We give kids other vaccines for illnesses that killed less kids per year than covid has. Hep A only killed on average 3 people under age 20 per year before the vaccine came out. Chicken pox killed on average 16 kids aged 5-9 per year before the vaccine. Rotovirus killed 20 kids younger than 5 per year before the vaccine. Covid has killed 66 kids aged 5-11 from Oct 2020-Oct 2021. I think it's fine if people want to wait but I don't think it's out of line at all to give kids the covid vaccine, based on what we know about covid and the vaccine.
Pediatrician says to wait on vaccination
8,933 Views |
70 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Infection_Ag11
Rev03 said:
We give kids other vaccines for illnesses that killed less kids per year than covid has. Hep A only killed on average 3 people under age 20 per year before the vaccine came out. Chicken pox killed on average 16 kids aged 5-9 per year before the vaccine. Rotovirus killed 20 kids younger than 5 per year before the vaccine. Covid has killed 66 kids aged 5-11 from Oct 2020-Oct 2021. I think it's fine if people want to wait but I don't think it's out of line at all to give kids the covid vaccine, based on what we know about covid and the vaccine.
I think few will say they are "against" the vaccine being "available" for 5 - 11....the issue is the mandates that quickly follow any approval....
many of us just prefer to not have such new technology jabbed in our kids at this point...its an easy risk analysis...
Rev03 said:
We give kids other vaccines for illnesses that killed less kids per year than covid has. Hep A only killed on average 3 people under age 20 per year before the vaccine came out. Chicken pox killed on average 16 kids aged 5-9 per year before the vaccine. Rotovirus killed 20 kids younger than 5 per year before the vaccine. Covid has killed 66 kids aged 5-11 from Oct 2020-Oct 2021. I think it's fine if people want to wait but I don't think it's out of line at all to give kids the covid vaccine, based on what we know about covid and the vaccine.
The chickenpox and hep a vaccines can provide protection that can last a decade or more. I think that probably makes a difference when comparing the benefits of giving those at a young age vs a vaccine that so far has shown mixed results with respect to durable immune response.
planoaggie123 said:Rev03 said:
We give kids other vaccines for illnesses that killed less kids per year than covid has. Hep A only killed on average 3 people under age 20 per year before the vaccine came out. Chicken pox killed on average 16 kids aged 5-9 per year before the vaccine. Rotovirus killed 20 kids younger than 5 per year before the vaccine. Covid has killed 66 kids aged 5-11 from Oct 2020-Oct 2021. I think it's fine if people want to wait but I don't think it's out of line at all to give kids the covid vaccine, based on what we know about covid and the vaccine.
I think few will say they are "against" the vaccine being "available" for 5 - 11....the issue is the mandates that quickly follow any approval....
many of us just prefer to not have such new technology jabbed in our kids at this point...its an easy risk analysis...
This is where I'm at. I'm not against the vaccines in kids. There are a bunch out there that need them (high BMI, other issues). But my kids don't meet those metrics and I want the ability to decide for my children when they get their vaccine. I have no problem if someone's first in line at CVS. I have no problem if someone doesn't want to get their kid vaccinated. But I am going to be very annoyed if the school districts require it in the fall and the courts drag things out like the mask mandates.
I don't know enough about vaccines to really know, but I think part of the reason that these vaccines have been so effective is because of how many people have been vaccinated for them. Do you remember a few years ago when there was that outbreak of the mumps? It started at a wedding where there was one asymptomatic person and it turned out that 60 or so people ended up getting it, with 2/3 of them having been vaccinated for it. I think afterwards with more study, the CDC started recommending that at-risk adults get a third shot of the mumps vaccine.
I'm glad most here aren't necessarily against the covid vaccine for kids. It has just been a little concerning to read that some posters seem to think that it's a nefarious thing, when I think that everyone just wants what is best for kids. I don't think this will be mandated in schools for some time. I think the adult mandates came about once the pfizer vaccine got full FDA approval for 16 and up. I think while it's under EUA approval for under 16, that it won't be mandated for that age group. It's also pretty easy to get excused from vaccine mandates. I had to do that once for one of my kids because it turned out he was given the third dose of the Hep B shot a little too early. I didn't have time to get him another dose right away so I just signed some paper.
