U.S. FDA advisers back COVID vaccines for children as young as 6 months

3,993 Views | 28 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by jimmo
Pokgai
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-panel-weighs-covid-vaccines-children-young-6-months-2022-06-15/

"Advisers to the U.S Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday unanimously recommended the agency authorize COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna Inc and Pfizer Inc /BioNTech SE for millions of the youngest American children.

The committee's recommendation is an important step toward immunizing children under the age of 5 and as young as 6 months old who have not yet been eligible for the shots."

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
JB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No thanks
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
01agtx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.


They are protected by the fact that they are children and severe disease is incredibly rare. The vaccine offers no additional protection to them. There is no emergency in this age group. The vaccine does not prevent transmission.
RafterAg223
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Wow, ok. Do you honestly believe what you wrote there? You are in favor of mass vaccination of a subset of the population that literally has almost a 0% chance of experiencing a severe outcome from COVID-19. RSV hits this subset of the population much harder, and as far as I'm aware there are no current immunization options for it.
88planoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why has every other country decided to not do this?
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is not a threat to healthy kids. I would think allowing their immune systems to handle this thing naturally would be the best method for developing robust responses to future coronaviruses/variants
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RafterAg223 said:

Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Wow, ok. Do you honestly believe what you wrote there? You are in favor of mass vaccination of a subset of the population that literally has almost a 0% chance of experiencing a severe outcome from COVID-19. RSV hits this subset of the population much harder, and as far as I'm aware there are no current immunization options for it.
Of course I believe what I wrote there. I wrote it.

You didn't address my point. It is less about protecting from symptoms of the virus and more about limiting transmission vectors outside of their subset.

Do you not vaccinate your kid for chicken pox? Not trying to straw man, but I am curious where you draw the line. A relatively "harmless" virus in kids that causes shingles in older, unexposed populations.

Edit: google tells me there are currently 4 RSV vaccines in late stage clinical trials.
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fore Left! said:

This is not a threat to healthy kids. I would think allowing their immune systems to handle this thing naturally would be the best method for developing robust responses to future coronaviruses/variants
This is literally what vaccines do.
RafterAg223
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

RafterAg223 said:

Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Wow, ok. Do you honestly believe what you wrote there? You are in favor of mass vaccination of a subset of the population that literally has almost a 0% chance of experiencing a severe outcome from COVID-19. RSV hits this subset of the population much harder, and as far as I'm aware there are no current immunization options for it.
Of course I believe what I wrote there. I wrote it.

You didn't address my point. It is less about protecting from symptoms of the virus and more about limiting transmission vectors outside of their subset.

Do you not vaccinate your kid for chicken pox? Not trying to straw man, but I am curious where you draw the line. A relatively "harmless" virus in kids that causes shingles in older, unexposed populations.

Edit: google tells me there are currently 4 RSV vaccines in late stage clinical trials.


How again do the Covid vaccines reduce transmission? I must have missed the evidence on this somewhere. Covid transmission is extremely high in some of the most vaccinated populations on the planet.
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Flaith said:

Fore Left! said:

This is not a threat to healthy kids. I would think allowing their immune systems to handle this thing naturally would be the best method for developing robust responses to future coronaviruses/variants
This is literally what vaccines do.


Some vaccines. This one is based on a highly mutable virus that existed 2 years ago, and it's geared to teaching your body to attack one component of this virus which we know has already changed significantly. Let their young, healthy immune systems learn to attack all facets
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RafterAg223 said:

Flaith said:

RafterAg223 said:

Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Wow, ok. Do you honestly believe what you wrote there? You are in favor of mass vaccination of a subset of the population that literally has almost a 0% chance of experiencing a severe outcome from COVID-19. RSV hits this subset of the population much harder, and as far as I'm aware there are no current immunization options for it.
Of course I believe what I wrote there. I wrote it.

You didn't address my point. It is less about protecting from symptoms of the virus and more about limiting transmission vectors outside of their subset.

Do you not vaccinate your kid for chicken pox? Not trying to straw man, but I am curious where you draw the line. A relatively "harmless" virus in kids that causes shingles in older, unexposed populations.

Edit: google tells me there are currently 4 RSV vaccines in late stage clinical trials.


How again do the Covid vaccines reduce transmission? I must have missed the evidence on this somewhere. Covid transmission is extremely high in some of the most vaccinated populations on the planet.


I'll let you google some testing results for that answer, since I'm neither a biologist nor a virologist and haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in some time.

