How long before we get a vaccine approved for kiddos? That seems to be a major gap right now. Does anyone know if this is forthcoming?

To be fair, kids get sick all of the time.

I expect it approved for use in kids in September. CDC data still shows covid to be statistically harmless for children. I will however still get my kids vaxxed because the vaccine is harmless and even mild flu like symptoms suck for a kid.

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

My kids had it a couple weeks ago.

Oldest had a fever for about 36-48 hours + cough. All gone after about 48 hours.

Youngest never had a fever, but more congestion and fatigue for about 48 hours. Energy came back and it took a little longer for the cough to go away.

Neither seemed to indicate a lost of smell or taste as they ate the whole time without complaint.

But as other said, kids get sick. We need to thank God that in the vast vast majority of cases, it never proceeds beyond that for them.

349 deaths from 1/2020 to 8/2021 for ages 0-17.

raging_agaholic said:

---

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

---

I wouldn't say its pointless. Kids spread the virus to the rest of our unvaxxed holdouts. Anything we can do to stop the proliferation without having to add restrictions should be done IMO.

I'm pro vax, but there is a reason many countries are not approving it for children yet. Largest risk seems to be boys and the mRNA vaccines, especially the 2nd does.

My boy is 9, my wife is a doctor. We likely will not vaccinate him. Still unsure on daughter.

More info: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=content-shareicons&utm_content=article_engagement&utm_medium=social&utm_term=081121#.YRMJUxhnU2w.twitter

KidDoc has been pretty adamant that healthy children, no underlying conditions, really don't need it.

I'm more concerned about the long term cognitive symptoms than the respiratory symptoms

Go on. How long term can they be if there is only 1.5 years of reliable data?

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Hospitalization rate according to our own CDC as of 7/31 for kids aged 5-17 is 0.5 per 100,000 which is less than the flu. My assumption is most of those are overweight teenagers with other conditions who are already vaccine eligible. The histeria and fear porn about elementary kids who can't get the vaccine isn't supported by actual data.

---

i have posted the graphs in multiple threads at this point but when you put hospitalization rate over case rate to come up with a hospitalization rate per case rather than per population, it looks like delta is shaping up to be roughly on par for the flu in that age range. So no, "the hysteria and fear porn" is not justified or supported by data, but a moderate level of concern and desire to be able to vaccinate your kid is. A 1% hospitalization rate per confirmed case is statistically pretty insignificant, but when its your own kid, that is usually high enough to drive a desire to make sure they are in the group pulling the average rate down.

I really wish we could vaccinate kids 2-11 now with risk factors. I have sickle cell patients that want to return to school but are just a tad too young for vaccine. It is frustrating.

For healthy kids with no obesity or other health issues I think vaccinating is of dubious benefit. It is hard to tell today though as there is growing data that Moderna may be fairly effective at preventing spread relative to Pfizer so if that data can be shown in children then it may be worth the small risk of adverse effects to prevent community/family spread.

gunan01 said:

---

This is a constantly parroted point about "natural immunity" but there is no clear cut evidence natural immunity is any better than vaccine-conferred immunity.

---

Incorrect.

There is data out of Israel showing this last week.

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection? - Israel National News

raging_agaholic said:

---

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

---

Maybe I am reading your statement way to generally, but did your kids get the currently recommended childhood vaccines? or did you seek out a measles/mumps/chicken pox outbreak to help your kids get immunity "via host infection"?

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

---

Maybe I am reading your statement way to generally, but did your kids get the currently recommended childhood vaccines? or did you seek out a measles/mumps/chicken pox outbreak to help your kids get immunity "via host infection"?

---

Silly to compare these in any way.

Ag Natural said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

---

I wouldn't say its pointless. Kids spread the virus to the rest of our unvaxxed holdouts. Anything we can do to stop the proliferation without having to add restrictions should be done IMO.

---

True they do, but I think it is wiser for the unvaxxed adult to get vaxxed than to vax your kids to protect the unvaxxed adult. Just my opinion.

Ag Natural said:

---

raging_agaholic said:

---

My three boys (9,12,14) all got it and bounced back in 2-3 days with nothing more than Tylenol. Vaccinating kids is pointless, the best way to confer immunity is via host infection.

---

I wouldn't say its pointless. Kids spread the virus to the rest of our unvaxxed holdouts. Anything we can do to stop the proliferation without having to add restrictions should be done IMO.

---

On an individual level that is a rather benign comment, but on a collective it could be incredibly dangerous in my opinion.

"Anything" is very broad.

Why? Comparable fatality / severe illness rates with them right? In some cases covid may be worse.

Zobel said:

---

Really hard to know that in a systematic way, you have problems with ascertainment bias and bias in vaccinated vs unvaccinated population probability. You'd have to do a follow up study, and I haven't been able to find one like that.

---

There are two pretty good studies on this thread showing natural immunity is superior to vaccine. The primary unknown is the duration of that immunity which we also don't know for vaccine.

KidDoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Really hard to know that in a systematic way, you have problems with ascertainment bias and bias in vaccinated vs unvaccinated population probability. You'd have to do a follow up study, and I haven't been able to find one like that.

---

There are two pretty good studies on this thread showing natural immunity is superior to vaccine. The primary unknown is the duration of that immunity which we also don't know for vaccine.

---

This quote is literally from ORAggiefans article:
"Figure 3 is a Simon-Makuch plot showing that SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred almost exclusively in subjects who were not previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who remained unvaccinated. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among previously infected unvaccinated subjects did not differ from that of previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and that of previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated."

That doesn't say "natural immunity is better". It says previous infection and vaccination currently provide equivalent protection. The Delta variant wasn't around at the time of the study so it's already kind of out of date.

ORAggieFan said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

gunan01 said:

---

This is a constantly parroted point about "natural immunity" but there is no clear cut evidence natural immunity is any better than vaccine-conferred immunity.

---

Incorrect.

There is data out of Israel showing this last week.

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection? - Israel National News

---

Also this one from Cleveland Clinic https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

---

I want to preface with the point that I agree that it seems very likely at this point that natural COVID infection provides as good or better protection against infection than vaccination and should be included in considerations of how close we are to herd immunity in the broader discussions.

But from a statistical look, neither of these are a slam dunk that natural is better than vaccination.

• For the Israel data, maybe there is a better version of this data out there, but from the article, it is impossible to tell how many of the people with natural infections also got vaccinated. the wording makes it seem like the "natural infection" is distinct from the "vaccination" group but the number it reports for "previously infected" is the total number of infections for the country, which would mean that not a single person in their country who was previously infected went and got vaccinated. Logically this can't be true. if the opposite was true, that 100% of those previously infected also got vaccinated, all that would show is that getting vaccinated after infection dramatically increases your protection. This case is also likely not true, and the answer is likely in the middle, but from the data reported, you can't really tell where in the middle the truth lies
• For the Cleveland Clinic one, first, this is an excellent data set with great granularity with all 4 groups broken out. The limitation here is that the "previously infected" group is only 2579 people with nearly 27k in the "vaccinated without previous infection" group alone. For the sake of discussion let's put all the previously infected group in one group, because no re-infections were observed. Infection rate in the vaccinated group was 0.06%. Technically the re-infection rate was zero, but due to the sample size, you could reasonably expect the true reinfection rate to be up to about 0.04% and still see zero reinfections. if you convert that to efficacy numbers you get a 99.4% efficacy of vaccine and 99.6% efficacy of natural infection. statistically those are effectively the same number.