I'm glad most here aren't necessarily against the covid vaccine for kids. It has just been a little concerning to read that some posters seem to think that it's a nefarious thing, when I think that everyone just wants what is best for kids. I don't think this will be mandated in schools for some time. I think the adult mandates came about once the pfizer vaccine got full FDA approval for 16 and up. I think while it's under EUA approval for under 16, that it won't be mandated for that age group. It's also pretty easy to get excused from vaccine mandates. I had to do that once for one of my kids because it turned out he was given the third dose of the Hep B shot a little too early. I didn't have time to get him another dose right away so I just signed some paper.
Rev03 said:
I don't know enough about vaccines to really know, but I think part of the reason that these vaccines have been so effective is because of how many people have been vaccinated for them. Do you remember a few years ago when there was that outbreak of the mumps? It started at a wedding where there was one asymptomatic person and it turned out that 60 or so people ended up getting it, with 2/3 of them having been vaccinated for it. I think afterwards with more study, the CDC started recommending that at-risk adults get a third shot of the mumps vaccine.
I'm glad most here aren't necessarily against the covid vaccine for kids. It has just been a little concerning to read that some posters seem to think that it's a nefarious thing, when I think that everyone just wants what is best for kids. I don't think this will be mandated in schools for some time. I think the adult mandates came about once the pfizer vaccine got full FDA approval for 16 and up. I think while it's under EUA approval for under 16, that it won't be mandated for that age group. It's also pretty easy to get excused from vaccine mandates. I had to do that once for one of my kids because it turned out he was given the third dose of the Hep B shot a little too early. I didn't have time to get him another dose right away so I just signed some paper.
No mandate. Vaccine by personal choice only, especially for kids.
Sure I'll break those down for you.Rev03 said:
We give kids other vaccines for illnesses that killed less kids per year than covid has. Hep A only killed on average 3 people under age 20 per year before the vaccine came out. Chicken pox killed on average 16 kids aged 5-9 per year before the vaccine. Rotovirus killed 20 kids younger than 5 per year before the vaccine. Covid has killed 66 kids aged 5-11 from Oct 2020-Oct 2021. I think it's fine if people want to wait but I don't think it's out of line at all to give kids the covid vaccine, based on what we know about covid and the vaccine.
Hep A is food born, no treatment, high risk of hospitalization and very dangerous in 55+ especially if they have latent Hep C. Vaccination has nearly eliminated it in states where it is mandated even border states. In addition it is just about the most effective and safest vaccine we have ever made so that is one of the main drivers for universal vaccination.
Hepatitis A Surveillance in the United States for 2018 | CDC
Chicken pox- this is primarily to protect community spread especially to immunocomprised and elderly who may not be immune, not so much for the kids. It is nice to not miss a week + of school & work and not have to worry about scars or secondary bacterial infections in the lesions.
Rotavirus- this was not made for the USA it was made for the developing world where > 500,000 kids died yearly from this virus due to malnutrition status and lack of IV access. We just slapped it on the schedule due to good safety data over TIME and it has decreased the risk of hospitalization by 80% for gastro.
COVID- in children with no risk factors the risk of severe infection is tiny. If the data supports that the low dose vaccine gives durable immunity with low risk of severe side effects AND decreases risk of spread then I think universal use is for the best in a few years. Right now there is no data to support the decreased risk of spread (it likely will) and only 3100 kids makes it hard to rule out serious adverse effects.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm talking about their durability. Both chickenpox and Hep A both have shown to provide protection for an individual 10+ years down the road. If you can't see the difference in reasoning in giving our younger populations vaccines that have been around for a long time, known levels of safety, known to provide protection for years, and may help shrink community spread vs a year old vaccine that has mixed results for durable protection and has shown increased adverse side effects in younger age cohorts then I'm not sure what can be said. It's simply not a good comparison.Rev03 said:
I don't know enough about vaccines to really know, but I think part of the reason that these vaccines have been so effective is because of how many people have been vaccinated for them. Do you remember a few years ago when there was that outbreak of the mumps? It started at a wedding where there was one asymptomatic person and it turned out that 60 or so people ended up getting it, with 2/3 of them having been vaccinated for it. I think afterwards with more study, the CDC started recommending that at-risk adults get a third shot of the mumps vaccine.
