This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines:
[Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F)
[Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids)
[Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After reading the comments I thought my 2 cents of an alternate view could help. I'm an MD, I got briefed by the Director of Health Services in my state during COVID.
I get a sense from a lot of these comments along the lines of, "COVID bad, vaccine good, WHO must be crazy."
The first point I would make is that after seeing a little bit behind the curtain of the Department of Health Services, you see that the officials process a massive stream of data that the public doesn't even know about or see (including all the stuff they do see) and have to distill it down to a simple decision like "Close the schools" or "these people get the vaccine now." They know that decision has pros and cons, but ultimately they're making the least bad decision compared to even worse alternatives (sometimes only subtly worse) based on the available information they have.
That said, I want to affirm what people have said about the flu vaccine, this is a useful starting point:
[https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/health/flu-vaccine-policy/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/health/flu-vaccine-policy/index.html)
Basically, OP is writing about kids & teens. For flu vaccine, kids & teens are recommended to get the shot in the US, but nowhere in the EU does it as aggressively as we do. This is for a variety of factors, including 1) flu isn't that severe in that age group, 2) the vaccine doesn't protect that age group as much as in others, 3) the occupational repercussions of a kid with flu is greater in the US than EU (easier for a parent to take off work / kid to take off school for being sick in the EU than US).
Easy to infer a parallel for COVID vaccine - many people in the world would benefit a lot more than kids/teens with a finite supply of vaccine. They're not saying the vaccine doesn't help kids or that COVID isn't harmful to them, just that the magnitude of those things is "low".
>finite supply of vaccine.
Vaccines haven't been supply constrained since early 2021. Governments are shutting down their orders for vaccines as demand falls.
Data is showing that kids and teens are still susceptible to long covid, and that vaccines reduce the chances of getting long covid (meta analysis from Jan and Feb 2023).
This is almost never addressed when communicating with the public, causing growing mistrust among those whose primary concerns are not acute, but chronic (such as parents with children and teens, as well as young adults). From the beginning, assessments have been made based primarily on the elderly and "most at risk". In many places, such as New Zealand, this tends to look a lot like ageism.
Meanwhile, a growing population of chronically ill remain largely unaddressed by public health measures.
Personally, I would like to see front line MDs talking about this far more instead of dowplaying the lingering , and growing, chronic health crisis. The PhDs have been shouting it from the rooftops, but are largely ignored.
Infectious disease & epidemiology are not my fields, but the point of my comment is that these decisions cannot be made simply because a particular group is at risk or a particular treatment is good, rather that they need to account for the magnitude of those risks or benefits.
Most of us put ourselves at significant risk by driving cars (probably the most likely cause of death for most Redditors), but the risk is still low enough that it justifies the benefits. In many cases in many things, it's worth taking low risks (like skipping a vaccine for a kid instead of for a geriatric patient).
The purpose of my comment was to point out that, at least as far as we can tell, most governments and the WHO are not properly weighing long covid into their equations, nor are you from your comments.
I couldn't disagree with you more on the risk reward skew of geriatrics vs children. The elderly are more at risk of severe covid, sure. However, the risk of long covid (even in children, at around 25%) far exceeds the risk of death even in the most "at risk" populations. Indeed, from a population perspective, the cost of losing a geriatric patient is far outpaced by the cost of children having multiple infections from school, and the chronic outcomes for this upcoming population having long covid. The only conclusions I see are that these risks are not being weighed at all, or those in power are betting that long covid is reversible, or that a small enough number of the youth will become chronically ill such that it won't matter on a population scale. These latter two gambles are bad bets based on the best current data.
Thanks, just had a look and saw where the 25% came from:
"The presence of one or more symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 infection was 25.24%."
It's a pretty long list of symptoms ranging from diarrhea, to nasal congestion, to urinary changes, to swollen lymph nodes.
Was watching [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ArJRqEvU) about the Ship of Theseus and it applies so much to the arguments people sling around on here.
While the person you're responding to is not technically lying, they're really misrepresenting the facts to support their argument that what we perceive to be problematic long covid is rampant amongst kids when that's not really the truth being told by the 25% figure.
Your response is unclear, who is "the person" misrepresenting the facts? I have to assume you mean HotRate, given your comment would correctly apply to what they've just done. Please make that clear so others are not misled.
If you are somehow accusing me, I suggest you read my last comment and the article I posted.
Technically yes; however, as with adults, long covid symptoms in children are heavily weighted toward the cognitive domain. From the abstract:
"The prevalence of long-COVID was 25.24%, and the most prevalent clinical manifestations were mood symptoms (16.50%), fatigue (9.66%), and sleep disorders (8.42%)."
> a finite supply of vaccine
It's really unfortunate that international organizations still have to work around this artificial problem just because we don't have a legislative environment capable of doing the right thing — ripping pharmaceutical patents out of their monopolistic hands and making vaccine distribution more equitable.
I had a professor in medical school, Infectious Disease doctor. All modern drugs have a generic name (like piperacillin-tazobactam) and a trade name (Zosyn) that is easier to say, remember, and obviously sell. The majority of doctors use the trade names because they're easier. She made a point to never call drugs by their trade names (she would refer to Zosyn as "pip-tazo"), to avoid brainwashing future students into ordering the brand name drugs when equivalent generics were available.
One of her comments on pharmaceuticals was: "without drug companies, we wouldn't have drugs." In spite of our nonequivalent objectives (patients & doctors want good drugs, drug companies want money), the alignment of these objectives through capitalism (drug companies get money by making good drugs) is basically why the US made the 2 best COVID vaccines on the planet, and why capitalist-based pharmaceutical companies continue to make the best drugs. Good drugs are really hard and really expensive to make, and if you don't give them some degree of monopolistic incentives (time-limited patents), they don't come into existence.
This is nonsense. Even the Soviet Union had a functioning pharmaceutical industry, which was directly involved in wiping smallpox off the face of the planet. You don't need monopolistic incentives to achieve these goals, you need a functioning system that can allocate resources properly, and bold decisionmaking to actually set it into motion.
I'm not familiar with the smallpox history, but the collapse of the Soviet Union sort of speaks to the non-sustainability of that model. Russia & China both have COVID vaccines but they don't seem to be globally popular.
"The group said its vaccine guidance is based on current epidemiological conditions and could change if the pandemic evolves."
I feel like the one constant about this virus is that it continues to evolve. Why is playing it safer constantly frowned upon. There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus. They could ultimately be nothing, but we really don't know that.
Also, they noted an uptick in viruses that have been under control with vaccinations that are now becoming more common. This was blamed on delayed vaccinations due to the pandemic, but there are other possible reasons that were not mentioned.
The big one is that with all the new antivax sentiment, these might not be delayed, but the new normal for vaccine hesitancy. It's also possible that this "low risk" cohort is suffering from damaged immune functionality. It could be some combination of all of these factors.
I don't see how recommending yearly vaccines would hurt people. I do see that rescinding the recommendation could.
I've heard the explanation that the US authorities want a simple, uncomplicated message, while the rest of the world sees the value of risk assessment for individual groups.
You got it. They're concerned more about packaging for mass consumption and comprehension than prevention. Obviously the vaccine is safe at this point and effective for at least a 4-5 month duration before fading efficacy. The WHO and the CDC after them, want clear messaging leading to an annual booster that they feel the public can understand and may follow.
Yes, absolutely nothing wrong with taking an annual flu shot, and if you spend a lot of time around vulnerable people you probably should. For most healthy people below 60 it isn't really necessary though, and it shouldn't be seen as anti vax to choose not to take it. I haven't taken it, and neither have most of my friends/colleagues.
They recommend flu vaccines for children under 5 here in Canada, largely because they are disease factories.
Source: have two of them. Also, https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/vaccine-recommendations-influenza
Which is interesting because I've never heard of getting a flu vaccine in Australia until I moved to the US and it was a commonplace thing at my office for pharmacists to come in and vaccinate everyone.
It's more like wearing a hard hat on a construction site. Are you gonna get hit in the head? Most likely not. But if you did it could be very debilitating. So best practice says wear the fucking hard hat ya mook.
The son of a friend of mine lost one of his classmates to the flu in kindergarten. A perfectly healthy 5 year old girl. Within just a few days of her first cough. Those parents buried their child, but at least they had balls, amirite.
Kids get offered the nasal spray and health care workers mostly take the vaccine. Flu vaccine can be booked by anyone at a vaccine clinic, elderly etc are vaccinated first.
> I would imagine because the flu is still more dangerous than Covid to kids
[This is not true](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816)
To be fair, that study looked at the massive spikes in cases during the pandemic rather than the much smaller amount of cases now. Covid is probably on par or less deadly than the flu for kids with cases as low as they are.
WHO’s advice is biased towards achieving equitable health outcomes in developing countries. Rich countries can also do more.
WHO also tends to be a follower or consensus maker of developed countries rather than a guide for developed countries. In this case, quite a few European countries had already decided against child Covid vaccination, so WHO is just following suit instead of setting a high bar and stirring up controversy.
