world

Strong start to kids vaccine campaign in U.S., but challenges loom, officials say

22 Comments
By ZEKE MILLER and MIKE STOBBE

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


22 Comments

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

Tucker Carlson will make sure to vigorously question the legitimacy of this vaccine drive. Because sowing distrust and grievance is good for ratings.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Mandate vaccination for public school attendance as we already do for a host of other maladies.

It’s simple, logical, fair legal and it works.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

This is insane.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Pardon the question, but how is vaccination of children against a disease that is currently the 6th leading cause of death among children (who can also serve as transmission vectors to even more vulnerable segments of the population) with a proven safe and effective vaccine “sick” or “insane”?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Tucker Carlson will make sure to vigorously question the legitimacy of this vaccine drive.

As he should. I remember back in the day when we all had to get penicillin shots and then our doctor found that I’m highly allergic to it and it can kill me, if it weren’t for our doctor and my parents ignoring all the outside voices pushing it, the outcome would have been devastating.

So yes, he should. Every parent needs to know every detail and option as well as medical condition of their child and not listen to Washington because they don’t know you or your medical condition of anyone’s child.

Because sowing distrust and grievance is good for ratings.

No, dissent, discussion and scientific and medical debates are great for the discourse as well as for the ratings.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Nobody has ever been forced to get penicillin shots. It’s not a vaccine. It’s an antibiotic against bacterial infection. Antibiotics are not preventative and have never been administered as such.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Every parent needs to know every detail and option as well as medical condition

Nobody is questioning that. There are always exemptions for medical conditions. You are presenting a straw man argument.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

dissent, discussion and scientific and medical debates are great for the discourse

That is not what pundits like Tucker are doing. Their goal is to make their audience feel victimized and angry, especially toward liberals. They are politicizing a public health issue.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This is good from a herd immunity point of view. The level of vaccination required for herd immunity is very high, if kids get vaccinated, this will be more easily achieved.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Nobody is questioning that.

If that is true then why do most sites and media platforms stop, bloke or delete opposing viewpoints?

There are always exemptions for medical conditions.

Yeah, but Biden seems to making sure that’s not even honored.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2021-11-10/navy-seals-lawsuit-coronavirus-vaccine-mandate-religious-exemptions-3570370.html

You are presenting a straw man argument.

No, not at all sadly….

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Bass: Every parent needs to know every detail and option as well as medical condition

Me: Nobody is questioning that. 

Bass: If that is true then why do most sites and media platforms stop, bloke or delete opposing viewpoints?

this is a non sequitur

but Biden seems to making sure that’s not even honored.

not true

1 ( +4 / -3 )

As the article said, 66 kids died this year from Covid in that age group. An age group of perhaps, 25 million altogether. So a one in 500,000 chance of dying from Covid. Plus, undoubtably many of those who tragically died also had various comorbidities. So for a healthy child, the risk is literally one in a million.

And for this, we rush through a vaccine which absolutely can not have undergone enough rigorous testing to determine what, if any, long term health problems it may bring. So I can see why people want to wait a little longer.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Attilathehungry

And for this, we rush through a vaccine which absolutely can not have undergone enough rigorous testing to determine what, if any, long term health problems it may bring.

It has. The FDA has approved it.

So I can see why people want to wait a little longer.

They are irrational?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Approved for emergency use, not full approval. There are still risks that are not known. So it is not a cut and dried situation.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Approved for emergency use, not full approval.

Not true. It's been fully approved by the FDA for a while now.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Takeda:

As of October 29, per the FDA website:

*Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 to include children 5 through 11 years of age.*

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

From the FDA website

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 to include children 5 through 11 years of age. 

It says nothing about emergency authorization. It is fully approved as of October 29th.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

My you folks are pedantic. How about THIS from the CDC on November 4th..

"Before recommending COVID-19 vaccination for children, scientists conducted clinical trials. The FDA gave the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine emergency authorization to use in children ages 5-15 years old and full approval to use in people ages 16 years and older."

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Oops, you are indeed correct and I was incorrect. Apologies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No problem at all. I may have even made a tiny error myself, once upon a time....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

 So for a healthy child, the risk is literally one in a million.

That would be mistaken because it baselessly assume every kid has been infected, the risk has to be calculated from the infected total, not from the whole population.

And for this, we rush through a vaccine which absolutely can not have undergone enough rigorous testing to determine what, if any, long term health problems it may bring

According to the experts (doctors and scientists) that do that for a living professionally it has, nameless people on the internet saying they are better qualified to make that call are irrelevant.

Approved for emergency use, not full approval. There are still risks that are not known. So it is not a cut and dried situation.

Approval for emegency use means they are considered safe and effective enough to be used in that population, if they were not the approval would be rescinded. What objective and validated data do you have to contradict that scientific conclusion?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites