Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

Samuel Turner2 said:You still haven't actually explained why you chose to vaccinate your kid in the first place...
Give us some actual, concrete reasons here. Maybe then we'll actually get where you're coming from instead of just throwing accusations around.

Scott Hall5 said:I was thinking the exact same thing...

mellowskipper said:They have been, and they’ve been on the market for quite a while. It’s nothing out of the ordinary—just Rotarix and Prevenar/Pneumovax 23.
Unfortunately, I also know people for whom COVID-19 was severe—I even knew one person who passed away. But that’s just how infections work; for some, COVID-19 is the killer, for others, it’s the flu, and there are even children who die from strep throat...
About 20 years ago, I had the flu—I was young and healthy, yet I honestly thought I was going to die because of how bad it felt. Ever since then, I get my flu shot regularly because I never want to go through that again.
In comparison, COVID-19 was a zero for me. And frankly, I don't see much reason to get vaccinated if my body handled it without any issues.

Nicole James said:Are you talking about something unknown and uncertain, like a new virus?

Samuel Turner2 Scott Hall5 said:I guess the pro-vaccination crowd is just going to look right past this post...👎

Matthew Jackson2 said:https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

Matthew Jackson2 said:https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

Nicole James said:Yeah, the actual danger the disease poses to kids is relatively low—this article mentions two in a million, though I’ve seen slightly higher figures elsewhere, but it doesn't really change the point. That risk is essentially comparable to the risks associated with vaccination. This is why, from what I've observed, routine vaccination isn't being pushed for children as a blanket rule, but rather based on an individual risk assessment.

But of course, the moment anyone mentions even a tiny incidence of vaccine side effects, someone is always quick to jump in claiming the vaccine wasn't tested enough—questioning the long-term implications or any potential side effects we haven't discovered yet—while they completely gloss over the long-term and currently unknown consequences of the virus itself...

Matthew Jackson2 said:You keep making this point that vaccines are the crowning achievement of modern medicine, but I have to disagree. There is actually an even greater achievement at play here, because it’s what allows us to develop vaccines in a way that is both safe and reliable in the first place.

What I’m talking about is the entire framework of principles we have painstakingly established over decades of research. These are the rules that dictate exactly how we must prove the efficacy and safety of any medication or vaccine.

At its core, whether you are treating a patient or administering a vaccine, you are performing a medical intervention. For that action to be ethically justifiable, we absolutely must understand the safety profile and the specific outcome we are aiming for.

That means having a reasonable assurance regarding long-term safety and a clear, demonstrable benefit. Trying to justify the benefits of an intervention by brushing aside potential unknown risks sets a dangerous precedent—one unlike anything we’ve ever seen in the history of medicine. It goes against everything we have learned from experience and flies in the face of the very standards we built based on that experience. And frankly, those rigorous standards themselves are the true crowning achievement of modern medicine.

Megan Green72 said:So what's the problem with current vaccines? The CMA only approved the ones that proved they were safe and effective by following those exact principles.

And I'm definitely not agreeing with you that those principles are somehow "greater" than the discovery of vaccines themselves.

coastalorca43 said:We shouldn't vaccinate children based solely on speculation.
Speculating about unknown, long-term consequences of a coronavirus—which we already know causes nothing more than common colds—is a massive exaggeration. This isn't the first coronavirus the population has encountered.
Personally, I wouldn't vaccinate anyone under 40, or even 50. According to official statistics, there have been only 165 such cases recorded as COVID-19 victims over the last year and a half.

Megan Green72 said:So what's the problem with current vaccines? The CMA only approved the ones that proved they were safe and effective by following those exact principles.

And I'm definitely not agreeing with you that those principles are somehow "greater" than the discovery of vaccines themselves.

Ronald Chavez2 said:The fact remains that since side effects only surface after the fact, anyone choosing to get vaccinated is essentially acting as an unpaid test subject, which is one thing, but what's truly problematic is the government using coercion and pressure to force everyone to take experimental shots—even people under 30 who aren't even at significant risk from COVID-19.

Samuel Turner2 said:Are you seriously suggesting that the safety profile of these shots is identical—or even close—to the vaccines kids are required to get?
If that's your stance, what exactly are you basing that on?

Megan Green72 said:Look, side effects pop up with all drugs and vaccines. Period. Clinical trials aren't perfect—you can't test a few thousand people and expect to cover 7 billion people 100%, no matter how long you run the study. That's just reality. And don't give me that "experimental" nonsense; that lie doesn't fly here.☕

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Samuel Turner2 said:Are you seriously suggesting that the safety profile of these shots is identical—or even close—to the vaccines kids are required to get?
If that's your stance, what exactly are you basing that on?

Megan Green72 said:Look, side effects pop up with all drugs and vaccines. Period. Clinical trials aren't perfect—you can't test a few thousand people and expect to cover 7 billion people 100%, no matter how long you run the study. That's just reality. And don't give me that "experimental" nonsense; that lie doesn't fly here.☕

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

This isn't anything new. And calling them experimental is a lie that won't fly here.☕

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Coming from the same person who spent all this time trying to explain that things aren't just binary—that they aren't just zeros and ones, but can exist somewhere in the middle.

At this stage, the level of evidentiary certainty regarding safety is significantly lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been in use for decades, even if it does technically sit above the threshold we’ve collectively decided is acceptable.

This isn't anything new. And calling them experimental is a lie that won't fly here.☕

Well, that largely comes down to semantics. However, there are certain facts that don't depend on how you choose to label them:
- the vaccine does not meet the requirements for a standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the very data required for a regular MA, which is still being gathered
- using that exact same dataset, the vaccine received emergency approval in the USA, which is effectively authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

Whether you want to call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental is entirely your prerogative, but those underlying facts remain unchanged regardless of the label you slap on them.

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Actually, no, you were quoting a specific post that compares potential unknown long-term side effects of a vaccine against the potential unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.

With a vaccine, that represents an acceptable risk we accept because of the necessity of the shot (which is essentially the definition of CMA), but that risk isn't equally justifiable across every single age group. Comparing it to the virus is nothing more than pure whataboutism, the likes of which I haven't seen in medical discourse before.

The level of evidence regarding safety at this stage is way lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been used for years, even if it stays above the threshold we decided was acceptable.

That mostly comes down to definitions. Here are the facts that don't care about your definitions:
- the vaccine doesn't meet the requirements for standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the kind of data required for regular MA—is still being collected
- using that same dataset, the vaccine in the USA received emergency approval, which is basically an authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

An EUA does not affect vaccine safety, because it does not impact development, such as research, clinical studies and the studying of side effects and adverse reactions. Instead, it speeds up manufacturing and administrative processes.

Whether you call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental doesn't matter—those labels don't change the reality.

Nah, you're just quoting a post that compares potential unknown long-term vaccine side effects against the possible unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.