health

FDA advisers back Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for young kids

19 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD and MATTHEW PERRONE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Encouraging news that bring closer protection to many families, specially those with children that have special vulnerabilities and that in many cases had to sacrifice a lot of their daily lives to protect those kids.

As mentioned in the article the risks from COVID even if low are still much higher than what is expected from the vaccine, specially because the natural infection also causes heart inflammation on kids. This is yet another nail in the coffin on antivaxxers that endlessly promoted irrational antiscientific fears about how the vaccines would maim and kill more people than the infection.

0 ( +13 / -13 )

Absolutely ludicrous! Possibly for immunocompromised kids but not for all!

Healthy children have nothing to fear from this virus. To bring about natural immunity and subsequently herd immunity for the masses I believe this cohort is the first step by NOT vaccinating!

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Healthy children have nothing to fear from this virus. To bring about natural immunity and subsequently herd immunity for the masses I believe this cohort is the first step by NOT vaccinating!

The scientific data examined completely contradicts you, so on what grounds you want to say that they are wrong? obviously just what you believe is not enough.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

"virusrexToday  12:04 pm JST

The scientific data examined completely contradicts you, so on what grounds you want to say that they are wrong? obviously just what you believe is not enough."

How can the data contradict me when there is no data???

Which is even stated in the article!

"The study isn’t large enough to detect any extremely rare side effects, such as the heart inflammation that occasionally occurs after the second dose, mostly in young men and teen boys."

0 ( +11 / -11 )

How can the data contradict me when there is no data???

Read the article is clearly mentioned there that the data proves COVID represents a much higher risk for the children than even a direct extrapolation of the problems by the vaccine, which is not even expected. Precisely because the problems are so infrequent that are undetectable without millions of kids being vaccinated is why they are less of a danger than the relatively more common problems from COVID.

Once again, what you believe or feel about reality is not enough to prove the scientific conclusions as wrong, and not understanding how the infection is more risky for children is not an argument to say this is not true either.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

Healthy children have nothing to fear from this virus.

Yes, very true. The situation is a little different in the US because the incidence of child obesity; I recommend they address that issue rather than getting all kids vaccinated.

How can the data contradict me when there is no data???

Exactly! VAERS shows that the adverse effects are off the charts. But those adverse effects are ignored. The VAERS system does have serious limitations, but it is the best they have, as if they don't want any record of the adverse effects.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Exactly! VAERS shows that the adverse effects are off the charts.

That is a long debunked myth, adverse effects are on line with non vaccinated people and completely inside what is expected from following millions of people with old age and other preexisting conditions. As long as no increase is observed for the vaccinated people then it is perfectly valid to ignore it, because the option is to think vaccines magically affect non-vaccinated people as well, which makes no sense.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Propaganda gotta end, COVID presents little risk to kids. For that matter, it presents little risk to the vast majority of people.

Fatality rate in Japan is 1% of OFFICIAL cases, which means it is a lot lower when you account for unofficial cases, which is perhaps 5-10x greater than official cases.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Propaganda gotta end, COVID presents little risk to kids. For that matter, it presents little risk to the vast majority of people.

If the vaccines can reduce those risks it is still a very welcome intervention, after all children are already being vaccinated to prevent diseases that present little risk to them.

Fatality rate in Japan is 1% of OFFICIAL cases, which means it is a lot lower when you account for unofficial cases, which is perhaps 5-10x greater than official cases.

Blindly assuming things without data can't constitute an argument, specially when the low fatality rate has been achieved by keeping very strong measures to prevent spreading in general. Vaccination is likely to be one of the reasons why cases never spiraled completely out of control (making hospitalizations turn into deaths). It is completely reasonable to want this protection to be also offered to children many of whom are in very high risk from COVID.

There is a reason why pediatricians are lining up to offer vaccinations, pretending to know more than them (and than the people that demonstrated vaccinating reduce the risk for children) is not valid.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

To: Sanjinosebleed, Happy Day, Raw Beer and others.

