a desire to overcome COVID by all means necessary, even ineffective ones?

Do we leave vulnerable teachers out of this equation? (Yes, many teachers are vaccinated, but still can be vulnerable, and some might be unable to take the vaccine.)

I have a relative (not a teacher) who can no longer have vaccines due to Guillain-Barré and another friend's relative currently intubated in the hospital with a single J&J shot (no booster unfortunately.)

Kids while not very vulnerable seem to be a carrier into the home.

For vulnerable teachers, we need better mitigations than mandated vaccines for their students. Vaccinated individuals can still catch and spread COVID. Even if the rate is lower, we might be talking about a teacher who is in close proximity (same classroom) to 200+ students every day, and more students than that in the building.

I don't believe mandated student vaccines is enough for these people (or for the parents of vulnerable students). Instead, we have to do the hard work of allowing appropriate accommodations for high risk individuals. Unfortunately, vaccine or not, much of the responsibility for derisking will inevitably fall to vulnerable individuals themselves, ideally with as much societal support and backing as possible (e.g., plexiglass enclosures for vulnerable employees? I'm not the expert here).

Nothing else we've done so far seems to move the needle much. The stakes aren't personally high enough for everyone else in society to maintain the necessary vigilance for years on end.

> (But I've also heard the transmission rate from children to teachers has been pretty low, but how low?)

I would imagine it’s pretty damn low. I have two kids in daycare, and except for a few weeks early on in the pandemic, their daycare has been open the whole time. Before even, y’know, the vaccine. I dare say daycare workers who change diapers, play closely with toddlers, wipe away bodily fluids, etc. come in far closer contact with children than the average K-12 teacher. And in the whole time we’ve had two of the daycare teachers come down with Covid, based on contract tracing from family members. I think teachers are seriously milking this whole situation to stay home.

> Remember this also protects the teachers.

Does it? Isn't it well established now that getting the vaccine does not protect infection, only the severity of the disease. If teachers want to protect themselves, then they should get the vaccine.

It protects the teachers unable to get the vaccine, or those who have the vaccine but are still vulnerable.

I personally know a J&J vaccine recipient (but no booster) who is currently intubated. I know someone else who had Guillain-Barré from Covid (who had been vaccinated) and can no longer get vaccines.

These aren't hypotheticals...

How does it protect the teachers? They will inevitably be exposed regardless of whether the students are vaccinated. Teachers are able to wear additional PPE if they feel their own vaccination doesn't provide sufficient protection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com