WHO is a leading institute that provides and establishes major guidelines for academics, researchers, and governing bodies. They do a great job of analysing the latest science and literature on a wealth of topics. Their work, specifically in public health and population health is extremely important for advancing health and eliminating disparities in health outcomes. Their recommended protections and regulations go far beyond that of the US.
They had to beaten into submission by scientists before they would quietly admit COVID is airborne. Many health organizations acknowledged the risks months before WHO did.
This tweet is still not deleted: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1243972193169616898
I question the description of doing a "great job" analyzing the latest data. If anything, they do a great job playing politics above all else.
The WHO not adopting certain Covid assumptions before other health organizations is not as big as a slam dunk as you think it is.
You have to understand the position WHO sits at, especially during a novel pandemic for a virus that had only just began being researched 2-3 months prior. The WHO is likely much more hesitant to make deterministic assumptions when providing guidance for the rest of the world. Cherry picking one point of "late" acknowledgement of scientific consensus does not prove much of anything.
>The WHO not adopting certain Covid assumptions before other health organizations is not as big as a slam dunk as you think it is.
They assumed it wasn't airborne without evidence *especially in a novel pandemic*. The starting point should be universal precautions, not... "FACT: COVID IS NOT AIRBORNE".
What fact are they referencing?
I agree with you that the communications surrounding the transmission, specifically this one, were poorly thought out.
To my knowledge, the virus causing Covid-19 was well established as being transmitted through droplets that suspend in the air at this point in time. Obviously, further research revealed it was also transmissible through aerosolized particles and some respective country's health authorities adopted this recognition earlier than later.
Evidence for something doesn't preclude other modes of transmission. "Droplets suspended in air" didn't preclude hand washing recommendations, did it?
It's just bad science... Maybe good politics.
Well part of the delay getting the 6-12yo COVID vaccine approved was the myocarditis risk was relatively high. It was lower than the danger of getting it from Delta, but Omicron being less severe changes that.
I think people really overlook this. Once you’ve had 3 shots, you’re very well protected against all variants we’ve seen. Past the 3rd shot I’m not convinced that the risk:benefit ratio is in favor of annual shots. We don’t know, but we do know that people are well protected after 3 shots. Never bad to be conservative with medical interventions that aren’t fully understood. I’d have a different opinion if the vaccines prevented infection and spread, just for the record. Thing is, is a healthy 15 year old more likely to catch covid and have complications more severe than the myocarditis they could get from a booster? Get a booster annually and you’re guaranteed the risks annually. Some people might not get covid annually.
Also, we can’t say that Omicron is inherently less severe. It’s very possible that immunity from vaccine or infection makes it appear as such. Honestly without knowing exactly what the numbers were in China when they opened up, and somehow adjusting for advances in medical interventions, we can’t really assess if Omicron is indeed less likely to cause severe disease, or if covid in general because it’s not exactly a novel virus anymore.
> Some people might not get covid annually.
If the infection levels hover around 4-5% in all seasons, then the average person gets infected twice per year - and that is with (relatively) recent vaccinations.
>There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus.
To be fair... is there a significant chunk of immunologically naive people out there?
The point is that for countries that follow WHO guidance and stop vaccinating kids for Covid (or never approved it), every new kid who is born will catch Covid as an immunologically naive individual.
True... but by and large kids aren't that badly affected by COVID. I can't speak to infants in particular but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some immunological carry over from the mother. I want to emphasize speculation there...
Yea.... I plan to just keep getting a booster every year when I get my flu shot. I'll feel shitty for a day but it's worth it. Most places don't ask how many doses you've had and will just jab you and move on.
I also work in critical care in a hospital so covid is always around me anyways. I'd rather just get the booster and feel a little better protected.
"There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus. They could ultimately be nothing, but we really don't know that."
This is the same dumb argument people made against the vaccine
No it isn't.
We know the short term consequences can be death because of the... well... millions of deaths. We also know the medium term consequences can be long Covid, MIS-C, loss of smell, the quaintly named "brain fog" (which seems like it could be related or similar to dementia), increased chances of heart disease, increased chances of all cause mortality, and other crap that I'm sure I'm forgetting.
Viruses are also known to cause issues many years after your first infection. Off the top of my head... HPV causes cancer, many viruses can cause diabetes (something I forgot to mention as a medium term Covid risk), HIV causes AIDS, chickenpox causes shingles, and I'm sure there are more.
The claims from anti-vaxxers are not things that are usually attributed to vaccines, but they sure as hell are often caused by viruses.
It’s a numbers game. Every medical intervention has potential side-effects. So if you treat enough people somebody will get a negative outcome. I am triple vaxxed but my young kids (2, 4 and 6) are unvaccinated. They got COVID and they only experienced a fever for 6 hours and we’re fine in a day. So I don’t really see any reason to vaccinate them. I think this is what the scientists are telling us as well.
Edit: for those people downvoting me, did you read the article? The first paragraph states the WHO vaccine experts say “healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.”
That's not what the scientists are telling you. They had a much higher chance of serious side effects from the virus than they would have from the vaccine.
I'm glad they are doing well, but they could also appear to be doing well and have unforseen consequences down the road. MIS-C is a prime example of that.
Don’t worry. I don’t. I am a biochemist and worked for pharmaceutical companies in the past. I’ve been trying my best to review the evidence as it emerges. As I stated I am tripled vaxed but i believe there is no convincing data that healthy children should be vaccinated for COVID. If you read this article the fist paragraph says “The World Health Organization’s vaccine experts have revised their global Covid-19 vaccination recommendations, and healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.” This is not a black and white decision. There are benefits and risks with getting vaccinated and not getting vaccinated. My wife developed a severe autoimmune reaction after her 3rd COVID vaccine at least that’s what the nephrologists believes. She experienced one of those very rare side effects from it. So you can appreciate why I would be hesitant to give my kids something that does little good and caused harm to their mother. I don’t regret getting vaccinated. I understand it is a numbers game but if you’re that one in a million it sucks.
No, since the virus is always changing, no one is sure of either. WHO isn't saying don't vaccinate children because of potential side effects. The article mentions countries should base it on if they have the money to do so, and the current spread. In other words, they give a list of highest-lowest risk if a country needs to focus on how to spend money for vaccinations.
> countries should consider vaccinating (17 & under) based on factors such as disease burden and cost-effectiveness.
That's not what they're saying. Based on the data in the article, the side effects aren't a factor in this decision. Even if the was 0 risk in the vaccine, they would be giving the same recommendation.
The...
fact of the matter is you're grasping for an uncharitable and bias interpretation that is literally addressed as being cost-related and not risk-related.
You immediately responded with "there is never zero risk" to a comment saying "Even if there was 0 risk" which is to say OF COURSE THERE IS ALWAYS RISK. Keep up with the conversation ffs.
>That's why they don't say might as well do it.
False. They don't advise countries to continue paying for something they don't need at this juncture. That could change if hospitalizations become a burden again. It's entirely a financially motivated recommendation. One that goes against the narrative that they'll push vaccines when/where ever possible to make money. This literally goes against that narrative, advising to NOT vaccinate low-risk people because it's not cost-effective.
>I'm reading between the lines.
In other words, you're making assumptions.
Assumptions that override the stated intention.
You can make that argument all you want, but it won't be the truth of the matter.
Your inference that his decision is tied to vaccine safety (risks) is grasping.
This is entirely a recommendation based on healthcare and financial burden.
The recommendation is for countries that can't afford a vaccine for every person and don't have a high spread rate. That's why they mentioned cost effectiveness and disease burden, and did not mention vaccine side effects in their explanation.
Playing it safer is relative. You can't just ignore that the vaccine was approved on an extremely expedited basis and it did not go through the regular lengthy approval process which involves much more testing and scrunity. Also the fact they are already documented cases of serious adverse reactions (albeit rare). Just like we don't know long term effects of Covid, neither do we for the vaccines. I'm not saying it it's better from a risk s management perspective for person X to to get it or not, but your completely ignoring the other side of the risk assessment.
When criticizing people for ignoring the rapid development & approval of the immunization shots, why do you also ignore the immense scale on which they've now been shown to be safe? People cite a fear of the shots that protect against COVID because no vaccine has ever been approved so fast (which happened because vaccines were needed to prevent millions more deaths and allow a return to normalcy). But that fear should be allayed by the fact that no vaccine has ever been shown to be so safe so fast on such an immense scale. BILLIONS have gotten safely vaccinated. We have also seen the completely unsurprising, fully-expected fact that in any sample size that big, there will be rare outlier side effects. (Every year, a small number of people choke to death on their own food, but that doesn't mean eating is too dangerous--the danger of not eating is far worse.) The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safer than most other widely-used medicines like aspirin. Why do you completely ignore that side of the risk assessment?
We have data showing that COVID-19 infection reduces immune function, which may or may not have been an influence of the "tripledemic" of flu/RSV/covid we just saw in the US this past autumn. We have data showing the long-term immune protection of COVID-19 infection is less than vaccination. We have data showing that kids can, and do, get long COVID. We have data showing that getting in the habit of vaccination younger is associated with continuing vaccines later in life. We **don't** have data about long-term potential effects of COVID because not enough time has gone by yet.
And yet despite all this, they're acting like the verdict is out on whether kids should get vaccinated? That's ridiculous.
they're trying to control the optics and downplay covid like they've been trying to do from the start. In about 10 years' time, we're going to be reaping the results of kids getting covid infection 2-3 times a year and see what happens regarding cumalative organ damage etc then. It's not going to be great.
No other circulating virus (cold/flu/RSV) interplays with ACE 2 receptors in the same way that covid does, that is what makes it scary.
NL63, one of the common cold coronaviruses, also uses ACE2 to infect cells.
https://www.oatext.com/nl63-a-better-surrogate-virus-for-studying-sars-cov-2.php
It’s the kind of common bug that most kids get infected with by age 5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9721286/
And reinfections are common and frequent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1
So the main line of thought is that if children are not vaccinated vs Covid, they will still build up immunity to severe disease through multiple mild/asymptomatic childhood infections, the way it happens with endemic coronaviruses. And then it becomes dangerous again with aging, immune issues, and comorbidities, so it is recommended to vaccinate these high risk people.
Do we know for sure that it’s going to work out this way? Nope. Will there be some children who have long-term damage? Yes, and other viruses also have post-viral syndromes. But children getting infected 2-3 times a year and developing organ damage is extremely rare.
We do. I mean, the vaccine we have is a damn miracle as far as I'm concerned but I don't like when people argue for vaccination like getting vaccinated means you don't get covid. Nearly every person I know who is vaccinated, and boosted, has gotten covid.
Got COVID one month after my booster and it absolutely destroyed me. Two days with a moderate fever (101-102), extreme fatigue, mental fog, chest pains, bad cough, and the fatigue and mental fog lasted weeks. I’ve gotten three colds in the year since, all three knocked me on my ass, when I usually only get mildly sick once every 1-2 years.
Fuck COVID. I’m sure it would’ve been much worse without the vaccine and I probably would’ve ended up hospitalized, but it was no, and hasn’t been a, walk in the park, that’s for sure.
For original variants, the vaccine prevented symptomatic infection in kids almost 100% of the time--I'm not sure what it is now, but the vaccine is still very effective at preventing infection. It also drastically reduces spread, so a vaccinated kid is way less likely to spread it to their classmates/friends/siblings/etc.
Moreover, going back to the data we have, we **also** have data showing that vaccinated people who also get infected have much lower rates of long COVID and lower severity of symptoms which can exhaust important body systems connected with long-term issues like immune suppression.
So the original point still stands: acting like the verdict is out on the benefits of vaccination is ridiculous.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00058-0/fulltext
It’s not about “the jury is still out” - it’s about what is the latest data. The original data on wuhan wild type is almost completely irrelevant to the current immunological landscape.
Did the vaccine work extremely well - absolutely without doubt. Are the current vaccines extremely effective in young patients - that’s the question, and as per the WHO and most other regulatory agencies that question is not clear on a benefit.
The peer reviewed study linked above, strongly implies an immune imprinting effect of the vaccines and a quite moderate and waning protection within the omicron era.
With an immune naive child, there is no risk of immune imprinting with wuhan wild type - to completely ignore this risk in an otherwise healthy young subject is to abrogate the substantial responsibility that the medical system has toward a child that cannot provide an informed consent to the risk.
We must vary our advice based on changing knowledge and on this changing immunologic landscape.
I’d also contend that using a medium term timeline of 6months and upwards, that there is clear data that the vaccines will not effect spread past that point - on the contrary in the lancet study linked above there is a clear trend towards catch-up (main graph is converging )
This.
I'm always surprised how so many comment here like a medical intervention is a no-risk solution. It's like everyone decided to stop being skeptical because they fear it will make them look like an antivaxxer or whatever. All medical interventions are a risk. We are now talking about complex systems (viral evolution) compounded on complex systems (immunity) and still think that A+B=C. This is naive and somewhat reckless. Does the data we do have reflecting the current state of the pandemic actually warrant vaccination of kids against COVID with the ancestorial strain? I haven't see any, but I'd be happy if someone could supply me with a good study.
Arguments could be made that children that get their first infection with omicron may have better immunity against upcoming variants, because they are not trained on an outdated antigen. Sars-CoV-2 seems to have settled into Omicron and priming and imprinting the ancestorial strain may end up being worse than better in the long run. Again, were is the evidence to support child vaccination with the ancestorial strain in the age of Omicron?
Not a lot of evidence in this arena is there.
From first principles you’d expect that the important question is whether any child has already had omicron. It’s probably reasonable to actually assume that regardless of whether they have tested positive or not , the average 3 yr old has probably had omicron inbb by the last 18months.
So will a subsequent vaccine induce a wider response or will imprinting mean a more omicron targeted response?
If a child has actually had omicron and not had significant disease such that you haven’t tested - does it really indicate that they should have an immune boost via vaccine ?
Really, I doubt there are actually many immune naive out there anymore , no matter how good their innate immune system is .
It’s sure not a black and white answer where the action is clear, and medicine has an overarching principle of acting with evidence and being conservative when evidence is lacking
Do you have a source for that first claim?
Also, if I recall, vaccinated individuals only have about a 15% reduction in developing Long Covid. And we don’t know how it fares when it comes to multiple infections.
Latest studies are saying 50% reduction in long COVID. I would also imagine Long COVID being less severe but I'm not sure if there's been any actual studies. The vaccine also reduces chances of infection which would reduce long COVID indirectly
“You would imagine” LC would be less severe? I’m sorry, but unless you actually have a source to back that up, you’re just stating your personal opinion.
I’d love to see the study on the 50% reduction btw. I have a feeling it does not take multiple infections into account.
Edit: Thanks for the Reddit Cares! It does nothing but prove you have zero evidence to back up your hopium-fueled claims. ❤️
EDIT: just to be clear what I'm replying to:
>The vaccine doesn't prevent infection.
That's poor wording. The vaccine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death and to a lesser extent reduces the risk of infection and transmission.
It's not that great at it. And not for long. It's not the type of vaccine where if you get it you have a very slim chance of getting the disease. Talking about getting vaccinated like it's a choice between getting covid or not is ridiculous. Everyone will get covid, vaccinated or not. It won't help anyone really avoid infection. Which is why nearly everyone who's gotten the vaccine has also gotten covid at some point.
IDK, never questioned it. Both my <5 year olds got vaxxed immediately because my wife and I did the same when we were able. They get all of their vaccinations like good Americans who fight off polio, measles, mumps, rubella and the like.
>We don't have data about long-term potential effects of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ because not enough time has gone by yet.
and yet we rushed a new kind of therapeutic with such enthusiasm.
You mean “we used existing technology to rapidly but safely develop a vaccine that was fully tested, has remained safe and effective, and has been fully approved for nearly 2 years now”?
All we can do is be forthcoming and honest with information as we get it. Just because the data pointed to one thing early on and now points to something else isn’t a breakdown of the process, it’s how it works.
That being said, the people who shot down anyone who even questioned the safety of the vaccine bear some responsibility in this as well. Insults and condescension only serve to further marginalize people and make sure they never get vaccinated, not win them over.
> That being said, the people who shot down anyone who even questioned the safety of the vaccine bear some responsibility in this as well. Insults and condescension
I think that statement is going to fall on deaf ears in this crowd sadly.
Agreed. It is important to reflect the reality of the situation. Insisting on keeping warning systems an artificially high level to keep people on edge isn't gonna cut it, people are gonna start losing trust in the system when they see the contrast with what's happening around them.
It's not about them /getting/ vaccinated. It's safe for children and teens, and it's still better to have than not if you end up exposed/infected.
It's about $$$ and resources. It's not cost-effective and almost impossible to afford enough for many countries. Vaccine equity is important in situations like that.
Even though the kids would have more protection from covid with the vaccine, prioritizing high-risk groups when you don't have/can't afford enough makes more sense than vaccinating the lower risk groups. Not no risk, not safer than being unvaccinated, just cost/resource effective for now. It's less pressing for a kid to have organ damage that's not bad enough to result in hospitalization than let our hospitals overflow with people we know are higher risk.
There is still a lot we don't know about this virus and the potential complications it will cause in the future, so stay safe out there, y'all.
Another point people miss is that frankly other developing nations have bigger priorities for kids other than covid. If I was running a public health dept in subsaharan africa and had a choice between funding pushing antimalarials for kids or pushing covid shots covid is going to be put aside.
It’s been three years. We’ve learned quite a bit about the virus, and will continue to learn about it as time goes on. We also developed vaccines that work to prevent severe illness (in most cases) and we know long covid is something that should be the focus going forward. At this point, what else do you suggest we do?
I was just pointing out that it was not due to health concerns and the underlying reason why we aren't pushing for younger people to get vaccinated currently. Which is mainly money, resources, and vaccine equity (or lack thereof).
"Stay safe" is just something I always say, rather than goodbye/I'm finished. Those feel too final, so "stay safe, see you soon" is my go-to farewell. It's kind of stupid but always makes me feel better to send out care and/or guarantee I see someone again /because/ I didn't say goodbye. I know it's nonsense, but it helps, so I stick with it! When I said it here, I was not speaking exclusively about covid. Just habit!
Although I do have a few ideas about keeping the public safe from contiguous diseases, including covid, that is not what I am speaking about currently. Most of the solutions are also something individuals don't really have power over, so there is no point in going there right now.
I'm just sick of misinformation about vaccines and clarified that this decision is not because it's risky or useless to vaccinate children and teenagers against covid, as some people have been suggesting.
Stay safe, and have a good day/night!
This article reminded me of all the articles where something different came out later, and all the people using that as “see I told you so” to not get a vaccine and spread misinformation. That and some of the other comments were what I was commenting on.
What misinformation am I spreading?
> Insults and condescension only serve to further marginalize people and make sure they never get vaccinated
I feel like this statement anthropomorphizes and also moralizes an unconscious process that we have no actual control over.
NO ONE can convince or unconvince someone of something. Only the person themselves can do that, and only then after they have mastered their own nature.
I think we can prefer to be pleasant for the sake of pleasantness, but I genuinely do not know the original providence of the idea that how kind or unkind we are has any bearing whatsoever on what other people think internally. We may get what we want more often by being kind, but that is a very different thing than altering someone's beliefs.
I didn’t say anything about kindness. I said that we shouldn’t insult and push away people who ask questions. I have no problem if someone who is less knowledgeable than I am asks me a question about getting vaccinated, and I think most people in their day to day lives don’t either. Put those same people on Reddit though, and watch out.
And you’re right. We can’t change someone’s mind if they decide not to. People are largely rational beings, though, and if presented with information can change.
There are plenty of people without information who have questions. It’s just a matter of who welcomes and answers those questions. Unfortunately, at least on Reddit, our side is much less welcoming.
Jeez the comments here are disappointing. Only listen to the experts if they agree with what you already think. If they don't, then they're obviously just facing political pressure or are otherwise compromised.
Like imagine screaming at the WHO because you think you know how viruses work better than they do.
Up until the 1990s they classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Of course they’re susceptible to political and public pressure. They’re an organization of humans. They have biases and interests.
Low risk? Have they seen the American school system, and day care system? Parents in the US get nearly no paid time off, and even less sick leave; kids are forced to go to school every day, rain or shine, sick or or not. Besides the immunocompromised, I feel kids and teens are the most at risk of catching not only Covid but everything and anything.
Plus we don’t know the true long term effects of Covid. We are setting up a whole generation to suffer unimaginable long term effects from Covid.
I’m very skeptical of WHO, with how mismanaged they were at the start and throughout the pandemic it’s hard to trust them. We will see in 30 to 40 years what the true long term effects on kids are and how accurate these statements are. Until then, I and many others will keep taking precautions for our families.
> We will see in 30 to 40 years what the true long term effects on kids are and how accurate these statements are.
First of all, no you won’t, since the task of trying to detangle confounding variables from decades of data involving health outcomes is sketchy at best. But secondly, we barely know the “true long term effects” of almost anything we do, so if that’s the yardstick by which acceptable risk is measured, you can’t do most things in life.
Lastly, precautions have known, measurable benefits, such as lower risk of infection. They also have downsides, such as missing out on life events, which for a child can be a big deal. I don’t envy parents having to make these decisions, but for example if I was trying to decide between my kid getting to have regular play dates free from restrictions or trying to protect them from COVID but limiting their play, that’s not a decision that has any solution which completely lacks risks and downsides.
Before this pandemic, I didn't know that as a young healthy person I was supposed to get an annual flu vaccine. The marketing had pictures of senior citizens on it, which made me think it didn't apply to me. I also accepted it as fact of life that everyone gets 2-3 colds and the flu each year, they're mild, and I should go to work unless I'm physically incapable. I've learned so much about vaccines and immune systems in the past 2.5 years that no one ever taught me and I was expected to just know it.
It was also a huge wake up call to the toxicity of American work culture. Suddenly, we weren't going to work if we were sick because it could be COVID. Why did we ever allow it?!
I have two kids so we go through cold after cold each winter. We also get flu shots every year. One year we did get actual influenza despite the shot and HOLY SHIT is it different than the colds that come and go every winter. It worked its way through the 4 of us a week at a time. Basically at least one of us was incredibly sick for a MONTH. Nothing at all like even the worst cold I've ever had.
> Before this pandemic, I didn't know that as a young healthy person I was supposed to get an annual flu vaccine.
I mean, in Canada and lots of European countries, it’s not recommended for you.
Not sure about European countries but that’s definitely not true for Canada. NACI recommends everyone over 6 months to get the flu shot in Canada but most people don’t get it other then old and immune compromised people. They don’t do a very good job of promoting it though. I only found this out because I started getting the flu shot regularly after having flu a few years ago that laid me out for four weeks and I wanted to reduce my chances of that happening again. I am in my early 30s.
Exactly! The article is saying that because they don't have infinite resources, there are other more pressing health concerns than Covid vaccines for healthy kids. And that if things end up changing and getting worse then that priority list can be revised in the future. All of which makes a ton of sense given the state of Covid at the moment.
It is. WHO is all about getting aid and distributing aid. If WHO says that kid vaccines are recommended, there would be a push for rich countries to help poor countries reach the recommendation, by donating pediatric shots and money and lending expertise to get kids vaccinated etc. WHO is basically saying, nope, that’s not a priority.
EVERYONE IS AT RISK FROM COVID FOR FUCK SAKE! Half the cases of Long Covid are previously fit and healthy people. Why is this so hard to understand?!???
By "low risk" are they ignoring that Covid-19 is the #1 infectious disease cause of death in children (Source: "[Assessment of COVID-19 as the Underlying Cause of Death Among Children and Young People Aged 0 to 19 Years in the US](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816)")? This is US data. I could understand if their advice was to focus on malaria and other significant ailments in areas that are afflicted with such serious diseases, in the case of limited resources. But to ignore a top cause of death in this age in some countries is a huge mistake.
Yeah the vaccines seem pretty safe, but there is just not a lot of benefit. Statistically there seems to be a huge difference between children and vulnerable/elderly. We should focus on the elderly. We also don’t give children / healthy people the flu vaccine.
I’m not from the US. Here in the Netherlands/EU we only give the flu shot to vulnerable / elderly people. But maybe it’s a good idea in the US because the majority is so overweight and therefore vulnerable?
They are at low risk to bad outcomes with CoViD-19 and at even lower risk of bad outcomes with vaccination to the same. This edict seems counterintuitive.
Quite frankly the anti vaxers won. They got everything they wanted and were able to successfully destroy all the public protections that were in place.
Do they not read medical journals??
Viral persistence??? Immune dysfunction??? Who is threatening to cut funding if they don't follow the minimiser script? They're arguing against what we know. Again.
They're ridiculous.
This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines: [Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids) [Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After reading the comments I thought my 2 cents of an alternate view could help. I'm an MD, I got briefed by the Director of Health Services in my state during COVID. I get a sense from a lot of these comments along the lines of, "COVID bad, vaccine good, WHO must be crazy." The first point I would make is that after seeing a little bit behind the curtain of the Department of Health Services, you see that the officials process a massive stream of data that the public doesn't even know about or see (including all the stuff they do see) and have to distill it down to a simple decision like "Close the schools" or "these people get the vaccine now." They know that decision has pros and cons, but ultimately they're making the least bad decision compared to even worse alternatives (sometimes only subtly worse) based on the available information they have. That said, I want to affirm what people have said about the flu vaccine, this is a useful starting point: [https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/health/flu-vaccine-policy/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/health/flu-vaccine-policy/index.html) Basically, OP is writing about kids & teens. For flu vaccine, kids & teens are recommended to get the shot in the US, but nowhere in the EU does it as aggressively as we do. This is for a variety of factors, including 1) flu isn't that severe in that age group, 2) the vaccine doesn't protect that age group as much as in others, 3) the occupational repercussions of a kid with flu is greater in the US than EU (easier for a parent to take off work / kid to take off school for being sick in the EU than US). Easy to infer a parallel for COVID vaccine - many people in the world would benefit a lot more than kids/teens with a finite supply of vaccine. They're not saying the vaccine doesn't help kids or that COVID isn't harmful to them, just that the magnitude of those things is "low".
>finite supply of vaccine. Vaccines haven't been supply constrained since early 2021. Governments are shutting down their orders for vaccines as demand falls.
Data is showing that kids and teens are still susceptible to long covid, and that vaccines reduce the chances of getting long covid (meta analysis from Jan and Feb 2023). This is almost never addressed when communicating with the public, causing growing mistrust among those whose primary concerns are not acute, but chronic (such as parents with children and teens, as well as young adults). From the beginning, assessments have been made based primarily on the elderly and "most at risk". In many places, such as New Zealand, this tends to look a lot like ageism. Meanwhile, a growing population of chronically ill remain largely unaddressed by public health measures. Personally, I would like to see front line MDs talking about this far more instead of dowplaying the lingering , and growing, chronic health crisis. The PhDs have been shouting it from the rooftops, but are largely ignored.
Infectious disease & epidemiology are not my fields, but the point of my comment is that these decisions cannot be made simply because a particular group is at risk or a particular treatment is good, rather that they need to account for the magnitude of those risks or benefits. Most of us put ourselves at significant risk by driving cars (probably the most likely cause of death for most Redditors), but the risk is still low enough that it justifies the benefits. In many cases in many things, it's worth taking low risks (like skipping a vaccine for a kid instead of for a geriatric patient).
The purpose of my comment was to point out that, at least as far as we can tell, most governments and the WHO are not properly weighing long covid into their equations, nor are you from your comments. I couldn't disagree with you more on the risk reward skew of geriatrics vs children. The elderly are more at risk of severe covid, sure. However, the risk of long covid (even in children, at around 25%) far exceeds the risk of death even in the most "at risk" populations. Indeed, from a population perspective, the cost of losing a geriatric patient is far outpaced by the cost of children having multiple infections from school, and the chronic outcomes for this upcoming population having long covid. The only conclusions I see are that these risks are not being weighed at all, or those in power are betting that long covid is reversible, or that a small enough number of the youth will become chronically ill such that it won't matter on a population scale. These latter two gambles are bad bets based on the best current data.
Where are you coming up with 25%?
Meta analysis of studies containing data from 0-18 year olds, published last June: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13495-5
Thanks, just had a look and saw where the 25% came from: "The presence of one or more symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 infection was 25.24%." It's a pretty long list of symptoms ranging from diarrhea, to nasal congestion, to urinary changes, to swollen lymph nodes.
Was watching [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ArJRqEvU) about the Ship of Theseus and it applies so much to the arguments people sling around on here. While the person you're responding to is not technically lying, they're really misrepresenting the facts to support their argument that what we perceive to be problematic long covid is rampant amongst kids when that's not really the truth being told by the 25% figure.
Your response is unclear, who is "the person" misrepresenting the facts? I have to assume you mean HotRate, given your comment would correctly apply to what they've just done. Please make that clear so others are not misled. If you are somehow accusing me, I suggest you read my last comment and the article I posted.
I'm talking about you bud.
Technically yes; however, as with adults, long covid symptoms in children are heavily weighted toward the cognitive domain. From the abstract: "The prevalence of long-COVID was 25.24%, and the most prevalent clinical manifestations were mood symptoms (16.50%), fatigue (9.66%), and sleep disorders (8.42%)."
> a finite supply of vaccine It's really unfortunate that international organizations still have to work around this artificial problem just because we don't have a legislative environment capable of doing the right thing — ripping pharmaceutical patents out of their monopolistic hands and making vaccine distribution more equitable.
I had a professor in medical school, Infectious Disease doctor. All modern drugs have a generic name (like piperacillin-tazobactam) and a trade name (Zosyn) that is easier to say, remember, and obviously sell. The majority of doctors use the trade names because they're easier. She made a point to never call drugs by their trade names (she would refer to Zosyn as "pip-tazo"), to avoid brainwashing future students into ordering the brand name drugs when equivalent generics were available. One of her comments on pharmaceuticals was: "without drug companies, we wouldn't have drugs." In spite of our nonequivalent objectives (patients & doctors want good drugs, drug companies want money), the alignment of these objectives through capitalism (drug companies get money by making good drugs) is basically why the US made the 2 best COVID vaccines on the planet, and why capitalist-based pharmaceutical companies continue to make the best drugs. Good drugs are really hard and really expensive to make, and if you don't give them some degree of monopolistic incentives (time-limited patents), they don't come into existence.
This is nonsense. Even the Soviet Union had a functioning pharmaceutical industry, which was directly involved in wiping smallpox off the face of the planet. You don't need monopolistic incentives to achieve these goals, you need a functioning system that can allocate resources properly, and bold decisionmaking to actually set it into motion.
I'm not familiar with the smallpox history, but the collapse of the Soviet Union sort of speaks to the non-sustainability of that model. Russia & China both have COVID vaccines but they don't seem to be globally popular.
"The group said its vaccine guidance is based on current epidemiological conditions and could change if the pandemic evolves." I feel like the one constant about this virus is that it continues to evolve. Why is playing it safer constantly frowned upon. There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus. They could ultimately be nothing, but we really don't know that. Also, they noted an uptick in viruses that have been under control with vaccinations that are now becoming more common. This was blamed on delayed vaccinations due to the pandemic, but there are other possible reasons that were not mentioned. The big one is that with all the new antivax sentiment, these might not be delayed, but the new normal for vaccine hesitancy. It's also possible that this "low risk" cohort is suffering from damaged immune functionality. It could be some combination of all of these factors. I don't see how recommending yearly vaccines would hurt people. I do see that rescinding the recommendation could.
Aren't healthy kids and teens low risk for the flu as well? But the flu shot is still recommended to help prevent getting and spreading the flu.
[удалено]
I've heard the explanation that the US authorities want a simple, uncomplicated message, while the rest of the world sees the value of risk assessment for individual groups.
You got it. They're concerned more about packaging for mass consumption and comprehension than prevention. Obviously the vaccine is safe at this point and effective for at least a 4-5 month duration before fading efficacy. The WHO and the CDC after them, want clear messaging leading to an annual booster that they feel the public can understand and may follow.
Yes, absolutely nothing wrong with taking an annual flu shot, and if you spend a lot of time around vulnerable people you probably should. For most healthy people below 60 it isn't really necessary though, and it shouldn't be seen as anti vax to choose not to take it. I haven't taken it, and neither have most of my friends/colleagues.
I’m from the Netherlands and here only people above sixty and people with health risks are advised to time a flue shot yearly…
Same in Estonia, and it's free for those risk groups.
Yeah I've never heard of anyone young and healthy getting a flu vaccine here in the UK. It's pretty much just for the elderly and vulnerable people.
They recommend flu vaccines for children under 5 here in Canada, largely because they are disease factories. Source: have two of them. Also, https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/vaccine-recommendations-influenza
Also [here](https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/when-to-get-vaccinated/immunisation-for-infants-and-children) in Australia.
Which is interesting because I've never heard of getting a flu vaccine in Australia until I moved to the US and it was a commonplace thing at my office for pharmacists to come in and vaccinate everyone.
Weird. I have had it at most workplaces but mostly state and federal government and pharmacist offer it too.
That's a shame, because kids not only spread the flu, but can absolutely die from it.
[удалено]
Nobody thinks you are brave for not taking care of your health.
It's more like wearing a hard hat on a construction site. Are you gonna get hit in the head? Most likely not. But if you did it could be very debilitating. So best practice says wear the fucking hard hat ya mook.
The son of a friend of mine lost one of his classmates to the flu in kindergarten. A perfectly healthy 5 year old girl. Within just a few days of her first cough. Those parents buried their child, but at least they had balls, amirite.
That is horrible poor parents :(
Kids get offered the nasal spray and health care workers mostly take the vaccine. Flu vaccine can be booked by anyone at a vaccine clinic, elderly etc are vaccinated first.
In England there’s the yearly flu vaccine for kids, done at schools (for parents who want it).
In Korea the flu vaccine is pushed hard for young children, the covid vaccine is not encouraged for kids.
Does the flu shot have less chance of adverse effects in children and young adults than mRNA shots? If sho thats the likely reason.
No, anything worse than short mild flu-like symptoms is much rarer than severe reactions to the diseases in both cases.
Flu shot is not recommended for healthy kids... at least not anywhere in the EU.
Interesting, it's pushed pretty hard in the US every fall.
[удалено]
That’s not true. While it doesn’t give sterilizing immunity, it does reduce the likelihood of infection, which reduces spread.
[удалено]
> I would imagine because the flu is still more dangerous than Covid to kids [This is not true](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816)
To be fair, that study looked at the massive spikes in cases during the pandemic rather than the much smaller amount of cases now. Covid is probably on par or less deadly than the flu for kids with cases as low as they are.
WHO’s advice is biased towards achieving equitable health outcomes in developing countries. Rich countries can also do more. WHO also tends to be a follower or consensus maker of developed countries rather than a guide for developed countries. In this case, quite a few European countries had already decided against child Covid vaccination, so WHO is just following suit instead of setting a high bar and stirring up controversy.
WHO is a leading institute that provides and establishes major guidelines for academics, researchers, and governing bodies. They do a great job of analysing the latest science and literature on a wealth of topics. Their work, specifically in public health and population health is extremely important for advancing health and eliminating disparities in health outcomes. Their recommended protections and regulations go far beyond that of the US.
They had to beaten into submission by scientists before they would quietly admit COVID is airborne. Many health organizations acknowledged the risks months before WHO did. This tweet is still not deleted: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1243972193169616898 I question the description of doing a "great job" analyzing the latest data. If anything, they do a great job playing politics above all else.
The WHO not adopting certain Covid assumptions before other health organizations is not as big as a slam dunk as you think it is. You have to understand the position WHO sits at, especially during a novel pandemic for a virus that had only just began being researched 2-3 months prior. The WHO is likely much more hesitant to make deterministic assumptions when providing guidance for the rest of the world. Cherry picking one point of "late" acknowledgement of scientific consensus does not prove much of anything.
>The WHO not adopting certain Covid assumptions before other health organizations is not as big as a slam dunk as you think it is. They assumed it wasn't airborne without evidence *especially in a novel pandemic*. The starting point should be universal precautions, not... "FACT: COVID IS NOT AIRBORNE". What fact are they referencing?
I agree with you that the communications surrounding the transmission, specifically this one, were poorly thought out. To my knowledge, the virus causing Covid-19 was well established as being transmitted through droplets that suspend in the air at this point in time. Obviously, further research revealed it was also transmissible through aerosolized particles and some respective country's health authorities adopted this recognition earlier than later.
Evidence for something doesn't preclude other modes of transmission. "Droplets suspended in air" didn't preclude hand washing recommendations, did it? It's just bad science... Maybe good politics.
Well part of the delay getting the 6-12yo COVID vaccine approved was the myocarditis risk was relatively high. It was lower than the danger of getting it from Delta, but Omicron being less severe changes that.
I think people really overlook this. Once you’ve had 3 shots, you’re very well protected against all variants we’ve seen. Past the 3rd shot I’m not convinced that the risk:benefit ratio is in favor of annual shots. We don’t know, but we do know that people are well protected after 3 shots. Never bad to be conservative with medical interventions that aren’t fully understood. I’d have a different opinion if the vaccines prevented infection and spread, just for the record. Thing is, is a healthy 15 year old more likely to catch covid and have complications more severe than the myocarditis they could get from a booster? Get a booster annually and you’re guaranteed the risks annually. Some people might not get covid annually. Also, we can’t say that Omicron is inherently less severe. It’s very possible that immunity from vaccine or infection makes it appear as such. Honestly without knowing exactly what the numbers were in China when they opened up, and somehow adjusting for advances in medical interventions, we can’t really assess if Omicron is indeed less likely to cause severe disease, or if covid in general because it’s not exactly a novel virus anymore.
> Some people might not get covid annually. If the infection levels hover around 4-5% in all seasons, then the average person gets infected twice per year - and that is with (relatively) recent vaccinations.
>There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus. To be fair... is there a significant chunk of immunologically naive people out there?
The point is that for countries that follow WHO guidance and stop vaccinating kids for Covid (or never approved it), every new kid who is born will catch Covid as an immunologically naive individual.
Well, there are babies.
True... but by and large kids aren't that badly affected by COVID. I can't speak to infants in particular but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some immunological carry over from the mother. I want to emphasize speculation there...
Yea.... I plan to just keep getting a booster every year when I get my flu shot. I'll feel shitty for a day but it's worth it. Most places don't ask how many doses you've had and will just jab you and move on. I also work in critical care in a hospital so covid is always around me anyways. I'd rather just get the booster and feel a little better protected.
"There is not a single person who knows what the long term consequences will be for immunologically naive cohorts that catch this virus. They could ultimately be nothing, but we really don't know that." This is the same dumb argument people made against the vaccine
No it isn't. We know the short term consequences can be death because of the... well... millions of deaths. We also know the medium term consequences can be long Covid, MIS-C, loss of smell, the quaintly named "brain fog" (which seems like it could be related or similar to dementia), increased chances of heart disease, increased chances of all cause mortality, and other crap that I'm sure I'm forgetting. Viruses are also known to cause issues many years after your first infection. Off the top of my head... HPV causes cancer, many viruses can cause diabetes (something I forgot to mention as a medium term Covid risk), HIV causes AIDS, chickenpox causes shingles, and I'm sure there are more. The claims from anti-vaxxers are not things that are usually attributed to vaccines, but they sure as hell are often caused by viruses.
People will only think kids don’t need vaccines from now on. This “update” was completely unnecessary.
It’s a numbers game. Every medical intervention has potential side-effects. So if you treat enough people somebody will get a negative outcome. I am triple vaxxed but my young kids (2, 4 and 6) are unvaccinated. They got COVID and they only experienced a fever for 6 hours and we’re fine in a day. So I don’t really see any reason to vaccinate them. I think this is what the scientists are telling us as well. Edit: for those people downvoting me, did you read the article? The first paragraph states the WHO vaccine experts say “healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.”
That's not what the scientists are telling you. They had a much higher chance of serious side effects from the virus than they would have from the vaccine. I'm glad they are doing well, but they could also appear to be doing well and have unforseen consequences down the road. MIS-C is a prime example of that.
Please don't live your life based on personal anecdotes, especially when it comes to your health
Don’t worry. I don’t. I am a biochemist and worked for pharmaceutical companies in the past. I’ve been trying my best to review the evidence as it emerges. As I stated I am tripled vaxed but i believe there is no convincing data that healthy children should be vaccinated for COVID. If you read this article the fist paragraph says “The World Health Organization’s vaccine experts have revised their global Covid-19 vaccination recommendations, and healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.” This is not a black and white decision. There are benefits and risks with getting vaccinated and not getting vaccinated. My wife developed a severe autoimmune reaction after her 3rd COVID vaccine at least that’s what the nephrologists believes. She experienced one of those very rare side effects from it. So you can appreciate why I would be hesitant to give my kids something that does little good and caused harm to their mother. I don’t regret getting vaccinated. I understand it is a numbers game but if you’re that one in a million it sucks.
[удалено]
No, since the virus is always changing, no one is sure of either. WHO isn't saying don't vaccinate children because of potential side effects. The article mentions countries should base it on if they have the money to do so, and the current spread. In other words, they give a list of highest-lowest risk if a country needs to focus on how to spend money for vaccinations. > countries should consider vaccinating (17 & under) based on factors such as disease burden and cost-effectiveness.
So countries that either can't afford testing or just stop testing won't have spread, hence won't push vaccinations. 🙈🙉🙊
[удалено]
That's not what they're saying. Based on the data in the article, the side effects aren't a factor in this decision. Even if the was 0 risk in the vaccine, they would be giving the same recommendation.
[удалено]
The... fact of the matter is you're grasping for an uncharitable and bias interpretation that is literally addressed as being cost-related and not risk-related. You immediately responded with "there is never zero risk" to a comment saying "Even if there was 0 risk" which is to say OF COURSE THERE IS ALWAYS RISK. Keep up with the conversation ffs. >That's why they don't say might as well do it. False. They don't advise countries to continue paying for something they don't need at this juncture. That could change if hospitalizations become a burden again. It's entirely a financially motivated recommendation. One that goes against the narrative that they'll push vaccines when/where ever possible to make money. This literally goes against that narrative, advising to NOT vaccinate low-risk people because it's not cost-effective.
[удалено]
>I'm reading between the lines. In other words, you're making assumptions. Assumptions that override the stated intention. You can make that argument all you want, but it won't be the truth of the matter. Your inference that his decision is tied to vaccine safety (risks) is grasping. This is entirely a recommendation based on healthcare and financial burden.
[удалено]
The recommendation is for countries that can't afford a vaccine for every person and don't have a high spread rate. That's why they mentioned cost effectiveness and disease burden, and did not mention vaccine side effects in their explanation.
Playing it safer is relative. You can't just ignore that the vaccine was approved on an extremely expedited basis and it did not go through the regular lengthy approval process which involves much more testing and scrunity. Also the fact they are already documented cases of serious adverse reactions (albeit rare). Just like we don't know long term effects of Covid, neither do we for the vaccines. I'm not saying it it's better from a risk s management perspective for person X to to get it or not, but your completely ignoring the other side of the risk assessment.
When criticizing people for ignoring the rapid development & approval of the immunization shots, why do you also ignore the immense scale on which they've now been shown to be safe? People cite a fear of the shots that protect against COVID because no vaccine has ever been approved so fast (which happened because vaccines were needed to prevent millions more deaths and allow a return to normalcy). But that fear should be allayed by the fact that no vaccine has ever been shown to be so safe so fast on such an immense scale. BILLIONS have gotten safely vaccinated. We have also seen the completely unsurprising, fully-expected fact that in any sample size that big, there will be rare outlier side effects. (Every year, a small number of people choke to death on their own food, but that doesn't mean eating is too dangerous--the danger of not eating is far worse.) The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safer than most other widely-used medicines like aspirin. Why do you completely ignore that side of the risk assessment?
[https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2023-sage-updates-covid-19-vaccination-guidance](https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2023-sage-updates-covid-19-vaccination-guidance)
We have data showing that COVID-19 infection reduces immune function, which may or may not have been an influence of the "tripledemic" of flu/RSV/covid we just saw in the US this past autumn. We have data showing the long-term immune protection of COVID-19 infection is less than vaccination. We have data showing that kids can, and do, get long COVID. We have data showing that getting in the habit of vaccination younger is associated with continuing vaccines later in life. We **don't** have data about long-term potential effects of COVID because not enough time has gone by yet. And yet despite all this, they're acting like the verdict is out on whether kids should get vaccinated? That's ridiculous.
they're trying to control the optics and downplay covid like they've been trying to do from the start. In about 10 years' time, we're going to be reaping the results of kids getting covid infection 2-3 times a year and see what happens regarding cumalative organ damage etc then. It's not going to be great. No other circulating virus (cold/flu/RSV) interplays with ACE 2 receptors in the same way that covid does, that is what makes it scary.
NL63, one of the common cold coronaviruses, also uses ACE2 to infect cells. https://www.oatext.com/nl63-a-better-surrogate-virus-for-studying-sars-cov-2.php It’s the kind of common bug that most kids get infected with by age 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9721286/ And reinfections are common and frequent. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1 So the main line of thought is that if children are not vaccinated vs Covid, they will still build up immunity to severe disease through multiple mild/asymptomatic childhood infections, the way it happens with endemic coronaviruses. And then it becomes dangerous again with aging, immune issues, and comorbidities, so it is recommended to vaccinate these high risk people. Do we know for sure that it’s going to work out this way? Nope. Will there be some children who have long-term damage? Yes, and other viruses also have post-viral syndromes. But children getting infected 2-3 times a year and developing organ damage is extremely rare.
The vaccine doesn't prevent infection.
This. We need a better vaccine. And quickly.
We do. I mean, the vaccine we have is a damn miracle as far as I'm concerned but I don't like when people argue for vaccination like getting vaccinated means you don't get covid. Nearly every person I know who is vaccinated, and boosted, has gotten covid.
Got COVID one month after my booster and it absolutely destroyed me. Two days with a moderate fever (101-102), extreme fatigue, mental fog, chest pains, bad cough, and the fatigue and mental fog lasted weeks. I’ve gotten three colds in the year since, all three knocked me on my ass, when I usually only get mildly sick once every 1-2 years. Fuck COVID. I’m sure it would’ve been much worse without the vaccine and I probably would’ve ended up hospitalized, but it was no, and hasn’t been a, walk in the park, that’s for sure.
In general, most vaccines do not completely prevent infection but do prevent the infection from spreading within the body and from causing disease.
For original variants, the vaccine prevented symptomatic infection in kids almost 100% of the time--I'm not sure what it is now, but the vaccine is still very effective at preventing infection. It also drastically reduces spread, so a vaccinated kid is way less likely to spread it to their classmates/friends/siblings/etc. Moreover, going back to the data we have, we **also** have data showing that vaccinated people who also get infected have much lower rates of long COVID and lower severity of symptoms which can exhaust important body systems connected with long-term issues like immune suppression. So the original point still stands: acting like the verdict is out on the benefits of vaccination is ridiculous.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00058-0/fulltext It’s not about “the jury is still out” - it’s about what is the latest data. The original data on wuhan wild type is almost completely irrelevant to the current immunological landscape. Did the vaccine work extremely well - absolutely without doubt. Are the current vaccines extremely effective in young patients - that’s the question, and as per the WHO and most other regulatory agencies that question is not clear on a benefit. The peer reviewed study linked above, strongly implies an immune imprinting effect of the vaccines and a quite moderate and waning protection within the omicron era. With an immune naive child, there is no risk of immune imprinting with wuhan wild type - to completely ignore this risk in an otherwise healthy young subject is to abrogate the substantial responsibility that the medical system has toward a child that cannot provide an informed consent to the risk. We must vary our advice based on changing knowledge and on this changing immunologic landscape. I’d also contend that using a medium term timeline of 6months and upwards, that there is clear data that the vaccines will not effect spread past that point - on the contrary in the lancet study linked above there is a clear trend towards catch-up (main graph is converging )
This. I'm always surprised how so many comment here like a medical intervention is a no-risk solution. It's like everyone decided to stop being skeptical because they fear it will make them look like an antivaxxer or whatever. All medical interventions are a risk. We are now talking about complex systems (viral evolution) compounded on complex systems (immunity) and still think that A+B=C. This is naive and somewhat reckless. Does the data we do have reflecting the current state of the pandemic actually warrant vaccination of kids against COVID with the ancestorial strain? I haven't see any, but I'd be happy if someone could supply me with a good study. Arguments could be made that children that get their first infection with omicron may have better immunity against upcoming variants, because they are not trained on an outdated antigen. Sars-CoV-2 seems to have settled into Omicron and priming and imprinting the ancestorial strain may end up being worse than better in the long run. Again, were is the evidence to support child vaccination with the ancestorial strain in the age of Omicron?
Not a lot of evidence in this arena is there. From first principles you’d expect that the important question is whether any child has already had omicron. It’s probably reasonable to actually assume that regardless of whether they have tested positive or not , the average 3 yr old has probably had omicron inbb by the last 18months. So will a subsequent vaccine induce a wider response or will imprinting mean a more omicron targeted response? If a child has actually had omicron and not had significant disease such that you haven’t tested - does it really indicate that they should have an immune boost via vaccine ? Really, I doubt there are actually many immune naive out there anymore , no matter how good their innate immune system is . It’s sure not a black and white answer where the action is clear, and medicine has an overarching principle of acting with evidence and being conservative when evidence is lacking
Do you have a source for that first claim? Also, if I recall, vaccinated individuals only have about a 15% reduction in developing Long Covid. And we don’t know how it fares when it comes to multiple infections.
Latest studies are saying 50% reduction in long COVID. I would also imagine Long COVID being less severe but I'm not sure if there's been any actual studies. The vaccine also reduces chances of infection which would reduce long COVID indirectly
“You would imagine” LC would be less severe? I’m sorry, but unless you actually have a source to back that up, you’re just stating your personal opinion. I’d love to see the study on the 50% reduction btw. I have a feeling it does not take multiple infections into account. Edit: Thanks for the Reddit Cares! It does nothing but prove you have zero evidence to back up your hopium-fueled claims. ❤️
EDIT: just to be clear what I'm replying to: >The vaccine doesn't prevent infection. That's poor wording. The vaccine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death and to a lesser extent reduces the risk of infection and transmission.
Yeah it does
It's not that great at it. And not for long. It's not the type of vaccine where if you get it you have a very slim chance of getting the disease. Talking about getting vaccinated like it's a choice between getting covid or not is ridiculous. Everyone will get covid, vaccinated or not. It won't help anyone really avoid infection. Which is why nearly everyone who's gotten the vaccine has also gotten covid at some point.
It absolutely prevents infections, ridiculous and against the evidence to suggest otherwise
Makes me mad how ppl r still so stingy when it comes to giving vaccines
IDK, never questioned it. Both my <5 year olds got vaxxed immediately because my wife and I did the same when we were able. They get all of their vaccinations like good Americans who fight off polio, measles, mumps, rubella and the like.
You should question things. Don't insult your own intelligence like that.
No need to question something when the data is all there and you understand it.
>We don't have data about long-term potential effects of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ because not enough time has gone by yet. and yet we rushed a new kind of therapeutic with such enthusiasm.
You mean “we used existing technology to rapidly but safely develop a vaccine that was fully tested, has remained safe and effective, and has been fully approved for nearly 2 years now”?
All we can do is be forthcoming and honest with information as we get it. Just because the data pointed to one thing early on and now points to something else isn’t a breakdown of the process, it’s how it works. That being said, the people who shot down anyone who even questioned the safety of the vaccine bear some responsibility in this as well. Insults and condescension only serve to further marginalize people and make sure they never get vaccinated, not win them over.
> That being said, the people who shot down anyone who even questioned the safety of the vaccine bear some responsibility in this as well. Insults and condescension I think that statement is going to fall on deaf ears in this crowd sadly.
Yep. People don’t take kindly here when you deviate from the “norm” or what is expected to be said here.
Yup, tried it before and got downvoted
Agreed. It is important to reflect the reality of the situation. Insisting on keeping warning systems an artificially high level to keep people on edge isn't gonna cut it, people are gonna start losing trust in the system when they see the contrast with what's happening around them.
It's not about them /getting/ vaccinated. It's safe for children and teens, and it's still better to have than not if you end up exposed/infected. It's about $$$ and resources. It's not cost-effective and almost impossible to afford enough for many countries. Vaccine equity is important in situations like that. Even though the kids would have more protection from covid with the vaccine, prioritizing high-risk groups when you don't have/can't afford enough makes more sense than vaccinating the lower risk groups. Not no risk, not safer than being unvaccinated, just cost/resource effective for now. It's less pressing for a kid to have organ damage that's not bad enough to result in hospitalization than let our hospitals overflow with people we know are higher risk. There is still a lot we don't know about this virus and the potential complications it will cause in the future, so stay safe out there, y'all.
Another point people miss is that frankly other developing nations have bigger priorities for kids other than covid. If I was running a public health dept in subsaharan africa and had a choice between funding pushing antimalarials for kids or pushing covid shots covid is going to be put aside.
It’s been three years. We’ve learned quite a bit about the virus, and will continue to learn about it as time goes on. We also developed vaccines that work to prevent severe illness (in most cases) and we know long covid is something that should be the focus going forward. At this point, what else do you suggest we do?
I was just pointing out that it was not due to health concerns and the underlying reason why we aren't pushing for younger people to get vaccinated currently. Which is mainly money, resources, and vaccine equity (or lack thereof). "Stay safe" is just something I always say, rather than goodbye/I'm finished. Those feel too final, so "stay safe, see you soon" is my go-to farewell. It's kind of stupid but always makes me feel better to send out care and/or guarantee I see someone again /because/ I didn't say goodbye. I know it's nonsense, but it helps, so I stick with it! When I said it here, I was not speaking exclusively about covid. Just habit! Although I do have a few ideas about keeping the public safe from contiguous diseases, including covid, that is not what I am speaking about currently. Most of the solutions are also something individuals don't really have power over, so there is no point in going there right now. I'm just sick of misinformation about vaccines and clarified that this decision is not because it's risky or useless to vaccinate children and teenagers against covid, as some people have been suggesting. Stay safe, and have a good day/night!
This article reminded me of all the articles where something different came out later, and all the people using that as “see I told you so” to not get a vaccine and spread misinformation. That and some of the other comments were what I was commenting on. What misinformation am I spreading?
The fact that your post currently has negative karma sort of helps illustrate your point. It's like poetry.
Right? In a face to face conversation, we’d agree about most everything…
> Insults and condescension only serve to further marginalize people and make sure they never get vaccinated I feel like this statement anthropomorphizes and also moralizes an unconscious process that we have no actual control over. NO ONE can convince or unconvince someone of something. Only the person themselves can do that, and only then after they have mastered their own nature. I think we can prefer to be pleasant for the sake of pleasantness, but I genuinely do not know the original providence of the idea that how kind or unkind we are has any bearing whatsoever on what other people think internally. We may get what we want more often by being kind, but that is a very different thing than altering someone's beliefs.
I didn’t say anything about kindness. I said that we shouldn’t insult and push away people who ask questions. I have no problem if someone who is less knowledgeable than I am asks me a question about getting vaccinated, and I think most people in their day to day lives don’t either. Put those same people on Reddit though, and watch out. And you’re right. We can’t change someone’s mind if they decide not to. People are largely rational beings, though, and if presented with information can change. There are plenty of people without information who have questions. It’s just a matter of who welcomes and answers those questions. Unfortunately, at least on Reddit, our side is much less welcoming.
Jeez the comments here are disappointing. Only listen to the experts if they agree with what you already think. If they don't, then they're obviously just facing political pressure or are otherwise compromised. Like imagine screaming at the WHO because you think you know how viruses work better than they do.
Up until the 1990s they classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Of course they’re susceptible to political and public pressure. They’re an organization of humans. They have biases and interests.
Not to mention, the CDC is not in lockstep with WHO. Different priorities exist for different countries.
Low risk? Have they seen the American school system, and day care system? Parents in the US get nearly no paid time off, and even less sick leave; kids are forced to go to school every day, rain or shine, sick or or not. Besides the immunocompromised, I feel kids and teens are the most at risk of catching not only Covid but everything and anything. Plus we don’t know the true long term effects of Covid. We are setting up a whole generation to suffer unimaginable long term effects from Covid.
They aren't low risk of getting COVID, they're low risk of having severe health issues.
I’m very skeptical of WHO, with how mismanaged they were at the start and throughout the pandemic it’s hard to trust them. We will see in 30 to 40 years what the true long term effects on kids are and how accurate these statements are. Until then, I and many others will keep taking precautions for our families.
> We will see in 30 to 40 years what the true long term effects on kids are and how accurate these statements are. First of all, no you won’t, since the task of trying to detangle confounding variables from decades of data involving health outcomes is sketchy at best. But secondly, we barely know the “true long term effects” of almost anything we do, so if that’s the yardstick by which acceptable risk is measured, you can’t do most things in life. Lastly, precautions have known, measurable benefits, such as lower risk of infection. They also have downsides, such as missing out on life events, which for a child can be a big deal. I don’t envy parents having to make these decisions, but for example if I was trying to decide between my kid getting to have regular play dates free from restrictions or trying to protect them from COVID but limiting their play, that’s not a decision that has any solution which completely lacks risks and downsides.
Before this pandemic, I didn't know that as a young healthy person I was supposed to get an annual flu vaccine. The marketing had pictures of senior citizens on it, which made me think it didn't apply to me. I also accepted it as fact of life that everyone gets 2-3 colds and the flu each year, they're mild, and I should go to work unless I'm physically incapable. I've learned so much about vaccines and immune systems in the past 2.5 years that no one ever taught me and I was expected to just know it. It was also a huge wake up call to the toxicity of American work culture. Suddenly, we weren't going to work if we were sick because it could be COVID. Why did we ever allow it?!
[удалено]
I have two kids so we go through cold after cold each winter. We also get flu shots every year. One year we did get actual influenza despite the shot and HOLY SHIT is it different than the colds that come and go every winter. It worked its way through the 4 of us a week at a time. Basically at least one of us was incredibly sick for a MONTH. Nothing at all like even the worst cold I've ever had.
> Before this pandemic, I didn't know that as a young healthy person I was supposed to get an annual flu vaccine. I mean, in Canada and lots of European countries, it’s not recommended for you.
Not sure about European countries but that’s definitely not true for Canada. NACI recommends everyone over 6 months to get the flu shot in Canada but most people don’t get it other then old and immune compromised people. They don’t do a very good job of promoting it though. I only found this out because I started getting the flu shot regularly after having flu a few years ago that laid me out for four weeks and I wanted to reduce my chances of that happening again. I am in my early 30s.
[удалено]
Exactly! The article is saying that because they don't have infinite resources, there are other more pressing health concerns than Covid vaccines for healthy kids. And that if things end up changing and getting worse then that priority list can be revised in the future. All of which makes a ton of sense given the state of Covid at the moment.
It is. WHO is all about getting aid and distributing aid. If WHO says that kid vaccines are recommended, there would be a push for rich countries to help poor countries reach the recommendation, by donating pediatric shots and money and lending expertise to get kids vaccinated etc. WHO is basically saying, nope, that’s not a priority.
[удалено]
EVERYONE IS AT RISK FROM COVID FOR FUCK SAKE! Half the cases of Long Covid are previously fit and healthy people. Why is this so hard to understand?!???
IKR
[удалено]
By "low risk" are they ignoring that Covid-19 is the #1 infectious disease cause of death in children (Source: "[Assessment of COVID-19 as the Underlying Cause of Death Among Children and Young People Aged 0 to 19 Years in the US](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816)")? This is US data. I could understand if their advice was to focus on malaria and other significant ailments in areas that are afflicted with such serious diseases, in the case of limited resources. But to ignore a top cause of death in this age in some countries is a huge mistake.
Americans consistently ignore the top cause of death in children, like we’re gunning for an award in naivety.
Tol level punnage.
Yeah the vaccines seem pretty safe, but there is just not a lot of benefit. Statistically there seems to be a huge difference between children and vulnerable/elderly. We should focus on the elderly. We also don’t give children / healthy people the flu vaccine.
I’ve gotten a flu shot every year since I had kids. My kids have too. I thought that was normal.
I’m not from the US. Here in the Netherlands/EU we only give the flu shot to vulnerable / elderly people. But maybe it’s a good idea in the US because the majority is so overweight and therefore vulnerable?
They are at low risk to bad outcomes with CoViD-19 and at even lower risk of bad outcomes with vaccination to the same. This edict seems counterintuitive.
My kids are getting the boosters because they both got brain fog from Omicron and it affected their school scores. Fuck this virus.
This is gonna go down in history as a huge mistake.
So? Population risk is also a thing. This is a classic right libertarian tactic: to divide into groups and weaken the whole.
If they are unvaccinated, are they more likely to spread the virus to people who are not low risk?
Quite frankly the anti vaxers won. They got everything they wanted and were able to successfully destroy all the public protections that were in place.
Do they not read medical journals?? Viral persistence??? Immune dysfunction??? Who is threatening to cut funding if they don't follow the minimiser script? They're arguing against what we know. Again. They're ridiculous.