Even though COVID doesn't directly pose a significant health risk to most young people; vaccinating children is a very important step in ending the COVID pandemic.

The reason is because ending the pandemic will require not only keeping the effective Reproduction (R) rate below 1.0 for the overall population, but also reducing the number and size of social clusters where the R rate is above 1.0. The R rate has been below 1.0 nationally in Japan since early September, meaning the number of cases has steadily fallen. However, there are still some social groups and communities where the vaccination rate is low and/or where behaviors continue to allow the virus to spread, like people who frequent bars or live houses and go drinking without masks.

Hoikuens, kintergardens and elementary schools are large pools of completely unvaccinated people where the virus can continue to spread. Even though most of the kids themselves aren't likely to get seriously sick, they can spread the virus to the teachers, their parents, siblings, and grandparents, who all can get sick and even die; despite being vaccinated.

The point is that without vaccinating Japan's children, the virus will continue to circulate at low levels throughout the country for a long time or in perpetuity. On the other hand, if we can vaccinate most children, the virus could essentially die out. There simply won't be enough naive immune systems for the virus to maintain its spread.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

As long as parents can decide if their kids should take this vaccine or not, there is no reason to discuss about it.

Let your kids take it, or not.

But let the parents decide!

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Dosages of all medications should be bassed on generl health and of course weight. Many children in America under 11 weigh more than most adults in Japan. Give them the standard doses based on body mass, not age.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But let the parents decide!

Agree with the statement, but it's not so easy in real life. For parents to make good decisions, they need good, reliable, trustworthy information. That is not the world we live in.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Even though COVID doesn't directly pose a significant health risk to most young people; vaccinating children is a very important step in ending the COVID pandemic.

Indeed, Covid poses very little risk to kids, essentially zero for healthy ones.

However, these vaccines do pose a risk. There are plenty of examples healthy kids suffering from serious damage or death from these vaccines. These are not like other vaccines.

These vaccines mainly reduce symptoms, which are already very low for kids, and have little effect on reducing the spread. And both of these effects rapidly and greatly wane after a few months. So what's the point of risking our kids' health/life?

And many kids probably already got infected, many without noticing it, so there are absolutely no benefit to vaccinate them.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The scientific data examined completely contradicts you

Could you please show me the study from the year 2030 about the vaccine? I didn’t think so. The vax pushers like yourself can only go by the current two year experiment. How dare you give children something that hasn’t had at least 5 to 10 years testing, ESPECIALLY when they’re not in any danger.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

So ... next to the F.C.C., the F.D.A., probably the most completely corporate captured regulatory agency in the U.S., is making an expert decision regarding 'data' gathered by Phizer over Phizer products and profits? Even the most cursory, casual search on the net will turn up a sordid history of corruption and incompetence by both the F.D.A. and its masters.

How can one justify vaccinating children, those with the least risk of serious reaction to the virus, and unknown and unknowable long term risks from the vaccine? And with industrial secrets preventing fully 'informed consent', how can we justify vaxxing ourselves, much less kids? We can't. The cognitive dissonance is too think to cut with a chainsaw. ''It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.'' Just follow manufactured fear. And if fear is too hard to count, just follow the money.

Last year alone, the six largest drug companies in the US made nearly $50 billion dollars in profits, while the ten highest paid pharma execs made over $500 million combined. From 2016 to 2020, compensation for the 14 companies' top executives totaled $3.2 billion, with compensation growing by 14% over that five-year period.

Being 'highly regulated' did not stop Big Pharma from spending $6.5 billion dollars in advertising last year, and this budget is expected to increase drastically next year through expenditures on direct advertising and influencers in social media.

Lobbying, a lucrative career path burying what is ethical layers deep beneath what is legal, saw Phizer alone allocating $3.7 million dollars in the first quarter of 2021 ... putting it well on course for topping $1 billion dollars for the year.