I'm glad most here aren't necessarily against the covid vaccine for kids. It has just been a little concerning to read that some posters seem to think that it's a nefarious thing, when I think that everyone just wants what is best for kids. I don't think this will be mandated in schools for some time. I think the adult mandates came about once the pfizer vaccine got full FDA approval for 16 and up. I think while it's under EUA approval for under 16, that it won't be mandated for that age group. It's also pretty easy to get excused from vaccine mandates. I had to do that once for one of my kids because it turned out he was given the third dose of the Hep B shot a little too early. I didn't have time to get him another dose right away so I just signed some paper.
There are going to be kids for whom it is worth the risks to protect them so it should be available where needed for kids. The problem is that to pretend that mandates are not coming (at least regionally) when we have seen mandates be denied by the same people that order them weeks/months later as well as some school districts already releasing mandates for vaccination of children (or making unvaccinated kids have go virtual learning) is an example of someone just not paying attention.
Again, part of the issue is the message used to convince parents to immediately get their kids vaccinated. Even POTUS has tried to insinuate in speeches that children are at high risk of serious complications and death, when it has been proven not to be the case. A lot of this was to try to persuade school districts to enforce masking mandates and they seem to continue that message with the vaccine.
As mentioned already, we must avoid mandates for this. The only time a mandate needs to be used is in the absolute worst case scenarios and Covid isn't that level when it comes to kids. Right now there are states seriously considering a covid vaccine mandate for school aged children. This just isn't the level of threat that should warrant that type of policy.
Could infected children spread the virus to those with comorbidities and the older population? Yes. But if those populations are vaccinated, they should be fine and most, if they still were to get the virus which we know can and will happen in certain cases, will be fine. So, again, imo, not a worthy level of emergency. Again, the vaccine will be very understood in a few years and by then we probably get the kids vaccinated.
As mentioned already, we must avoid mandates for this. The only time a mandate needs to be used is in the absolute worst case scenarios and Covid isn't that level when it comes to kids. Right now there are states seriously considering a covid vaccine mandate for school aged children. This just isn't the level of threat that should warrant that type of policy.
Could infected children spread the virus to those with comorbidities and the older population? Yes. But if those populations are vaccinated, they should be fine and most, if they still were to get the virus which we know can and will happen in certain cases, will be fine. So, again, imo, not a worthy level of emergency. Again, the vaccine will be very understood in a few years and by then we probably get the kids vaccinated.
But isn't it interesting that all those vaccines that you explained, KidDoc, are given to help protect others and not really the actual kid getting the shot? Maybe not in this thread, but in a few others, I have read people say that it's horrible to give kids a shot for the reason being to help protect others, yet many of the other shots we give kids are for that exact reason.
And Fenrir, you can look up the effectiveness of some of those shots and some are comparable to what has been the effectiveness of moderna so far. Chicken pox is written to be 92% effective after the second dose. Mumps is something like 88% effective after the 2nd mmr dose. For some of the vaccines, our kids get a lot of doses of them so it will be interesting to see what the studies say about the effects of the third covid shot that some have been getting.
Honestly, I feel like the weirdest vaccine we give kids is Hep B. We give the first shot of Hep B at birth within the day of the birth, with the reasoning being that they (the CDC?) don't trust that moms won't unknowingly pass Hep B onto their baby. The other ways of getting Hep B are mostly through sex and blood (and mostly risky behaviors like needle sharing). But, Hep B is really dangerous for a baby so we just give it to all newborns, which I am fine with, but it's interesting to me that others don't protest it as some sort of an overreach and just trust their doctors about it.
Also if you read the CA school vaccine mandate, it says after the FDA gives full approval.
And Fenrir, you can look up the effectiveness of some of those shots and some are comparable to what has been the effectiveness of moderna so far. Chicken pox is written to be 92% effective after the second dose. Mumps is something like 88% effective after the 2nd mmr dose. For some of the vaccines, our kids get a lot of doses of them so it will be interesting to see what the studies say about the effects of the third covid shot that some have been getting.
Honestly, I feel like the weirdest vaccine we give kids is Hep B. We give the first shot of Hep B at birth within the day of the birth, with the reasoning being that they (the CDC?) don't trust that moms won't unknowingly pass Hep B onto their baby. The other ways of getting Hep B are mostly through sex and blood (and mostly risky behaviors like needle sharing). But, Hep B is really dangerous for a baby so we just give it to all newborns, which I am fine with, but it's interesting to me that others don't protest it as some sort of an overreach and just trust their doctors about it.
Also if you read the CA school vaccine mandate, it says after the FDA gives full approval.
So a few things....regardless if "historic" vaccines were done for the individual or others....this one is a TAD bit different....it is new (regardless of the years of development).
I know people want to say millions of been vaccinated and there are no real issues and while that is likely true...can you blame parents for wanting to slow down just a bit and give it a year or two or three? What is the harm when the risk is low? What if something pops up later as an unintended consequence? Again, unlikely but nobody on earth can say with 100% confidence that wont happen. Nobody.
You bring up the process of more "traditional" vaccines....i think one thing that could come from this is an unintended consequence of the poor messaging / approach....there may be an increased number of "new" anti-vaxxers who might historically have gotten all their shots on Day 1 but now are so frustrated and mistrusting of science / FDA / CDC to the point they say "nope" when it comes to their newborns. I am not saying at all that is the right or smart decision but let's not confuse prior "trust" with current actions and current actions can have major consequences of future decisions....
I know people want to say millions of been vaccinated and there are no real issues and while that is likely true...can you blame parents for wanting to slow down just a bit and give it a year or two or three? What is the harm when the risk is low? What if something pops up later as an unintended consequence? Again, unlikely but nobody on earth can say with 100% confidence that wont happen. Nobody.
You bring up the process of more "traditional" vaccines....i think one thing that could come from this is an unintended consequence of the poor messaging / approach....there may be an increased number of "new" anti-vaxxers who might historically have gotten all their shots on Day 1 but now are so frustrated and mistrusting of science / FDA / CDC to the point they say "nope" when it comes to their newborns. I am not saying at all that is the right or smart decision but let's not confuse prior "trust" with current actions and current actions can have major consequences of future decisions....
The point that I am trying to make is that the EUA approval for kids is a good thing, and people should step back off the ledge. The reason why I think it is good is that it gives parents the opportunity to give their kid the vaccine if that is what they feel is best for their kid, without having to try to enter the trial (which is usually only accessible to people in bigger cities). With the EUA in place, more kids will be able to get access to the vaccine, and we will have a ton more data in place before the FDA makes a full approval decision.
Rev03 said:
The point that I am trying to make is that the EUA approval for kids is a good thing, and people should step back off the ledge. The reason why I think it is good is that it gives parents the opportunity to give their kid the vaccine if that is what they feel is best for their kid, without having to try to enter the trial (which is usually only accessible to people in bigger cities). With the EUA in place, more kids will be able to get access to the vaccine, and we will have a ton more data in place before the FDA makes a full approval decision.
Fine. But the messaging should be clear....the vaccine is for kids who are high risk and MAYBE for kids who live in homes of high risk. That is all. Period.
However...i heard on CNN one of their anchors said they are going to have a bus pull up and start offering vaccines to kids next week or two....that is scary as a parent b/c of the potential for undue influence on kids. Sure, they will likely need to sign a waiver etc but the risk is there...it has happened in Louisiana.
Messaging. Messaging. Messaging.
See how quick this happens:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-children-proof-of-vaccine
The road to hell is paved with good intentions....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-children-proof-of-vaccine
The road to hell is paved with good intentions....
But that's the thing, I don't necessarily agree that it's only for high-risk kids. If that's your belief, then that is fine, but it isn't mine from what I have read about covid. I think providing the buses for vaccines is just to help make it accessible for people who want their kids to get it. If you don't want your kid to get it, then you shouldn't feel pressured by it. It's good to teach our kids that they don't have to do what everyone else does and don't have to feel pressured about doing something they don't feel comfortable with. You'll think I am an awful parent (but honestly, that doesn't affect me), but I live in a place where cases are high and masks aren't required in schools. My kids wear their masks in schools and are a minority in doing so, but they don't care. It hasn't stopped them one bit. They haven't lost friends from it and haven't lost social opportunities from it. And before you ask, yes, I have read a ton of literature about masks, and we made our decision on masks based on what we believe to be best. You will disagree but that is fine!
Again, if you cannot see the difference in giving kids shots that have been around decades, will protect them for years down the road (as well as protect others in the community), have known safety profiles vs a vaccine that we have almost no information about adverse effects against children 5-11 (but we do know that teens suffer from increased rates of adverse effects) and has mixed results on duration of effectiveness then I'm not sure what to say. It's a bad and stupid comparison.Rev03 said:
But isn't it interesting that all those vaccines that you explained, KidDoc, are given to help protect others and not really the actual kid getting the shot? Maybe not in this thread, but in a few others, I have read people say that it's horrible to give kids a shot for the reason being to help protect others, yet many of the other shots we give kids are for that exact reason.
And Fenrir, you can look up the effectiveness of some of those shots and some are comparable to what has been the effectiveness of moderna so far. Chicken pox is written to be 92% effective after the second dose. Mumps is something like 88% effective after the 2nd mmr dose. For some of the vaccines, our kids get a lot of doses of them so it will be interesting to see what the studies say about the effects of the third covid shot that some have been getting.
Honestly, I feel like the weirdest vaccine we give kids is Hep B. We give the first shot of Hep B at birth within the day of the birth, with the reasoning being that they (the CDC?) don't trust that moms won't unknowingly pass Hep B onto their baby. The other ways of getting Hep B are mostly through sex and blood (and mostly risky behaviors like needle sharing). But, Hep B is really dangerous for a baby so we just give it to all newborns, which I am fine with, but it's interesting to me that others don't protest it as some sort of an overreach and just trust their doctors about it.
Never mind that vaccine you're using as a point of comparison only has EUA approval for adults and none for kids and the one that is approved has a much lower initial effectiveness and we still don't have good data on how durable the level of protection is.
What you originally said:Quote:
Also if you read the CA school vaccine mandate, it says after the FDA gives full approval.
Quote:
I don't think this will be mandated in schools for some time.
Not sure if you didn't realize that places are pushing school mandates at that point or if you just weren't arguing in good faith. Several California districts are pushing vaccine mandates as it is. It's being rumored other D states are pushing it as well. Ages 12+ already have FDA approval so it is required in a number of school districts for those kids (in fact some of the mandates dictate which shot the kids have to take which is an absolute abuse of power imo).
I do think that's strange, especially since their cases are sooo low out there. I would feel comfortable with my kids not masking there because their case counts are so low. But that's one very liberal government. Just because some places might do those kinds of things, I don't think that's reason to restrict the availability of the vaccine for kids - I think that would be just as bad to say we aren't letting kids get it because we're afraid very liberal cities will require it.
12+ don't have full FDA approval. It's only 16+ right now. Under 16, it's under EUA still.
Rev03 said:
But that's the thing, I don't necessarily agree that it's only for high-risk kids. If that's your belief, then that is fine, but it isn't mine from what I have read about covid. I think providing the buses for vaccines is just to help make it accessible for people who want their kids to get it. If you don't want your kid to get it, then you shouldn't feel pressured by it. It's good to teach our kids that they don't have to do what everyone else does and don't have to feel pressured about doing something they don't feel comfortable with. You'll think I am an awful parent (but honestly, that doesn't affect me), but I live in a place where cases are high and masks aren't required in schools. My kids wear their masks in schools and are a minority in doing so, but they don't care. It hasn't stopped them one bit. They haven't lost friends from it and haven't lost social opportunities from it. And before you ask, yes, I have read a ton of literature about masks, and we made our decision on masks based on what we believe to be best. You will disagree but that is fine!
The problem is we have a power-hungry government that will try and mandate through not letting kids be able to go to stores, restaurants, etc. It soon becomes no longer a "choice".
I have no issue with you at all if you want your kids vaccinated and if they wear masks. That is completely ok and your right / decision as a parent. Fully respect that as long as I get that same right to make same decisions as a parent. I will only push back if someone forces it on us.
We have told our kids that some kids will wear masks and others not and always be respectful no matter what. We dont know the reasons why and it may be 100% medically necessary.
As far as the bus, it is sad but we have had numerous discussions with our kids that if ANYONE tries to give them a shot at school to run like hell and I believe they will.
But you say the bus is to be "accessible".....i am sorry but it is unnecessary fear mongering at schools and trying to put undue influence to get a jab. The vaccines are SUPER easy to get. This lady on CNN is likely a millionaire and likely with kids in private school. They can have their nanny take their kids probably one mile of their house and get a jab....
Rev03 said:
I do think that's strange, especially since their cases are sooo low out there. I would feel comfortable with my kids not masking there because their case counts are so low. But that's one very liberal government. Just because some places might do those kinds of things, I don't think that's reason to restrict the availability of the vaccine for kids - I think that would be just as bad to say we aren't letting kids get it because we're afraid very liberal cities will require it.
Nobody is saying don't say you can get it....make the messaging more appropriate and science based....
Make the message that "If your kids are high risk or live in a high risk situation they can get the vaccine". The end. If you do that, anyone can make an excuse to be "high risk" and everyone else will be left alone and you wont have mandates for having 5 year olds to be able to go to eat dinner....
That is interesting. I am not really sure what the messaging should be like at this point. I actually don't watch televised news at all, because I have found that I don't like it and it seems to want to rile up people on both sides with a lot of yelling. I have read all of my information. I recommend this substack. I think she does a nice job breaking everything down and provides links to primary sources as well. This was a good post to read to understand more about how the decision-making process worked.
Think there's much benefit of getting dose #1 and skipping #2? Or is it an all-or-nothing type deal?KidDoc said:
The risk of vaccine related myocarditis is pretty specific to dose #2 and young men ages 12-25 at this time.
Your local epidemiologist would have kept us all in masks and locked down until a vaccine was in every arm. You will never hear her exercise any caution in regards to the vaccine and will always push masks and distancing. To be fair, it is not her job worry about the mental health issues some of these may cause. She is only worried about how we get rid of the disease.
I think that is a good plan for that demographic but it has not been specifically studied so no real evidence for or against that plan at this time.bmet said:Think there's much benefit of getting dose #1 and skipping #2? Or is it an all-or-nothing type deal?KidDoc said:
The risk of vaccine related myocarditis is pretty specific to dose #2 and young men ages 12-25 at this time.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Yea, i've read some of here stuff sporadically over the course of this, and while she does provide some very good information and links to sources, as well as a decent breakdown of complicated subjects, when it comes to her conclusions I will say she does have a very strong risk aversion when it comes to the virus.01agtx said:
Your local epidemiologist would have kept us all in masks and locked down until a vaccine was in every arm. You will never hear her exercise any caution in regards to the vaccine and will always push masks and distancing. To be fair, it is not her job worry about the mental health issues some of these may cause. She is only worried about how we get rid of the disease.
Bingo! She is only relevant b/c she can profit off the pandemic. Otherwise, she doesn't have a job. No one should take her blog seriously.01agtx said:
Your local epidemiologist would have kept us all in masks and locked down until a vaccine was in every arm. You will never hear her exercise any caution in regards to the vaccine and will always push masks and distancing. To be fair, it is not her job worry about the mental health issues some of these may cause. She is only worried about how we get rid of the disease.
Hey Doc, unrelated but, what's your opinion on the hpv vax? My Pediatrician is ambivalent about it but I had heard a lot of chatter about it not being great mainly from non-medicals. I have a 15 yo boy, twin girls 12, and an 11 yo boy.KidDoc said:Yes but for efficacy and duration of immunity, not for long term side effects.AgResearch said:KidDoc said:I still don't understand this hand wringing about long term vaccine adverse effects. They don't happen with any other vaccine and it doesn't make any sense at all with mRNA biochemistry. The short term effects are worth waiting and watching for but this continued concern for long term adverse effects is so odd to me.fightingfarmer09 said:amercer said:
A couple million kids will be getting it in the next few weeks, so anyone who wants to see how that works out will know shortly
I will be happy to see how they do over the next 10-15 years, so I can make that evaluation for my kids.
Are vaccines normally subjected to long-term studies prior to approval? Chicken pox vaccine? HPV vaccine?
FDA usually wants to see 5 year efficacy data, they monitor safety as well of course but it is unheard of to see late side effects in the history of human vaccines.
Beyond the 5 years they are still monitored. The newest vaccines (HPV, MCV, Varicella) all had changes to their schedules 10+ years after approval due to data over time. HPV had a dose removed due to remarkable efficacy and MCV and Varicella had a dose added due to waning immunity 5 years after the primary dose.
Sorry if responding too much but vaccines are a big part of my job!
The long term data on HPV vaccine is really incredible. Massive decreased risk of oral and cervical cancers over time. There is even talk of elimination of cervical cancer in the next 20 years. Side effects are minimal and ultra rare severe autoimmune stuff we see with all vaccines.hamean02 said:Hey Doc, unrelated but, what's your opinion on the hpv vax? My Pediatrician is ambivalent about it but I had heard a lot of chatter about it not being great mainly from non-medicals. I have a 15 yo boy, twin girls 12, and an 11 yo boy.KidDoc said:Yes but for efficacy and duration of immunity, not for long term side effects.AgResearch said:KidDoc said:I still don't understand this hand wringing about long term vaccine adverse effects. They don't happen with any other vaccine and it doesn't make any sense at all with mRNA biochemistry. The short term effects are worth waiting and watching for but this continued concern for long term adverse effects is so odd to me.fightingfarmer09 said:amercer said:
A couple million kids will be getting it in the next few weeks, so anyone who wants to see how that works out will know shortly
I will be happy to see how they do over the next 10-15 years, so I can make that evaluation for my kids.
Are vaccines normally subjected to long-term studies prior to approval? Chicken pox vaccine? HPV vaccine?
FDA usually wants to see 5 year efficacy data, they monitor safety as well of course but it is unheard of to see late side effects in the history of human vaccines.
Beyond the 5 years they are still monitored. The newest vaccines (HPV, MCV, Varicella) all had changes to their schedules 10+ years after approval due to data over time. HPV had a dose removed due to remarkable efficacy and MCV and Varicella had a dose added due to waning immunity 5 years after the primary dose.
Sorry if responding too much but vaccines are a big part of my job!
I usually advise it around 13-14- no reason to rush it but by 16 the majority of teens are sexually active so before that for sure.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm not sure where the 3100 patient number is from. From the TDH slides it was 2,268 kids.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/COVID-19-Vaccine-Pediatric-110421.pdf
In fact a later slide specifically states it was not powered to evaluate the risk of myocarditis from vaccine.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/COVID-19-Vaccine-Pediatric-110421.pdf
In fact a later slide specifically states it was not powered to evaluate the risk of myocarditis from vaccine.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Please tell me this is some exaggeration....KidDoc said:The long term data on HPV vaccine is really incredible. Massive decreased risk of oral and cervical cancers over time. There is even talk of elimination of cervical cancer in the next 20 years. Side effects are minimal and ultra rare severe autoimmune stuff we see with all vaccines.hamean02 said:Hey Doc, unrelated but, what's your opinion on the hpv vax? My Pediatrician is ambivalent about it but I had heard a lot of chatter about it not being great mainly from non-medicals. I have a 15 yo boy, twin girls 12, and an 11 yo boy.KidDoc said:Yes but for efficacy and duration of immunity, not for long term side effects.AgResearch said:KidDoc said:I still don't understand this hand wringing about long term vaccine adverse effects. They don't happen with any other vaccine and it doesn't make any sense at all with mRNA biochemistry. The short term effects are worth waiting and watching for but this continued concern for long term adverse effects is so odd to me.fightingfarmer09 said:amercer said:
A couple million kids will be getting it in the next few weeks, so anyone who wants to see how that works out will know shortly
I will be happy to see how they do over the next 10-15 years, so I can make that evaluation for my kids.
Are vaccines normally subjected to long-term studies prior to approval? Chicken pox vaccine? HPV vaccine?
FDA usually wants to see 5 year efficacy data, they monitor safety as well of course but it is unheard of to see late side effects in the history of human vaccines.
Beyond the 5 years they are still monitored. The newest vaccines (HPV, MCV, Varicella) all had changes to their schedules 10+ years after approval due to data over time. HPV had a dose removed due to remarkable efficacy and MCV and Varicella had a dose added due to waning immunity 5 years after the primary dose.
Sorry if responding too much but vaccines are a big part of my job!
I usually advise it around 13-14- no reason to rush it but by 16 the majority of teens are sexually active so before that for sure.
It's not. Even if they aren't having intercourse, they are engaged in some kind of sexual activity. HPV can also be transmitted through oral sex.
trouble said:
It's not. Even if they aren't having intercourse, they are engaged in some kind of sexual activity. HPV can also be transmitted through oral sex.
This is why you lock your daughter in their rooms from 15 - 18.....
70% are sexually active by the end of their 16th year. It was 85% back in the 80s and 90s so it is actually trending down.ORAggieFan said:Please tell me this is some exaggeration....KidDoc said:The long term data on HPV vaccine is really incredible. Massive decreased risk of oral and cervical cancers over time. There is even talk of elimination of cervical cancer in the next 20 years. Side effects are minimal and ultra rare severe autoimmune stuff we see with all vaccines.hamean02 said:Hey Doc, unrelated but, what's your opinion on the hpv vax? My Pediatrician is ambivalent about it but I had heard a lot of chatter about it not being great mainly from non-medicals. I have a 15 yo boy, twin girls 12, and an 11 yo boy.KidDoc said:Yes but for efficacy and duration of immunity, not for long term side effects.AgResearch said:KidDoc said:I still don't understand this hand wringing about long term vaccine adverse effects. They don't happen with any other vaccine and it doesn't make any sense at all with mRNA biochemistry. The short term effects are worth waiting and watching for but this continued concern for long term adverse effects is so odd to me.fightingfarmer09 said:amercer said:
A couple million kids will be getting it in the next few weeks, so anyone who wants to see how that works out will know shortly
I will be happy to see how they do over the next 10-15 years, so I can make that evaluation for my kids.
Are vaccines normally subjected to long-term studies prior to approval? Chicken pox vaccine? HPV vaccine?
FDA usually wants to see 5 year efficacy data, they monitor safety as well of course but it is unheard of to see late side effects in the history of human vaccines.
Beyond the 5 years they are still monitored. The newest vaccines (HPV, MCV, Varicella) all had changes to their schedules 10+ years after approval due to data over time. HPV had a dose removed due to remarkable efficacy and MCV and Varicella had a dose added due to waning immunity 5 years after the primary dose.
Sorry if responding too much but vaccines are a big part of my job!
I usually advise it around 13-14- no reason to rush it but by 16 the majority of teens are sexually active so before that for sure.
NCHS Data Brief, Number 366, May 2020 (cdc.gov)
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Virtualizing social lives is good for one thing I guess… fewer and fewer teens are even getting their drivers license at 16
I'm just glad my HS gf's parents forgot to lock the window!planoaggie123 said:trouble said:
It's not. Even if they aren't having intercourse, they are engaged in some kind of sexual activity. HPV can also be transmitted through oral sex.
This is why you lock your daughter in their rooms from 15 - 18.....
Featured Stories
See All
Phelps' career night wills Taylor-less Aggies to improbable comeback
by Olin Buchanan
Best & worst moments from Texas A&M football's 2024 campaign
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: No. 10 Texas A&M 80, No. 17 Oklahoma 78
by Luke Evangelist
10:08
5h ago
3.0k
LIVE: Texas A&M at No. 2 South Carolina
by Kay Naegeli