If you'd like to argue that efficacy of the immunization protection decreases over a few months, I would agree with that angle in pausing my decision to vaccinate my kid.
Capitol Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Look, I honestly appreciate and respect your opinion. I honestly do. To me, we are not at a point where there is enough threat to children or to others that these children may transmit Covid to. I'd like a lot more research and time to pass before I vaccinate my 10 and 6 year old. Their passing the virus on to others is just not a concern to me. Now, I understand your analogy to the chicken pox vaccine, but that is a more understood vaccine and it actually works to limit the spread of the chicken pox virus. To this point, the covid vaccine is most likely lower infection of the infected patient who is vaccinated, but it doesn't appear to be limiting the spread. Keep in mind that over 75% of children have already acquired Covid. That alone should be enough for them to have protection.
RafterAg223
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Capitol Ag said:

Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Look, I honestly appreciate and respect your opinion. I honestly do. To me, we are not at a point where there is enough threat to children or to others that these children may transmit Covid to. I'd like a lot more research and time to pass before I vaccinate my 10 and 6 year old. Their passing the virus on to others is just not a concern to me. Now, I understand your analogy to the chicken pox vaccine, but that is a more understood vaccine and it actually works to limit the spread of the chicken pox virus. To this point, the covid vaccine is most likely lower infection of the infected patient who is vaccinated, but it doesn't appear to be limiting the spread. Keep in mind that over 75% of children have already acquired Covid. That alone should be enough for them to have protection.


This…….My immediate family is full of physicians, some of whom were on the front lines against this deal from day one. Not a single one has advocated our children taking this vaccine. My wife and I took the first 2 shots. Our children have both contracted this virus multiple times. Their experiences with it have been far more benign than previous bouts with flu, ear infection, and strep. I've had it multiple times since getting the shots. I know others that have as well. This is a free country where people can do as they please, but I can count on 1 finger the number of medical professionals that have advocated for adolescent intake of these shots. The data more than backs this up.
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is the type of dialogue I was hoping would come in this thread. Good info, and very helpful perspective. Thanks.
Pokgai
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can see the reasonings from both sides and I am glad we can respect each others' choices. This is how the whole COVID vaccination should've played out.

The FREEDOM of choices. Enough with the mandates.

If you chose to vaccinate your kids with the COVID vaccine. I can respect that. If I chose not to vaccinate my kids with the COVID vaccine, please respect my decision, too. If we can achieve this level of respect and freedom, then the pharma companies can push their products/agendas all they want. I could care less.
WoMD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.

Wow…

I think there are a huge number of people out there who somehow forgot that we have an immune system and that diseases as mild as COVID are for kids have existed for the entirety of human existence. And that this is HOW kids build immunity to diseases. A vaccine that barely does anything should never be in the same conversation as what a kid's immune system can accomplish as far as protection and prevention of transmission is concerned. They already are protected! How can anyone even make the claim that this crappy vaccine is how you protect kids? This blows my mind. Also, factor in that with omicron, which is more benign than the common cold, is the most effective immunization in existence at this point. Especially considering there is ZERO residual protection with the vaccine long term (one of the reasons the definition for a vaccine changed when this was created), where is the health benefit? Oh, and the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, so…again, despite my decades of medical training and experience, I'm somehow missing how this is in any way beneficial for young kids. Your argument is lacking in any semblance of logic in arguing this point. It's 100% regurgitation from someone who refuses to believe that his beliefs could possible be wrong, regardless of all the facts and data saying otherwise.
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok thanks for your post. I appreciate your medical information and for responding to some parts of my post. I'll let you know that my thoughts are my own and in no way a regurgitation of anything, since I make a point to avoid all media news and bullsheet information. Seemed like a logical progression to me, but I'm just an engineer, not a doctor. Again I do appreciate the information, despite the snarky, condescending tone of your post.
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Has this really regressed to a "I got covid round three what should I do" board? I know where Texags skews politically, but I was hoping there would be some actual discourse on this topic. However, all everyone wants to do is throw daggers at every movement out of lock-step. Come on. Be better.

Explain to me, then, why Mayo Clinic, Texas Childrens, my kid's own pediatrician recommend the vaccine? Don't say money or some other infowars crap. I'm looking for real info and opinions from aggies and Texans and parents. There was an olive branch and a reasonable, empathetic response earlier, which I greatly appreciated.
PerpetualLurker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im not a doctor nor a parent.

So, instead of sharing my layman opinions, here is a video featuring Dr. Paul Offit about why to vaccinate kids. Dr Offit is on the FDA vaccine advisory board and is a pediatrician. He is about as good of a resource as you can get on this subject, i think. He has plenty of interviews out there, too.

01agtx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

Has this really regressed to a "I got covid round three what should I do" board? I know where Texags skews politically, but I was hoping there would be some actual discourse on this topic. However, all everyone wants to do is throw daggers at every movement out of lock-step. Come on. Be better.

Explain to me, then, why Mayo Clinic, Texas Childrens, my kid's own pediatrician recommend the vaccine? Don't say money or some other infowars crap. I'm looking for real info and opinions from aggies and Texans and parents. There was an olive branch and a reasonable, empathetic response earlier, which I greatly appreciated.


I gave a reasonable response earlier but I will try again. There just isn't an emergency for children that justifies an EUA vaccine. You can still get and spread the virus if you have been vaccinated. The benefit is to the person vaccinated in that they are protected from severe disease. Children are protected from severe Covid disease because they are children and are not susceptible. The vaccine does carry risks. You have to decide for yourself if you feel like the vaccine provides enough reward to overcome the risks. Search for Kiddoc's posts. He is a pediatrician on the board.
88planoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
01agtx said:

Flaith said:

Has this really regressed to a "I got covid round three what should I do" board? I know where Texags skews politically, but I was hoping there would be some actual discourse on this topic. However, all everyone wants to do is throw daggers at every movement out of lock-step. Come on. Be better.

Explain to me, then, why Mayo Clinic, Texas Childrens, my kid's own pediatrician recommend the vaccine? Don't say money or some other infowars crap. I'm looking for real info and opinions from aggies and Texans and parents. There was an olive branch and a reasonable, empathetic response earlier, which I greatly appreciated.


I gave a reasonable response earlier but I will try again. There just isn't an emergency for children that justifies an EUA vaccine. You can still get and spread the virus if you have been vaccinated. The benefit is to the person vaccinated in that they are protected from severe disease. Children are protected from severe Covid disease because they are children and are not susceptible. The vaccine does carry risks. You have to decide for yourself if you feel like the vaccine provides enough reward to overcome the risks. Search for Kiddoc's posts. He is a pediatrician on the board.
And I will ask again - why is it that the US stands alone in this decision? Why is no other country in the world vaccinating kids this young?
Flaith
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can't answer that question, but it is definitely a good one.

I'm watching the Paul Offit interview, which was posted above, now. He mentions that we aren't the only country doing this, but he doesn't understand why Sweden and the UK (which were named in the interview question) are choosing not to do so.
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are several problems with the current environment which impact use authorizations.

#1 - the zealots who see "authorized" and turn it into "expected" or "mandated." If you give em an inch they take a mile, thus giving them that first inch becomes detrimental.

#2 - continued hysteria and ignorance about Covid. The risk is not nearly what some make it out to be - ESPECIALLY in young and healthy populations

#3 - the 'following recommendations' or 'following experts' medical drones. My wife's doc was a shot advocate and got em for her & her kids... then was surprised when she contracted Covid herself. We retained her because she's a smart/competent doc in her field, but i use that as an example to show that it's very possible for docs to live in an medical echo chamber.

#4 - the money. This should probably be #1, but there's few parties in all of this who aren't driven by money. And it makes a sane person question motives all over the place.


That's all to say - if the environment was different, then limited use authorizations would be fine. "Only use in cases of extraordinary patient risk." But that's not how things are currently operating, and it's a shame. I blame the authoritarians and hysterics for blowing this whole thing out of proportion.
Harry Stone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flaith said:

RafterAg223 said:

Flaith said:

Pokgai said:

6 months old? Why? Unanimously? I cannot understand the need/benefit behind this campaign. Do we have actual data on infants getting infected with COVID and resulting in serious illnesses?
IMO, vaccinating children, with as much time as they spend with other children in close quarters at school, daycare, activities, it isn't so much about preventing kids from getting seriously ill. But rather, it is about limiting transmission and developing immunities in a subsect of the population that has been otherwise unprotected.
Wow, ok. Do you honestly believe what you wrote there? You are in favor of mass vaccination of a subset of the population that literally has almost a 0% chance of experiencing a severe outcome from COVID-19. RSV hits this subset of the population much harder, and as far as I'm aware there are no current immunization options for it.
Of course I believe what I wrote there. I wrote it.

You didn't address my point. It is less about protecting from symptoms of the virus and more about limiting transmission vectors outside of their subset.

Do you not vaccinate your kid for chicken pox? Not trying to straw man, but I am curious where you draw the line. A relatively "harmless" virus in kids that causes shingles in older, unexposed populations.

Edit: google tells me there are currently 4 RSV vaccines in late stage clinical trials.


why would you vaccinate children under 5 just to prevent transmission to other age groups? Moderna's vaccine is only 37% effective for ages 2-5. that doesnt seem very effective to me. and pfizer requires a 3 dose regimen for children under 5. additionally, the vaccine was created for the original variant, so why get the vaccine for the new variants? i dont really understand the logic in vaccinating children, especially in children under 5.

im not a physician but i do own an mRNA company so I do have a little credibility.
combat wombat™
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Based upon evidence of increased heart issues in the vaccinated population and the very low risk COVID presents to kids, I am baffled as to why a parent would choose to vaccinate their kids at this point.
Capitol Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
combat wombat said:

Based upon evidence of increased heart issues in the vaccinated population and the very low risk COVID presents to kids, I am baffled as to why a parent would choose to vaccinate their kids at this point.


Agree and it seems that most of the country agrees from what I have seen.
jimmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Munchausen's syndrome? - by proxy, of course
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.