Big Pharma, putting your health first? From 2016 to 2020, the 14 leading drug companies spent $577 billion on stock buybacks and dividends, compared with $521 billion on R&D—a $56 billion difference. And while I can't find specific data, it is well known that many drug companies spent a significant portion of their R&D budget on finding ways to suppress generic and biosimilar competition while continuing to raise prices, rather than on innovative research.

Big Pharma ... the same people who ran the studies 'proving' the safety and efficacy of the vaccines? When was the last time we average readers critically read a scientific study? New word of the month ... 'p-hacking'.

Thinking only slightly out of the box, I see not two, but three professional writers on this page here.

With such deep, deep pockets, I wonder how much Big Pharma pays them?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I expect an instant rain of downvotes for simply posting facts

Except you're not "simply posting facts" now are you...

And while I can't find specific data, it is well known that many drug companies spent a significant portion of their R&D budget on finding ways to suppress generic and biosimilar competition while continuing to raise prices, rather than on innovative research.

So you have no data, but make the claim "it is well known"... these are not facts. These are speculations pretending to be "facts".

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Indeed, Covid poses very little risk to kids, essentially zero for healthy ones.

The article has information that proves this as false, reading it would make your comments less likely to be this mistaken, death is not the only negative consequence of COVID and thousands of hospitalizations and stays in the ICU is not "esentially zero".

However, these vaccines do pose a risk. There are plenty of examples healthy kids suffering from serious damage or death from these vaccines. These are not like other vaccines.

Again, the article clearly proves you mistaken, the vaccines represent less risk for children than the COVID infection, you not being able to accept this do not change it. You should also research better other vaccines, every single medical intervention comes with risks. These are like other vaccines, including some that prevent problems that do not affect children.

These vaccines mainly reduce symptoms, which are already very low for kids, and have little effect on reducing the spread.

This is another thing where you have been repeatedly proved wrong, the vaccines prevent complications, deaths and reduce very importantly the spread according to the experts, a nameless person on the internet purposefully trying to ignore them is not going to change this.

And many kids probably already got infected, many without noticing it, so there are absolutely no benefit to vaccinate them.

If they do not notice the infection that means you can't say they do not benefit from the vaccine, there is no evidence to prove asymptomatic infection is even remotely as protective as the vaccines.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

So ... next to the F.C.C., the F.D.A., probably the most completely corporate captured regulatory agency in the U.S., is making an expert decision regarding 'data' gathered by Phizer over Phizer products and profits? Even the most cursory, casual search on the net will turn up a sordid history of corruption and incompetence by both the F.D.A. and its masters.

If your only argument is a supposed conspiracy (for which you have offered absolutely no proof) and that tries very hard to ignore the actual scientific information that is even repeated in the article you may as well recognize you have no argument and your opposition is purely irrational.

How can one justify vaccinating children, those with the least risk of serious reaction to the virus, and unknown and unknowable long term risks from the vaccine?

That is easy, it has been proved that the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from the infection (that actually have unknown and unkowable long term risks, some of which have already been identified). You are not talking about measles or chicken pox, or any other disease well know by humanity but a new infection that you simply can't pretend is impossible to be related with autoimmune, oncologic, allergic, etc. problems in the future, as other viral infections have.

Lobbying has no importance here, politicians are not the ones that originated the scientific data supporting the recommendation, they are not the ones making the recommendation nor the ones that listen to it, that is just a lame attempt to misrepresent evidence you don't want to accept as if it were a politician's opinion. It is not, the whole thing is based on science, if you have no data to prove the science wrong the only actual, valid option is to accept it.

When was the last time we average readers critically read a scientific study? New word of the month ... 'p-hacking'.

p-hacking is terribly easy to identify for any biostatician with more than a week of experience, do you have the data to prove it? or just like to imagine things and say they are happening. This is something that can only be said with actual statistical evidence, else it just becomes a badly hammered excuse without any basis.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites